Loading...
PC 06-16-93 Meeting Agenda�1 AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia JUNE 16, 1993 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Meeting Minutes of April 21 and May 5, 1993 ...................... A 2) Monthly and Bimonthly Reports ................................ B 3) Committee Reports ........................................ C 4) Citizen Comments .......................................... D 5) Subdivision application #002-93 of Village at Sherando for 51 lots. This property is located north of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) in the Opequon District. (Mr. Miller) ............................................... E 6) Master Development Plan #007-93 of Hampton Chase for 65 units including 36 zero lot line units. This property is located northeast of Battle Ave. and Van Fossen Street in the Stonewall District. (Mr. Verney) ............................................... F 7) Master Development Plan #004-93 of Henkel Harris Co.. Inc., for an industrial park. This property is located south of Shawnee Drive in the Back Creek District. (Mr. Lilley) .. ,,............................................ G -2. 8) Master Development Plan #006-93 of Stonewall Industrial Park for the remaining portion of the park zoned M1 (Light Industrial). This property is located north of and adjacent to McGhee Road in the Gainesboro District. (Mr. Wyatt) ............................................... H 9) Discussion with UNIMIN Corp., regarding a proposed rezoning located southwest of Gore. (Mr. Tierney) ................................................ I 10) Discussion regarding a request to waive the State Road Requirement in a Rural Subdivision. (Mr. Tierney) ............................................... J 11) Discussion regarding Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) Corridor ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Proposal. (Mr. Wyatt) ............................................... K 12) Letter to Richard G. Dick from VDOT regarding Corridor H. .........................................................L 13) Other (no attachment) MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on April 21, 1993. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; and Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison. ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Director/Secretary; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CP&PS) - 4/12/93 Mtg_ Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CP&PS studied rail corridors (land availability and occupancy, zoning, etc.). She said that Mr. Hood from the Winchester-Westem Railroad is expected at the next CP&PS meeting. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the CP&PS also reviewed the Sanitation Authority's 2 list of projects that are ready for design or bid. She said that if President Clinton's federal funding for local infrastructure projects is passed, the County may be eligible to receive federal funding for completion of some of its water and sewer line projects. She said that the CP&PS did not feel that they were familiar enough with the projects to prioritize them and they felt that some guidance was needed from the Planning Commission and Board. DevelQpment Review & Regulations Subcommittee DR&RS - 4/15193 Mr. Thomas reported that the DR&RS reviewed and discussed the development review fee schedule that is currently in effect. He said that the current fee schedule is a little out of date and the DR&RS wants to insure that all our out-of-pocket expenses for permits (advertising, adjoiner notification letters, sign posting, etc) are being covered. Sanitation Authority - 4114193 Mtg Mrs. Copenhaver said that she has informed the Sanitation Authority of the request for water from approximately 12-13 property owners along Route 636 South from Route 277 to Pioneer Trailer Park. She said that the Authority will provide the Commission with an estimate of the cost for this project. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the project will probably not be cost effective. Mrs. Copenhaver also informed the Commission that Ned Clelland can no longer serve on the Authority because he recently moved out of the Gainesboro District he represented. She said that Ms. Peggy Perdue will replace Mr. Clelland on the Authority. Winchester -Frederick Counter Economic Development Commission Mr. Romine said that he recently attended a Virginia Chamber Economic Summit and discussions centered on promoting economic development throughout the state. Mr. Romine said that the state is promoting incentives and the private sector seems not to be so pleased with this as it may involve increased regulations. Historic Resources Advispa Board HRAB - 4120/93 Mtg. Mr. Shenk said that Dr. Warren Hofstra was available at the meeting to discuss the archeological sites and the HRAB's list of historically significant sites. He said that they also 3 discussed comments from the last joint worksession and the plaque design contest. Stephens City/Frederick County Joint Planning Committee - 4/19/93 Mtg._. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the Joint Planning Committee is continuing their study of improvements to vehicular corridors (Rts 11, 7, 50). SITE PLANS Site Plan #011-93 of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for a 181' elevated water storage tank. This property is located east and adjacent to State Route 642, south of the Kernstown/1-81 Exit, in the Shawnee District_ Action - Approved Mr. Wyatt said that this one half to one -million -gallon -per -day elevated water storage tank is intended to maintain system pressure within the northern loop service area (Lakeside). Mr. Wyatt said that this facility will utilize the Stephens City limestone quarries as its source. (The site for the water storage tank was previously determined to be preferred by the Planning Commission.) He said that the Sanitation Authority has asked G.W. Clifford & Associates to present the plan to the Commission and Board. Mr. Wyatt said that there are no unusual review agency comments, however, the Fire Marshal has requested that the width of the service drive be increased from 12' to 20'. Mr. Ron Mislowsky, Engineer with G. W. Clifford & Associates, said that the lines running to and from the tank are already underground. He said that this tank will not increase any water pressures in the area, but it will stabilize pressures and provide water storage. The Commission had no problems with the site plan as long as all the review agency comments were adequately addressed and upon motion by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Site Plan #011-93 of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for a 181' elevated water storage tank on property zoned B2 and RA in the Shawnee District. This property is identified by Property ID #75-1-A. El Discussion with Kenneth Y Stiles, Former Board of Supervisors Chairman, Regard the Capital Improvements Program Mr. Stiles was present to challenge enrollment figures that school officials plan to use as justification for future school construction. Mr. Stiles had investigated the past 20 years' school enrollment trends and his tallies indicated that the number of students dropped an average of 15 % when the same group of students moved through the three years from the ninth to the twelfth grades. He said school officials are overestimating the number that will be in high school by predicting the 2.5 percent annual growth for each year, instead of relying on a statistical decrease in the enrollment. Mr. Stiles asked that his comments and figures be used when the Commission reviews its Capital Improvements Plan. He said that the county does not need a third high school, which is now on the capital improvements plan, but is not funded, and may not need another elementary school. He suggested renovating and reopening the Gore and Gainesboro elementary schools and to use the current school administration building for classrooms. The Commission decided to forward this information to the CP&PS for their next review of the CIP. They suggested that the CP&PS involve the School Board staff and the Planning Department staff in their study of this matter. CORRIDOR H DISCUSSION Mr. Evan Wyatt said that "Corridor H" is one of the economic growth highways that is being studied by Congress for the Appalachian Transportation System. This road segment is proposed to provide a west to east connection that will begin just west of Elkins, West Virginia, and will tie into Interstate 81. Mr. Wyatt said that the two road segments in Frederick County that are being considered as part of Corridor H are Route 50 West and Route 55. Mr. Wyatt said that the West Virginia Department of Transportation has gone on record stating that they feel the best corridor is the one that would adjoin Frederick County at Route 55. He said that VDOT is also focusing specifically on the Route 55 corridor and not on the Route 50 corridor. Mr. Wyatt said that the staff feels that the Route 55 was the route that would be eventually chosen. The Commission was concerned about the funding impact of Corridor H on Frederick County's share of money that is budgeted in the Stanton District to take care of primary road improvements in Frederick County. The Commission also discussed the positive transit impacts that would result from Corridor H. It was noted that Virginia's Inland Port would benefit and there would also be a positive impact on the Winchester/Frederick County area as a distribution center. E Mr. Wyatt said that the staff will be requesting a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors at the next meeting. He said that the recommendation should include whether or not the Planning Commission is in favor of a "build option," which corridor is preferred if a build option is desirable, and any other concerns the Commission may have as far as funding mechanisms, etc. ADJOURNMENT p. m. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:45 Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on May 5, 1993. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were; James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; Robert Morris, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison; and James Barnett, Winchester City Liaison. ABSENT: Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Director/Secretary; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; and W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INTRODUCTION OF ROBERT MORRIS, NEWLY APPOINTED PLANNING COMMISSIONER FOR THE SHAWNEE DISTRICT Chairman Golladay introduced Mr. Robert (Bob) Morris, the newly appointed Planning Commissioner for the Shawnee District. MINUTES - MARCH 17 1993 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of March 17, 1993 were unanimously approved as presented. 2 BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS Master Development Plan #002-93 for Franklin Mobile Home Park by R. W. Franklin, Inc. for 47 mobile homes and one single family house. This property is located east of the Route 7 and 1-81 Interchange in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Approved Mr. Scot Marsh, Project Manager with G. W. Clifford & Associates, came forward to represent the master development plan for Franklin Mobile Home Park. Mr. Marsh said that this is the site of the old "Eckard Mobile Home Park" and is currently zoned MH1 (Mobile Home Community). He said that the existing nine units at this site are on septic systems and wells. Mr. Marsh said that Mr. R. W. Franklin recently purchased the property and he will own and maintain the park and lease the mobile home pads. Mr. Marsh said that the existing gravel entrance will be improved with a 30' commercial entrance, and the road will consist of a 22' wide prime and double seal surface, with a 2' curb and gutter on one side, and a four foot sidewalk. (1' will remain on each side.) Mr. Marsh explained that in addition to the 50' perimeter setback for the site, a 100' buffer and full screening will be provided adjacent to the residential property (landscape plus a six foot berm). He said that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority has no objections to tapping into the existing sewer line for service. A loop water system is also planned to be provided. Mr. Marsh next discussed the open space areas, the woodlands, and the water detention area. He showed slides of the site and pointed out various aspects of the site to the Commission. Mr. Marsh added that Mr. Franklin will be enforcing the Virginia Manufacture Home Lot Rental Handbook which contains guidelines for tenants and landlords. He said that Mr. Franklin will be on location to manage the property. Chairman Golladay called for persons wishing to speak regarding this master plan and the following people came forward to speak in opposition: 3 Mrs. Barbara Bolton, an adjoining property owner from Shenandoah Hills, was concerned that the proximity of the rental mobile homes would devalue her property. Mrs. Bolton complained of numerous disturbances at the existing mobile home park that required calls to the Sheriffs Department. She described instances where residences of the park trespassed on her property and have thrown beer cans onto her property. She was also concerned that the existing water problems in Shenandoah Hills would be compounded with the addition of more mobile homes. Mrs. Bolton also asked for further clarification on the screening/buffering. Mr. Charles R. Sell, property owner in Shenandoah Hills, had the same concerns as Mrs. Bolton. Mr. Sell was also concerned about the heavy traffic on Route 7. He said that its difficult to get across the street at that intersection, especially at rush hour. Mr. Sell also felt that as much of the existing woodlands should be saved as possible. Mr. Robert H. Frey, property owner in Shenandoah Hills, asked for clarification on the location of the common area. Mr. Frey was also concerned about the traffic. Mr. David Bolton had questions about the designated woodland areas. He said that the drawing submitted by the applicant was inaccurate as far as showing where the woodlands were located. He also had concerns about the traffic. Mrs. Fay Sell, property owner in the Shenandoah Hills Subdivision, wanted to know who would enforce all of the details concerning the woodlands, drainage, the entrance, etc. Ms. Sheena McBride, resident of Shenandoah Hills, said that two years ago she had a major automobile accident at this intersection on Route 7. Ms. McBride was concerned about adding more traffic to this intersection. Mr. Carroll Bridgeforth, property owner in Shenandoah Hills, said that his major concern was that the mobile home park would devalue the homes along Blossom Drive. (Mr. Bridgeforth lives on the east side of Blossom Drive) Mr. Victor H. Hart, property owner in the Shenandoah Hills subdivision, said that he had spoken to several real estate agents and they indicated that the location of the mobile home park would make the homes in Shenandoah Hills harder to sell. Mr. Hart asked what would happen to the existing wells and septic systems once the park is connected to water and sewer. Mr. Rodney Franklin, the owner/applicant, came forward to speak. Mr. Franklin said that the previous owner, Mrs. Eckard, was placed in a nursing home and a management company operated the mobile home park. Mr. Franklin said that the management was very poor and he understood why problems occurred in the past. Mr. Franklin said that he will be on location to manage the site and enforce the rules. Mr. Franklin said that several of the tenants have already moved out because they could not meet his regulations. C! The Commission next discussed site concerns with the applicant's engineers. Those concerns included the prevention of drainage into Shenandoah Hills, provision for adequate screening/buffering to adjacent single family homes, the size of the entrance road in relation to the density proposed, and the provision of a walkway for school children to reach the bus stop. Regarding drainage, Mr. Thomas pointed out that two to three lots on either side of the existing rental house will drain into Shenandoah Hills --then the drainage pattern reverses and the runoff moves around both sides and down across the mobile home site. Charles Maddox, with G. W. Clifford & Associates, said that the proposed berm will redirect the drainage. He said that there is a small amount of drainage in this area that moves both south and east. That will be redirected into the swale in front of the berm and carried off site. He said that as a result, the increased drainage from this site will be eliminated and in fact, improve the existing situation. Mrs. Sherwood said that she had problems with the size of the roadway and felt it wasn't adequate to serve the density of this project. It was noted that the entranceway had been approved by VDOT. The Commissioners felt that the applicant had adequately addressed the concerns raised by the neighbors and commissioners. They felt that Mr. Franklin's plans for the mobile home park would greatly improve conditions at the site. Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Master Development Plan #{002-93 of Franklin Mobile Home Park by Mr. R. W. Franklin with the following conditions: 1. Any drainage flowing east must be redirected north and south. 2. In addition to the required buffer, the existing woodlands and natural vegetation on the east side will be maintained in the buffer area. 3. The applicant will address all concerns and comments of the staff, the review agencies, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. Conditional Use Permit #005-93 of Paul C_ Stacy for a cottage occupation for a small engine and lawn mower repair operation- This property is located on Route 664 (1717 Jordan Springs Road) and is identified with Parcel LD_ #56 -A -6A in the Stonewall District_ E Action - Approved Mr. Miller said that the applicant is proposing a business to repair small engines and lawn mowers in an accessory building located adjacent to his home. Access to this property is along a private driveway that is shared with one other residence. Mr. Miller said that allowing this use at a moderate level would have little or no impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Paul C. Stacy, the applicant, said that all repair work would be done by himself, inside an accessory building. Mr. Stacy said that he would have no problems complying with the conditions suggested by the staff. Chairman Golladay was concerned about noise disturbance and he asked Mr. Stacy if he would be running engines with detached mufflers. Mr. Stacy replied that he would not be removing the mufflers. Mr. Morris asked Mr. Stacy how he planned to dispose of old lawn mowers or replaced engines. Mr. Stacy replied that he would take those to the landfill and he assured the Commission that he would not be storing parts outside. Mr. Dennis Segebartt, adjoining property owner, said that he and Mr. Stacy share the same driveway. Mr. Segebartt supported Mr. Stacy's proposal and said that he had no problems with it. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Conditional Use Permit #005-93 of Paul C. Stacy for a Cottage Occupation for small engine and lawn mower repair with the following conditions: 1. Any signage be limited to that allowed for a cottage occupation. 2. Any expansion of existing buildings to accommodate this use will require a new conditional use permit. 3. If use intensity develops to the point that use of the shared private drive is impacted, a new conditional use permit will be required and upgrading of the driveway should be considered. 4. All repair work and storage of parts will be confined inside the structure being used. 5. All review agency comments will be complied with. M An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Business & Industrial District, to allow truck or fleet maintenance facilities in master planned industrial parks zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District and Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, to create performance standards for fleet or maintenance facilities in master planned industrial parks zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District. Action - Approved Mr. Evan Wyatt said that on April 7, 1993, the Planning Commission discussed a proposal to allow fleet or truck maintenance facilities as a principal use in the M1 Zoning District. He said that the Planning Commission felt that the use was appropriate in master planned industrial parks, but not all property zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District. The Planning Commission also felt that provision should be made to allow for one gasoline storage tank, as well as one diesel storage tank. He said that the Planning Commission instructed the staff to have the DR&RS revise the proposed performance standards to reflect this discussion. Mr. Wyatt presented the amendments as proposed by the DR&RS. The Commission was in favor of the amendments as presented by the DR&RS and upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendments to Article X and IV as follows: (Mr. Morris abstained from voting.) ARTICLE X - BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS M-1 Light Industrial District Allowed Uses Truck or freight maintenance facilities (No SIC Code) ARTICLE IV - SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS Truck or Freight Maintenance Facilities Where allowed, truck or freight maintenance facilities shall meet the following requirements: A. In the M1 (Light Industrial) District, truck or freight maintenance facilities shall only be permitted in industrial parks. B. Truck or freight maintenance facilities may have fuel service provided that it is limited to one gasoline storage tank of 10,000 gallons or less and one diesel storage tank of 10,000 gallons or less. 7 C. All repair and maintenance operations shall occur within a completely enclosed structure. D. Outdoor storage of parts associated with repair and maintenance shall not be permitted. E. Retail sales shall not be permitted. F. The Planning Commission may require additional buffers and screening other than those defined in Section 165-37 of this Chapter. CORRIDOR H RESOLUTION Mr. Wyatt said that the Commonwealth Transportation Board will go on record May 20, 1993 stating their recommendations on Corridor H and whether to proceed with either: A) a "no -build" option; B) to build and cross the Virginia State Line at Route 50 West; or C) to build and cross the Virginia State Line at Route 55. Mr. Wyatt said that a worksession was held between the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, the Transportation Board, and VDOT; however, some questions still remained unanswered. He said that the state has still not adequately addressed where the funding for this project would come from and what effect it will have on the Commonwealth Transportation Board's Six Year Plan for the Stanton District. The Commissioners felt that they needed to consider the impact of the Corridor H project on the County as well as the implications to the County's funding. They felt that if they agreed to a "no -build" option, ten years or so from now, the county may be faced with a four -lane road stopping at the end of the state line. They were concerned that Virginia would then have to fund 100% of extending the road instead of the 80/20 Federal/State match offered now, because ISTEA or other funding may be exhausted. Concern was also expressed that all of the comments made so far have been directed at the Route 55 connection. They felt that if the road did come in at Route 50 West, major traffic problems could occur and road improvements would have to be made. Those specific road improvements have not yet been addressed and no money is available to take care of them. Finally, one of the major issues of concern by the Commission was whether or not the Corridor H project would affect the Stanton District's funding for Frederick County's Primary or Secondary Road Improvement Program. The Commission felt they should go on record stating that they were opposed to Corridor H if the funding designated for Frederick County's projects would be diverted. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve the following resolution: RESOLUTION APPALACHIAN CORRIDOR H At a regular meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission, held on the 5th day of May, 1993, in the Board Room of the Frederick County Court House on the Loudoun Street Mall in Winchester, Virginia, it was duly moved and seconded that the following resolution be adopted: WHEREAS, A proposal has been adopted by the state of West Virginia to construct Appalachian Corridor H through Frederick County; and, WHEREAS, It is uncertain what impacts this proposal will have on traffic, existing land use, and environmental features in Frederick County; and, WHEREAS, It is uncertain how this proposal will impact the funding and priority of existing and future road improvements within Frederick County, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission opposes Appalachian Corridor H if constructing the highway in Virginia means funds earmarked for county roads will have to be diverted for the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That if the Commonwealth Transportation Board endorses a build option, necessary, impacted, or affected improvements to Route 37 or other primary and secondary roads in Frederick County and Winchester must be included in the project. A COPY TESTE Robert W. Watkins, Secretary Frederick County Planning Director 9 BATTLEFIELD VISION PROJECT AND GRANT Mr. Watkins said that the Frederick County Planning Department is proposing to apply for a grant from the American Battlefield Protection Partnership Funding Program to support the development of a plan for the preservation and use of civil war sites in Winchester and Frederick County. Mr. Watkins said that the primary task of the project will be to develop information that can be presented to the public. Public events will be held to develop a public consensus on the plan. A variety of tools, incentives, and approaches will need to be identified to implement the plan. He said that grant funding will allow the staff to obtain specialized consultant support for portions of this project. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously endorse the grant application for the Battlefield Vision Project. ADJOURNMENT p.m. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:15 Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman M E M O R A N D U M TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report DATE: June 4, 1993 (1) Rezonin s Pendia dates are submittal dates (2) Twin Lakes 4/04/90 (Shaw) (RA / toB2/RP) None (3) Rezonin s Denied: dates are BOS meeting dates None (4) Conditional Use Permits Pendia dates are submittal dates Ryland Homes 01/14/93 Opeq Off Premise Sign Independent Order of Odd Fellows 06/01/93 BkCK Lodge Building (5) Conditional Use Permits A roved: dates are a royal dates Paul C. Stacy 05/26/93 Ston Eng. & Lawn Mower Rep (6) Site Plans Pendia dates are submittal dates Wheatlands Wastewater Fac. 9/12/89 Opeq Trmt.facil Grace Brethren Church 6/08/90 Shaw Church Flex Tech . 10/25/90 Ston Lgt. Industrial Hampton Chase 12/18/90 Ston S.F. & T.H. Lake Centre 05/15/91 Shaw Townhouses - Red Star Express Lines 05/24/91 Ston Whse. Addition Freeton 04/27/92 Opeq Townhouses Salvation Army 12/03/92 Ston Ofc/Housing Triad Eng. Inc_ Delco Development 2 05/24/93 Shaw Offices 06/02/93 Shaw Food Store (7) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval dates) Glaize Components FCSA Water Tank No. Mountain VFD Schenck Foods Fleet Maintenance White Properties 05/10/93 Shaw Mfg. Plant 05/13/93 Shaw Hydro Pillar 05/19/93 BkCk Addition 05/25/93 BkCk Freezer addition 05/28/93 Ston Garage 05/28/93 Opeq Storage Bldgs. (8) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal_ dates) Village at Sherando 05/17/93 Opeq (9) subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (P/C approval dates Abrams Point, Phase I 6/13/90 Shawnee Hampton Chase 02/27/91 Stonewall Lake Centre 06/19/91 Shawnee Fredericktowne Est. 10/16/91 Opequon (sections 5, 6 and 7) Coventry Courts 12/04/91 Shawnee Senseny Glen 12/04/91 Shawnee Freeton 05/20/92 Opequon Henry Business Park 02/03/93 Stonewall (10) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Hillsdale Estates 04/16/93 Shawnee Henkel Harris Co. 05/13/93 Greenwood Road Realty Partn. 05/20/93 Shawnee Stonewall Indus. Park 05/24/93 Stonewall Hampton Chase (revised) 05/24/93 Stonewall (11) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: (dates are BOS approval dates Battlefield Partnership 04/08/92 Back Creek James R. Wilkins III 04/14/93 Shawnee Prince Frederick Business Park 04/14/93 Shawnee Franklin Mobile Hm. Pk. 04/12/93 Shawnee 3 (12) FMDP Administ. Approved (dates are admin approval dates) Hampton Chase (revised) 05/24/93 Stonewall (13) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pendinq:(submit dates) Paramount Termite Control 05/17/93 Ston Reduction of Buffers (14) BZA Applications Approved: (approval dates Monta Vista Associates for 05/18/93 Opeq 6" side/existing AT & T Easy link addition (15) BZA Applications Denied• None (16) PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER None "UN'1'llby REPORT zori3-��y TOTnr, PERMITS AP- PROVED FOR ZONING --Marsh a O to C7 9 av 27 comparison of 1993 �1 O 01 p 13 34 26 Individual 'total 0 E_� O O Monthly Totals March 1992 x t>i RW' F(nto M wU Total H O H�,� 3 913/90 Q O:' 3/89 3/88 3/87 i X11 U H Q :>4z Cj S+ U5 H E4 UO . 109. 18 0 19 0 23 0 31. 0 27 0 118 116 i182 164 194 216+" 1. Multi -family 0 0 0 24 0 24 0 1 34 12 0 42'' 2. Single-family dwellings 1 15 2 3 9 30 7 1 0 1 4 3 1 2 7 ,.-. 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 11 1 1'. 0 48 34= 51i 66' ` 101 83 [3. Mobile tlomes - Nr.w Unn - itchlacement:" 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 5 2 5 2 3 13 9' 4 11 S 6 9' 2' 7 3� 2 1 9 3' 0 2 0 0:. ' 1 3 6 4. Industrial 5. Commercial G. Miscellaneous 0 't0 7 1 0 9 0 0 11 0 0 7 0 0 15 1 0 49 0 0 10 1 0 11 0 0 16 0 '0 12 0t, 0 15 1 0 64 1 2! 65' 1 F 78 2 0. 0 ' 0� ?. 13, 7,. 75 75 75' 20b 150 100 50 Ol V iyyi 1992 1.1993 •�• County Total residential -- Commercial & Industrial MONTHLY REPORT Comparison of Accumulat ve Monthly TOttl s zoning January - March 1993 'Total January -March 1992 'Total "}1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3.1991 1- H O p O off H E O E�Fn N H O01 � p . E-4 6 E i E (�7 u�1 PO O O U rC U _ E+ to nl itf W O U O U O U U .7 U O U TOTAL PERMITS AP- " PROVED FOR ZONING 43 56 48 182 69. 389 55 40 41 67 6 271 28.8—A4-1-384 384!_.j423 I. Multi-family 0 0 0 144 19 163, 0 0 0 0'.) 14 14 7 118 _ 36 12 68 2. Single-f.-unily dwellings 14 30 12 11 16 83 19 9 13. 39 22 102 ­74 'l18 _ 159, ' 169 �169� 3. Mobile homes 2 5 0 1 7 15 1 5 - New Units 1 1 0 1 0 3 id 16, 29` 29- 14 27 - Replacements 1 4 0 0 1 3 4 5: 10 1 4 1 14 17 9 11 4. Industrial 3 0 0 2 6 5' 15 12 5 16 p 1 p p 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 8` 4 4 0 5. Commercial p p p 1 0' 1 0 0 0 0 0? 0 _ 9 24 1 45 10 6. Miscellaneous r 27 20'.,36 25 27 135 35 25 27 28 29 144 174 150 155 144 149 PERMITS - County Total 400 300 00 is t. .. _ r.� } a.Y, • 1 i y ' ,1 00 200- 100- 100 1987 1987 1988. 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 �s�+ County Total Residential •— • -- • -- Commercial & Industrial ONT11LY REPORT Comparison of Individual hiont-hly Totals 7.oni.ng April 194'1 Total _ pril 1992 Total ..__._..� i------- F] 4/g7 U H E O 1992 •+ -- •--•—•Commercial & Industrial H+ '' p OZ Of In p d 0 01 w (�7 vHi U C7 N O 0 U 0 U U 5 O TOTAL PERMITS AP- U} U. PROVED rOR ZONING 28 38 28 20 30 14 4 30 34 3 21 1. 14 I. Multi -family 0 8 0 0 0 g 0 2. Single-family 16 7 34 4Rr •, dwellings 10 12' 11 6 12'� 51 12 6 5 .. 9 3 35 ' ;:.. � �- 1. 3. Mobile 1lomes 2' _ ' - New Uni.ts 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 '2 5 0 01 8 11� 11 14 18 { 11 - i�epl icemen to 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 4 1 2 ' 0 0 0 1 4 4 6 2 9 7 7 11 7 6 4. 0 5' 4 1 0 0 S. Commercial 0 5• 18 0 6 5 G. Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0:' 125 85 73 j 15 17 16 13 17 '/78 16 15 28 12 19 90 84 84 200 150 100 50 1 1987 1988 1989 u"I"Mommommommw County Total 90 1991 Residential i ..__._..� i------- 1992 1993' -- •--•—•Commercial & Industrial MONTHLY REPORT 800 k -L)"' UL15on or Accumulative Monthly TotAls Zoning 600 January --.'April 1293 'Total _ 'Po Lal 400------------ ;. - 2(L19S9. l9gS198. 0 t ! H F�Ct �aWc Ei �H QH H0 Nvl H jWO 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 �+�County Total Residential --- —• --Commercial & Industrial � . ... p z 01 �+ ?+, Rl rr�� W (7 [ yyU t7 t�J� N U U t7 !! U N U U U U U U 0 U - TOTAL PERMPl'S AP- PROVED rOR ZONING 71 94 76 202 99 :542 85 74 74 88 99`1 420 437 622 620 596 598 1. Multi -family 0 8 0 144 19 1'71 0 8 0 0 22 30 14 12670 60 88 2. Single-family dwellings t 24 42 23'+ 17 28 134 31 15 18 48 25 137 ill 172.' 221. 2i4' 235 3. Mobile Ilomes 5 6 1 2 8 22 3 10 1 0 4 18 27 ' ; 40 43 '32 38` -New Units 1 2 1 - Replacements 4 4 0 1 1 5 8_ 14 2 5 0 0 1 3 8 10 16. 11 16 `24 24 19 20. 12 16 22 4. Industrial 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 13 8 5 0 0 5. Commercial o 0 { 14. 42 6. Miscellaneous 42 37 52 38 44 213 51 40 55 40:; 48 234 258 234 .2800 229 222 PEIU41TS - County Total j + 800 600 ;( ( 400------------ ;. 200 t ! } t 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 �+�County Total Residential --- —• --Commercial & Industrial E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #33 1. Rural Community Centers Alternate Wastewater Treatment Study On Tuesday, May 11, Kris Tierney and Lanny Bise met with the Technical Advisory Committee and consultants on the project. The study is proceeding well, the consultants have evaluated the three Community Centers and are developing their recommendations for the best suited means of wastewater disposal for each area. A draft report is expected at the next meeting of the TAC scheduled for June. Following the TAC meeting, Kris Tierney, Rob Kinsley with the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission, and the consultants discussed expanding the scope of work of the consultants slightly to include the development of a thorough recommendation of engineering work that would be needed to actually implement the recommended alternative treatment method. 2. Corridors Studies-/ Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee The -Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee has established boundaries for the corridors of Routes 7 East, 50 East, and 11 South, between Route 37 and Stephens City. The Committee hopes to hold public meetings in July to discuss the studies with the public and develop a list of issues. Kris Tierney and Ron Lilley will be developing information on the corridors and Lanny Bise will be developing maps on Autocad. Kris will also be working on the format and scheduling of the meetings. 3. Stephens City Joint Planning Group The Joint Planning Committee will be working closely with the CP&PS on the Route 11 South corridor study. Kris Tierney and Ron Lilley will be working with the Committee. 4. Plan Reviews and Site Inspections Evan Wyatt conducted the following plan reviews and site inspections: On May 4, conducted an on-site review of Franklin Mobile Home Park with applicant. This site is located on the south side of Route 7 (Berryville Pike) in the Stonewall District. On May 10, approved a site plan for a new wallboard manufacturing plant at the Glaize Truss site. The site is located off of Route 728 (Victory Road) in the Shawnee District. On May 10, provided Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) with requirements for final Master Development Plan submittal for the Prince Frederick Office Park. On May 11, conducted a site inspection at the Liberty Baptist Church site. This site is located on the south side of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) in the Opequon District. On May 13, conducted a site inspection at Lakeside Condominiums. This site is located off of Chinkapin Drive in the Shawnee District. On May 13, conducted a site inspection at Stephens Ridge townhouses. This site is located off of Stickley Drive in the Opequon District. On May 13, met with Dr. Stiebel to discuss improvements to the existing dentist office along Route 647 (Aylor Road) in the Opequon District. On May 13, approved the FCSA elevated water storage tank site plan. This site is located along Route 642 (Macedonia Church Road) in the Shawnee District. 5. ISTEA Evan Wyatt met with the Director of Parks & Recreation,," Jim Doran, on May 5 to continue work on the Route 277 (Fairfax Pike)'ISTEA Enhancement proposal. 6. Bicycle Plan Evan Wyatt met with Steve Gyurisin on May 10 to work on a proposal for a bicycle plan for the Winchester/Frederick County area. 7. Road Improvements On May 12, Evan Wyatt and Wayne Miller met with Board member, Beverly Sherwood, and Dr.. Fish to discuss proposed improvements to Route 676 (Warm Springs Road). E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #34 1. GIS Interviews Bob Watkins, Kris Tierney, Mark Lemasters, and Evan Wyatt, along with Mike Didawick from Real Estate, Mike Phillips from Data Processing, and Dan Malone from Economic Development, interviewed three potential Geographic Information System vendors on May 19, 24, and 25. Bob Watkins, Evan Wyatt and Mark Lemasters visited the City of Manassas on May 20 and Loudoun County on May 26 to review their experiences with the specific Geographic Information Systems being considered by Frederick County. On May 27, Bob Watkins, Kris Tierney, Evan Wyatt, and Mark Lemasters participated in a meeting to select the GIS candidate to assist Frederick County in the development of a GIS network. 2. ISTEA On May 17, Evan Wyatt met with representatives of Parks and Recreation and G.W. Clifford & Associates to continue work on an ISTEA Enhancement proposal for the Route 277 Corridor. 3. Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CP&PSl The CP&PS is hoping to hold public meetings on corridor studies of Routes 7, 50, and 11 in July. Kris Tierney is working on the meeting format and is preparing maps and relevant information along with Ron Lilley and Lanny Bise. 4. Rt. 642ZEvans Cgmpany Kris Tierney spoke with Don Hague of the Evans. Company (developers of Frederick Woods) on May 26 and 27. The Evans Company is requesting compensation for the loss of two lots that will result from the realignment of Route 642. 5. Stephens City Joint Planning Group, In conjunction with the CP&PS, arrangements are being made for a July public meeting on the planning for the Route 11 Corridor. Maps and information are being prepared for that meeting. 6. Historic Resources Efforts to have a video presentation of the Rural Landmarks Study presented at civic/social group meetings are underway, with contacts for such groups being established. Ron Lilley is discussing with the County school system the possibility of using the video in history/social studies classes. The design contest for the historic plaque was completed and the HRAB will be developing a final design for the plaque in June. 7. Board of Zoning ApReals (BZA) Ron Lilley presented the BZA with a draft set of bylaws which are expected to be adopted by the BZA in June. S. Plan Reviews and Site Inspections Bob Watkins and Kris Tierney met with James Wilkins, Jr. and Richie Wilkins to discuss an existing development. Ron. Lilley attended a meeting with Airport and FAA officials concerning future plans for the Regional Airport. Ron Lilley reviewed the preliminary master development plan for Henkel -Harris Industrial Park. Evan Wyatt conducted the following: On May 26, approved a site plan for White Properties Storage Solutions (self-service storage facilities). This property is located on the west side of Stickley Drive in the Opequon District. On May 28, conducted a site inspection at the Southeast Container facility in the Fort Collier Industrial Park. on May 28, conducted a site inspection at the McDonalds restaurant on Route 11 North (Martinsburg Pike). On May 28, approved a site plan for Shamrock Truck Terminal in the Stonewall Industrial Park in the Gainesboro District. On May 28, approved a site plan for an addition to the North Mountain Volunteer Fire Company in the Back Creek District. On May 28, approved a site plan for a freezer addition to the Schenck Foods facility located on Route 11 South (Valley Pike)," in the Back Creek District. 9. Zoning Violations Ron Lilley is currently pursuing several zoning ordinance violations, at least one of which will probably end up in court for resolution. 10. Street Signs Bob Watkins and Mark Lemasters met with Public Works Director, Ed Strawsnyder, Fire & Rescue Director, Tom Owens, and VDOT's Bill Bushman, to discuss the installation of street signs. 11. Other Bob Watkins and Evan Wyatt attended the Lord Fairfax Planning District Local Government Forum. Bob Watkins met with the Blue Ridge Board of Realtors legislative committee and discussed planning activities in Frederick County. Evan Wyatt attended a VACo committee meeting on May 21 in Richmond to discuss transportation policy and legislation. PC REVIEW: 06/16/93 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 002-93 VILLAGE AT SHERANDO 51 LOTS - SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATION: North of Route 277 between Jefferson Village and Deer Run of Sherando Subdivisions MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 86 -A -102A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) - land use, vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) and B2 (Business General) - land use, residential and vacant PROPOSED USE: 51 lots, single family dwellings REVIEW EVALUATION: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter to G. W. Clifford & Associates from William H. Bushman dated April 28, 1993. Fire Marshal: Add the following to construction notes: 1. Burning of land clearing debris requires permit from Fire Marshal's office. 2. Burning of construction debris, on site, is not permitted. 3. Access for emergency vehicles must be maintained at all times during construction. a. Post temporary street address signs at each site as construction begins. b. Developer must ensure that driveways to houses do not allow parked vehicles to impede access to fire hydrants. C. Hydrants are not to be constructed at any time with construction material storage or stockpiling. -2 - Inspections Dept.: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 309, Use Group R, (Residential), of the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Sanitation: ist review - 20 items - correct and resubmit. County Engineer: See attached letter to G. W. Clifford & Associates from Harvey E. Strawsnyder dated May 6, 1993. Soil & Water Conservation Dist.: All State E & S requirements are met in this plan. Parks & Recreation: Plan appears to meet open space requirements. However, a walkway/bikeway system that has been discussed with G. W. Clifford & Assoc. does not appear on the plan. The intent to the walkway/bikeway system is to provide a collector for the residents of the new developments paralleling Route 277 between Route 641 and Sherando Park. It is anticipated by this department that a collector of this type will help alleviate pedestrian and bicycle traffic on Route 277 and provide children with safer access to Sherando Park and Sherando High School. Planning & Zoning: This subdivision plan does not conform to the approved master plan. The street layout has been changed and this plan does not reflect the 4' walkway/trail/bike path that is reflected in the master plan. The engineer for this plan has advised that the developer intends to build the pathway as previously agreed. This should be reflected on the plan. The street layout is different from the master plan but is considered a better design by staff. This current plan makes a straight shot connection of Ivory Drive from Jefferson Village to Warrior Road and thereby eliminates a "T" intersection. It also eliminates one cul-de-sac on the northern edge of this subdivision and one "T" intersection is converted to a 4 -way intersection. This redesign appears to be preferable to the previous one in that it allows better traffic flow and enhances safety. This redesign has reduced the density by two lots, from 53 to 51. Lots 4,5,7 and 13 all have very limited structure footprint availability. This, predictably, will most likely create a situation that will require variance applications for decks, carports and/or garages and possibly the dwellings themselves. Staff feels this is an undesirable situation although platting of these lots cannot be denied. The County Engineer has indicated the need for a separate site plan for lot 13 and we concur with that requirement. Plan needs to reflect the requirement of Subdivision Ordinance Section 144-17 G. (2) that requires the portions of lots 18,' 19 and 20 used as a temporary easement be officially returned -3 - to the respective property owners when the turn around is no longer needed. The street names Robert Lane and Wrights Run Trail are used at other locations and must be changed in accordance with our street naming policy of not allowing same or phonetically same sounding names. The developer has addressed VDOT's concern over the stormwater detention facility. They have redesigned the facility so that the retention dam is not part of the road structure and will not impinge on the road right of way. The developer will be required to consummate an agreement with the property owner's association for maintenance of the detention structure. Since the redesign of the road layout is considered minor and an overall improvement, there is no impact on any property owner and the density has been reduced, the staff recommends that this application be considered without the requirement of submitting a revised master plan through the approval process. We would require that a revised plan reflecting the changed street layout be provided to staff for filing. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JUNE 16A, 1993: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. That all review agency comments are adequately addressed. 2. That the plan be revised to reflect the walkway as required by the master plan. 3. That the master plan be revised to reflect the redesigned street layout and provided to staff for filing. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 i RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMMISSIONER April 28, 1993 Ms. Janet Williams CIO G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Janet: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE(703)984-4133 FAX (703) 984-9761 Ref: Village at Sherando, Single Family Route 277 Frederick County As requested we have reviewed the above referenced site plan dated March, 1993. . Our recommendations may be found on the enclosed plans marked in red and as follows: 1. The proposed pavement design appears adequate. HoYvever, the aggregate base of Rosie Court, Wright's Run Trail and Robert Lane should be primed at the application rate shown. 2. An easement will need to be provided to enclose the temporary turnaround and its pavement design specified. 3. ` To avoid maintenance problems, we ask the widths of the three (3) cul-de-sacs be increased to a minimum 30' from face to face of curb. If not, on street parking will need to be prohibited by Frederick County. 4.., The width of Robert Lane may need to be upgraded to a minimum of 36' depending on future development past the temporary cul-de-sac. You will need to provide us with ijhformation on the adjacent Strosnider Property to justify your proposed design_ The EP radii at the Robert Lane intersection with Ivory Drive 'should be increased to 50'. 5. The proposed 4' sidewalk. should be extended around the radii of Rosie Court and Robert Dane so standard radial type CG -12 handicap ramps can; be installed. The right -of --way will also need to be adjusted to accommodate the sidewalk., 6. A standard ES -1 end section should be provided on the outfall pipe from Structure No. l ... and are recommended on all others. ' 7. A drainage easement will need to be provided to enclose Structure No. 5. 8. Structures 11 and 12 should be changed from DI -1's to DI -Ts. The other DI4's are = r satisfactory. 9. Structures 4, 5 and 6 should be revised as shown. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Ms. Janet Williams Ref: Village at Sherando, Single Family April 28, 1993 Page #2 10. Structure 7 (Sheet 2) and Drainage Area "D" (Sheet 3) should be labeled. 11. CD Underdrains should be added at all vertical sags as shown. 12. To eliminate approximately twelve (12) underground road crossings, the proposed water service laterals should be "double barrelled" in the same trench at appropriate property lines. This installation method was previously approved by Frederick County Sanitation Authority in the adjacent Deer Run development. 13. Standard VDOT stop signs are to be provided at the locations noted. 14. The proposed standard CG -9C entrance gutter should not be considered in the design of this project. Standard CG -91) entrance gutters will be required and we strongly suggest they be installed during curb & gutter installation. 15. As designed, Ivory Drive at Station 4+00 is part of a dam for a basin. Even though only a detention basin and not a retention basin, VDOT still considers A a significant liability and the Department will not accept such roads into the State Secondary Road System. One scenario in which subdivisions with such roads can be approved, is where VDOT does not own the right-of-way over the dam but only has an easement. -VDOT maintains the pavement but- has no liability or maintenance for the dam. This process has numerous requirements including certain agreements with the county and developer in addition to the normal stormwater detention agreement. We recommend the subdivision be redesigned with any detention basins on the downstream side of the roads; simply shifting the face of the dam farther upstream will not make it acceptable. Please revise the plans in accordance with the above recommendations and resubmit three (3) copies for further review. Should any changes be deemed necessary, plea§e design them to meet or exceed the above comments. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf P-nclosure xc: Mr. T. L. Jackson, Mr. S. A. Melnikoff, Mr. R. W. Watkins, Mr. H. E. Strawsnyder, Mr. James L. Longerbeam May 6, 1993 Mr. Ron Mislowsky, P.E. Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Village at Sherando Single Family Homes Dear Ron: COUNTY of FREDERICK Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works 9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floor 703/665-5643 Z 1.81 9p) 7v c E" DE ;jf P.ANNIM AND DEV We have completed our review of the referenced project and offer: the following comments: Stormwater Management 1) Explain why a weighted "C" value of 0.26 was adopted for. the 49 acre area draining through Georgetown Court. 2) Demonstrate that the proposed stormwater management plan will offset the additional stormwater flows created by the. Village at Sherando single family homes and the new patio homes. This can be accomplished by reducing the allowable ten (10) year storm flows routed through the detention pond' by an amount equal to the increase in runoff derived from: the new development downstream of ,the detention area. 3) Refer to the drainage area tabulation. It is suggested that a "C" value of 0.4 be adopted for drainage areas H, K, L, O and R to correspond to typical subdivision values in the Martinsburg shale. 4) The typical detention structure detail indicates a berm - width of eight (8) feet. This width should be revised to reflect the actual width of the proposed roadway._ This detail is shown on sheet 6 of 8. Also, indicate on sheet 6 of 8 the location of the emergency overflow within. Ivory Drive. --Erosion and Sediment control 1) The erosion and sediment control plan as described in the narrative is approved as submitted. We suggest that this Fax: 703/678-0682 - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22604 Mr. Ron Mislowsky Page Two May 6, 1993 narrative be included with the construction documents for the contractor's use in implementing the plan. Design Drawings Sheet 3 of 8 1) Provide Class II rip -rap at the outlet of the 36 inch RCP. 2) Based on our review of the proposed subdivision plan, it appears that the development of lot number 13 will be very limited. Consequently, we recommend that a detailed site plan be prepared for this lot indicating the house plan, driveway entrance and propose finished grades. 3) Delineate the 100 year flood plain along Wrights Run. This will.insure that the houses on lots 40 through 44 are not constructed within the 100 year flood plain. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES:rls cc: Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator file APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Date: 3! Q Application # eye Fee Paid Applicant/Agent: J, E.J. T? C.or.pora ��� , Address: 2� 1 .,� 19 g 5�e�%PrSo✓� '��, ZZ�OS Phone: 76 -y (o Owners name: S« p p r a Address: Phone: Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority stockholders: Contact Person: Phone: Name of Subdivision: f G rrj4 Number of Lots Total Acreage Property Location: (Give State Rt.#, distance and direction from intersect'16 170.% zN Magisterial District Tax ID Number (GPIN) AY1993 Property zoning and present use: YP -Awr Adjoining property zoning and use: 2P Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes ►� No If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? Yes ✓ No What was the MDP title?� 1 Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes No If yes, specify what changes: Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) /di 06c-) . S. F Number and types of housing units in this development: Number !V Types A i(/C i MAY190 RECEIVED XM OF P"ONG MR o�vaaPn FILE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 1665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 April 7, 1993 Virginia Department of Transportation P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, VA 22824 Attn: Mr. Robert B. Childress Dear Bob: This is in response to your March 31, 1993 letter concerning the width and parking restrictions for the streets in the single family portion of Village at Sherando. Since state regulations permit the construction of streets with 24' from face to face of curb, we cannot deny the developer the right to build to that standard. Moreover, we support narrow streets because it cuts down on the amount of impervious surfaces we create. Restriction of parking on these streets is a separate issue. We can require the developer to install "no parking" signs on the streets or go to the 30' width option. Realizing that the signs will not necessarily restrict the parking on the streets, there is a mechanism in place, in the form of law enforcement, to insure that the no parldng option is observed once these streets are accepted into the state secondary system. I will be available to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, 4 fW.rayne Miller ministrator WWM/slk cc: Mr. James L. Longerbeam Sheriff Robert Williamson Ron Mislowsky, G. W. Clifford & Associates 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 P/C Review Date: 6/16/93 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN ,007-93 HAMPTON CHASE - REVISED LOCATION: Adjacent to the City/County Line, just northeast of Battle Avenue and Van Fossen Street MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 54-A-94 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) Land Use - Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance), M1 (Light Industrial), M2 (General Industrial), MR (City Residential) land use, residential, Winchester Warehousing and Salvation Army. PROPOSED USE: Single family zero lot line only REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia De t. of Transportation: No objection to revised master development plan. Before making any final comments this Department will require a complete set of revised site plans with supporting drainage calculations for review. Fire Marshal: On lots containing fire hydrants there should be covenants or some manner of notification that will prohibit placing the driveway next to the hydrant. In many areas, cars parked in the driveway of a dwelling obstruct the hydrant making fire dept. access difficult. Sanitation Authority: Original plan had water line to Salvation Army project. It was their only water supply source. The Salvation Army site plans are approved (Dec. 92), thus their plans are void 2 County Engineer: Our approval of the proposed change from townhouse to single family with zero lot line will be subject to the review and approval at the revised grading plans. An evaluation of the proposed stormwater management plan will also be required. City of Winchester: No comments. Planning & zoning: The current version of the MDP contains 85 townhouse units and 29 single family, zero lot line units for a total of 114 units. The proposed revision would replace the 85 townhouse units with 36 zero lot line units with a resulting total of 65 units. A 50 foot zoning district buffer will be required along the entire northern edge of the property. This buffer will encroach on the back portion of eight of the lots located on or near the proposed cul-de-sac. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 6116/93 PC MTG.: Since the proposed revision will result in a significant reduction in density for the site, and appears to meet all relevant requirements staff recommendation is for approval with all review agency comments being met. APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date: 21 May 1993 Application # or/?-9iL OWNERS/APPLICANT NAME: Dave Holliday Construction Inc P.O. Box 2715 Winchester, Va 22601 David B. Holliday (Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest) AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc Inc Address: 200 N. Cameron St. Winchester, Va 22601 Phone Number: (703) 667-2139 DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: Address: Phone Number Contact Name: Tom Price MAY1993 RgCELV�? b mr.4F PURM AWA i T . rsE�tClllQl�S�� REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided and to insure that all information is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the master development plan. All required items must be provided on the master development plan. Background Information: 1. Development's name: HAMPTON CHASE 2. Location of property: Located adjacent to City/County Line just northeast of Battle Avenue & Van Fossen Street 3. Total area of property: 22.325 Acres 4. Property identification numbers: Tax map: 54 Tax parcel: 94 Tax ID #: 54-A-94 5. Property zoning and present use: RP (Vacant) 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: MR (City Residential), M-2, M-1 & RP (Townhouses) 7. Proposed Uses: Single Family Zero Lot line -Only 8. Magisterial District: Stonewall 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan) Original Amended X MAY1993 o ,OE r A0 a General Information: 1. Have the following items been included? North arrow Scale Legend Boundary Survey Total Area Topography Project Title Preparation and Revision Date Applicant Name 2. NI–Imber cf phases proposed? One i i i Yes _X_ No Yes–X— No Yes _X_ No Yes_X_ No Yes–X— No Yes _,Xr No Yes–X— No Yes _X_ No Yes–A_ No 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes No—X- 4. oX 4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes_.X_ No 5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. Yes–X— No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes—X– No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes NQ–X- 8. oX 8. Describe the following environmental features: Total Area % Disturbed Floodplains 0 0 Lakes and ponds 0 0 -Natural retention areas 0 0 Steep slopes (15% +) 0 0 Woodlands 0 0 Area in Open Space 0 0 0 ` 0 0 Ar MAY1993 RECEPIM DEM CE AND. -D�MWWK liifl 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan Street layout Yes _X—No No Entrances Yes _X No Parking areas Yes_X __XNo No Utilities (mains) Yes_X_No �`, MA'V1993 km OF PLAhWft D d 10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided? Ye s___X_,.,No 11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes NO_X_ Residential Uses If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP, (Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following items should be completed. 1. What housing types are proposed? Single Family zero Lot Line 2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each phase: Open space acreage Yes _X No Acreage in each housing_ type Yes_X No Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes __XNo Total acreage Yes_X_No Number of dwellings of each type Yes_X_No 3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common open space? 39.50% 4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes No. 5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed? 6. Are separation buffers required? Yes_X No, 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes—____N© X_ 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes XNo 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes_XNo Please list all of the individuals, f irms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, to the rear, and in front (across the street) of the property in question. Please list the name, address, and most importantly, the complete 21 -digit property identification number. This information may be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue's office. Name: Winchester Warehousing Inc Address: P.O. Box 765 Winchester Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 54-A-73 Name: The Salvation Army Address: 303 South Loudoun St. Winchester VA 22601 Property I.D.#: 54 -A -36F Name: Peter P. Weidlein Address: 12313 Blair Ridge Road Fairfax Va 22033 Property I.D.#: 54J-3-1 CITY OF WINCHESTER ADJOINING OWNERS: (x, Name: James J . Myers MAY1g93 co Address: 320 Green St. Winchester VA 22601 DER,�i = AND _D_O Name: Edward B. Chambers, et ux Address: 324 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Charles O. Grubb Address: 400 Green St. Winchester VA 22601 Name: William Polston, et ux Address: 404 Green St. Winchester VA 22601 Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Charles W. Stansfield 408 Green St.Winchester, VA 22601 Bruce F. Cartwriaht 412 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601 Maurice M. McDonald 500 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601 Paul M. Houah 504 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601 Allen W. Cartwricrht 508 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601 Stanley Butler 512 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601 Lewis A. Carter 516 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601 Julian L. Patterson 600 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601 Ruby N. Lupton 604 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601 Herminia S. Gonzalez 608 Green St. Winchester,`VA 22601 Richard S. Shade Rt. 8, Box 1036 Winchester, VA 22601 MAY1993 p�E.MFJCtyOF 46 MAMM Name: Herman R. & Gilbert Kline Address: P.O. Box 1309 Winchester VA 22601 Name: Timothv A. & Patricia B Dane Address: 702 Battle Ave. Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Delbert B. Combs Address: 703 Battle Ave. Winchester VA 22601 MAY1993 so-Xrwmm� P/C Review Date: 6/16/93 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #004-93 HENREL HARRIS COMPANY LOCATION: South of Shawnee Drive (State Route 652), adjacent to the City of Winchester/ Frederick County Limits and east of and adjacent to the CSX Railroad MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 63-A-110 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoning: M2 (General Industrial) Land Use: Vacant and Industrial ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoning Land Use RP (Res. Perf.) Residential (Single Family) B3 (Ind. Trans.) Mobile Home Sales M2 (Gen. Ind.) Vacant, Trucking, Offices PROPOSED USE: Industrial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No overall objection to the Preliminary Master Development Plan. Prior to making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, which includes current as built conditions with supporting drainage calculations and traffic flow data for review. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. Fire Marshal* Posted fire lanes required at all hydrant and siamese connections. Also required as indicated in building code. Burning of land -clearing debris requires permit from Fire Marshal's Office. Burning of construction debris is not permitted. Site plans for site No. 7 will require approval of Winchester Fire and Rescue Dept. as they will be the service provider. 2 Sanitation Authority: This area is served by the City of Winchester. County Engineer: We do not have specific comments at this time. However, it should be noted that the design and construction of stormwater management facilities will be required prior to initiating any further site development. City of Winchester: Comments are attached. In addition to attached comments,_ the City Utilities Director indicated verbally that the capacity of the water lines serving the site should be adequate for any development there and that the sewer capacity is somewhat limited. Uses generating high levels of sewage may cause the sewer capacity to be exceeded. Specific volumes will be necessary at the Site Plan stage. Planning & Zoning: GENERAL: This is a reasonable scheme for the development of the subject property. Industrial access funds to widen Shawnee Drive from Route 11 to this site are being pursued by the County. Each site appears to afford sufficient room for industrial facilities, and the existing utility locations are suitable for readily serving each site. An allowance for a road connection to the M2 property to the south is recommended to allow for future industrial circulation. If the entrance road is relocated to the east as shown, a connecting road should be aligned with it. This should be considered an industrial park, so the zoning ordinance section on coordination of uses and building styles within industrial parks (165-38) will need to be applied at - the subdivision stage. Also, a name indicative of an industrial park would be helpful, such as "Henkel -Harris Industrial Park." SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The plan should indicate the required zoning district buffers and should clearly indicate all adjoining property boundaries and the ownership, zoning, and use of all adjoining properties. The stormwater flow for the southern portion of the parcel should be indicated. The floodplain for Hoge Run appears inaccurate in the southeastern portion of the parcel and should be corrected. As alluded to in the City's comments, the stream crossing will need to be approved by all relevant agencies at the site plan stage. 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 6/16/93 PC MTG • Approval, upon all comments of staff, review agencies, City of Winchester, and Planning Commission being adequately addressed. APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date:_ 11 May 1993 Application # oo4-9,i OWNER/APPLICANTS NAME: Henkel Harris Company„ P.O. BOX 2170 Winchester, Va. 22601 William M & Mary M Henkel (Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest) AGENT: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc Address: 200 N. Cameron St, Winchester Va. 22601 Phone Number: ( 703) 667-2139 DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: same Contact Name: Tom Price A 12 MAY1993 C- of �uuvarnrc PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided and to insure that all information is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the master development plan. All required items must be provided on the master development plan. Background Information: 1. Development's name: Henkel Harris Company 2. Location of property: South of Shawnee Drive (St. Rte. 652) adiacent to the City of Winchester/Frederick County Limits and east and adjacent to CSX Railroad. 3. Total area of property: 57.42 Acres (County) 9.01 Acres (City) 4. Property ID #: 63-A-110 5. Property zoning and present use: M-2 (Vacant & Industrial) 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: RP (Single Familv). B-3 (Mobil Home Sales) & M-2 (Vacant & Office) 7. Proposed Uses: Industrial 8. Magisterial District: Back Creek 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original_X_ Amended to 993 / OF. e, �4. General Information: 1. Have the following items been included? North arrow Scale Legend Boundary Survey Total Area Topography Project Title Preparation and Revision Date Applicant Name 2. Number of phases proposed? None Yes X No Yes X_ No Yes X_ No Yes X_ No Yes X_ No Yes No Yes _X_ X_ No Yes X_ No Yes—x— No 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes No—X- 4. oX 4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes—X— No 5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. Yes—X— No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes—X— No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes—X— No 8. Describe the following environmental features: Total Area % Disturbed Floodplains Lakes and ponds 0 Natural retention areas 0 Steep slopes (15% +) 0 Woodlands 0 —.50- -0 0 0 0 Area in Open Space _1.94 _ 0 0 0 0 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan? Street layout Yes_X_No Entrances Yes_X No Parking areas Yes -No _X_ Utilities (mains) Yes X No 10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided? - Yes X No 11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes—No—X- - _ X13141 Please list all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, to the rear, and in front (across the street) of the property in question. Please list the name, address, and most importantly, the complete 21 -digit property identification number. This information may be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue's office. Name: H.C. GABLER, Inc. Address: P.O. Box 220 Chambersburg PA 2�-9- Property I.D.#: 63-A-110 63-A-95 Name: Carl E. & Anna Lee Frye Address: P.O. Box 2467 Winchester Va 22604 Property I.D.#: 63-A-93 63-A-92 Name: A.R. Ritter, Jr. Address: 3283 Valley Pike Winchester Va 22602 Property I.D.#: 63-A-91 Name: Joy Virginia Chrisman c/o Jo Masemer Address: Rt. 1, Box 50 White Post Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 63-A-89 /;�� ,o Name: Flex -O -Glass, Inc.� Address: 1100 North Cicero MAY1�3 RECEIVED. Property I . D. # : 63-A-87 pEPT. OF PIANNINAMo AO__W@r109 Name: Me rve 1 W. Adams c/o Ann A. Duffy Address: 5223 N. 12th St. Arlington Va 22205 Property I.D.#: 63-A-86 Name: American Woodmark Corporation Address: P.O. Box 1980 Winchester, Va 22604 Property I.D.#: 63-A-115 Name: Thomas C. Clark, Sr. Address: 3158 Shawnee Dr. Winchester, Va 22602 Property I.D.#: 63-A-114 Name: Richard A. & Joleen Graber, et als Address: 1712 Handley Ave.. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 63-A-112 Name: Youth Development Center Address: P.O. Box 3243 Winchester, Va 22604 Property I.D.#: 63 -A -110B � Mpy1993 P/C Review Date: 6/16/93 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #006-93 STONEWALL INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATION: North and adjacent of McGhee Road in existing Stonewall Industrial Park, west and adjacent to State Route 661. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 43-19-1 and the M-1 portion of 43-A-63 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned M1 (Light Industrial) Land Use - Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned M1 (Light Industrial), RA (Rural Areas), MH -1 (Mobile Home Community) - land use, residential, industrial and vacant. PROPOSED USE: Industrial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dent. of Transportation: No objection to preliminary master development plan. Before making any final comments this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, _Forth Edition for review. Before starting any construction on the State's right-of-way the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work. Fire Marshal: Will address fire lanes on site plans. Fire related issues will be addressed at time of site plans. Water volume in this area has been greatly improved with the Stonewall tank, however pressure could still be lacking to satisfy some sprinkler systems without a boost pump. Care should be taken when designing water system to minimize pressure loss. Sanitation Authoritv: No comment. County Engineer: See attached letter, from H. E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., to Tom Price, G. W. Clifford & Associates, dated May 17, 1993. City of Winchester: No comments. Planning &Zoning During the May 19, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant informally presented a proposal for a Master Development Plan for Stonewall Industrial Park. This discussion involved a 54 acre tract of land zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) that adjoined the existing industrial park. During formal review by staff, it was discovered that the applicant owned an additional 87 acres of land zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) that was also contiguous to the existing industrial park. The Zoning Ordinance requires all contiguous Land under the same ownership to be master planned simultaneously. Therefore, the applicant has resubmitted a Master Development Plan for Stonewall Industrial Park that comprises 141 acres. The revised plan proposes specific areas that will be used for new industrial sites. The applicant plans to provide an extension of Tyson Drive that will intersect with Welltown Road (Route 661), as well as an extension of water lines, sewer lines, and rail spurs that will serve this area. The applicant has indicated a full screen buffer of 100 feet that will provide separation and landscaping along all existing residential properties. The applicant will also provide a regional storm water management system that will serve this area. Staff concerns regard the proposed extension of Tyson Drive and project phasing. The proposed extension of Tyson Drive appears to traverse the full buffer area. Although this plan is general in nature, it should be understood that this new entrance way needs to be built outside of this buffer area if at all possible. The County Engineer believes that it would be beneficial for storm water management if the proposed entrance was relocated slightly to the south. VDOT will ultimately have to approve this new entrance and roadway. The applicant also needs to provide a phasing plan for this proposed area to satisfy ordinance requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 6/16/93 PC MTG.: Approval, provided that the applicant addresses all review agency comments, all staff comments, and all concerns and comments of the Planning Commission. May 17, 1993 Mr. Tom Price G. W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Preliminary Master Development Plan Stonewall Industrial Park Frederick County, Virginia Dear Tom: COUNTY of FREDERICK Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works 9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floor 703/665-5643 The Engineering Department has reviewed and recommends approval of the proposed preliminary master development plan related to the 54 acres located in the Stonewall Industrial Park. The proposed plan indicates a regional stormwater management facility within the proposed 54 acre development. We strongly support this approach to stormwater management and recommend that this facility be designed to accommodate, not only, proposed development, but also the existing development including Roadway Express, Wilson property, Red Star and others. We recommend that the design of the stormwater detention facility be based on a ratio of 75 percent total development and 25 percent open space. The existing soil conditions provide a "C" value of 0.2 when left in an undisturbed state. An average "C" value of 0.65 should be adopted for the existing development. This value should be viewed as a post -development value. A value of 0.2 should be assumed for pre -development. We are recommending that this existing development be included in the design of the regional stormwater management facility because of the condition of the existing detention ponds located on each isolated parcel. These small ponds have not been maintained and represent potential insect breeding areas. One (1) of these ponds has actually been breached rendering it totally ineffective for stormwater management. We will require that the regional facility be designed and constructed prior to approving any development in the proposed 54 Fax: 703/678-0682 - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22604 Mr. Tom Price Page Two May 17, 1993 acre master development plan. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above comments. HES:rls cc: Planning and Zoning file Sincerely, Harvey Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST Date: 2 June 1993 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Application # OWNER/APPLICANTS NAME: Lenoir City Company P.O. Box 117 Boyce Va 22620 Kenneth Gilpin, Jr - President Thomas T. Gilpin - Vice President (Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest) AGENT: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Inc. Address: 200 N. Cameron St, Winchester Va 22601 Phone Number: _(703) 667-2139 DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: same Contact Name: Tom Price PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided and to insure that all information is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the master development plan. All required items must be provided on the master development plan. Background Information: 1. Development's name: Stonewall Industrial Park 2. Location of property: North & Adjacent of McGhee Road in existing Stonewall Industrial Park, west & Adjacent to State Route 661. 3. Total area of property: 141.00 Acres ± 4. Property ID #: 43-19-1 43-A-63 5. Property zoning and present use: M-1 (Vacant) 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: M-1 (industrial & Vacant), RA (Residential & Vacant), RP (Residential & Vacant) & MH -1 (Mobile Home Park) 7. Proposed Uses: Industrial 8. Magisterial District: Stonewall 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original—X– Amended General Information: 1. Have the following items been included? North arrow Scale Legend Boundary Survey Total Area Topography Project Title Preparation and Revision Date Applicant Name Yes—X_ Total Area No Yes_X_ No Yes _X_ No Yes X_ No Yes—X– 0 No Yes—X_ Natural retention areas No Yes—X– - No Yes X No Yes -_X_ 0 No 2. Number of phases proposed? One 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes No–X- 4. oX4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes–X— No 5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. Yes—X– No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes–x— No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes—X_ No 8. Describe the following environmental features: Total Area % Disturbed Area in Open Space Floodplains p 0 0 Lakes and ponds 0 p 0 Natural retention areas 0 0 - Steep slopes (15% +) 0 p —0 0 Woodlands 0 0 0 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan? Street layout YeS_X_NO Entrances Yes_X_No Parking areas Yes No_X_ Utilities (mains) Yes_X_No 10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided? Ye s_X_No 11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes -No -X- Please list all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, to the rear, and in front (across the street) of the property in question. Please list the name, address, and most importantly, the complete 21 -digit property identification number. This information may be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue's office. Name: Walter S. & Betty A Wilson Address: 409 Superior Street Winchester Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 43-19-24 Name: James T. & Jessie S. Wilson Address: 559 Laurel Drive Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 43-19-20 Name: Roadway Express, Inc Address: P.O. Box 471 Attn: State Tax Property I.D.#: 43-19-39 Name: Robert M. Barlow & John D Wagoner Address: 100 Powers Court Sterling Va 29038 Property I.D.#: 43-19-23 Name: Toan & Associates LTD Partnership Address: 360-C McGhee Road Winchester Va 22603 Property I.D.#: 43-19-38 Name: K & J Investments Address: Rt. 8, Box 548 Winchester Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 43-A-56 Name: North Stephenson, Inc. Address: 1800 Martinsburg Pike Winchester Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 43-A-53 Name: Charles L. Kerns Address: 373 Welltown Road Winchester, Va 22603 Property I.D.#: 43-A-57 Name: Charles L. Merriner Address: 383 Welltown Road Winchester, Va 22603 Property I.D.#: 43-A-58 Name: Leota B. Carroll Address: HC -38, Box 1475 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 43-A-59 Name: Mary D. Haines Address: 137 Jessica Lane Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 43 -A -60C Name: Jo Ann Stokes Address: 187 Jessica Lane Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 43 -A -60B Name: Strother & Susan S. Stokes Address: 3500 Cedar Creek Grade Winchester, Va 22602 Property I.D.#: 43 -A -60A Name: Allen R. Knotts, Sr. Address: HC -33, Box 833 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 43-A-30 Name: Betty G. McKown Address: 223 Payne Rd. Clearbrook, Va 22624 Property I.D.#: 43-A-15 Name: Gladstone D. & Gloria J Crosen Address: 1891 Jessica Lane Winchester Va 22603 Property I.D.#: 43-A-61 Name: John N. & Lynda B Nicholson Address: Siler Rt. Box 565 Winchester Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 43-A-62 Name: Earl W. & Wendy Jo Wiley Address: 521 Welltown Rd Winchester Va 22603 Property I.D.#: 43B-7-7 Name: David L. Stultz, Jr Address: HC -38, Box 82 Winchester Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 43B -6-A 43B-5-1 Name: Timothy C. & Kathy L Muia Address: HC -38, Box 80 Winchester Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 43B -6-B Nom: Frederick E. Hildenbrand Address: HC -38, Box 83 Winchester Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 43B-5-2 Name: Paul J. & Peggy M Goode Address: 229 Accomack Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 43B-5-3 Name: Erma F. & Allen E. Coffman Address: 522 Welltown Rd Winchester, Va 22603 Property I.D.#: 43-A-91 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director .7 RE: Informal Discussion of Proposed UNIMIN Rezoning DATE: June 1, 1993 Attached you will find a letter addressed to Mr. Watkins from Mr. Douglas Swift confirming a request to be placed on your agenda for a discussion of a proposed rezoning by the UNIMIN Corporation for 211 acres of RA land near their existing mining operation at Gore. The intent would be to expand their sand mining and related support operations onto this land. Other materials include an impact analysis which discusses the area to be rezoned and the intended use. The information indicates that there is no plan for increased production associated with the rezoning. However the area proposed for rezoning runs along the eastern edge of Route 704 for roughly a mile. The potential for significant visual impacts from the mining operations will exist. KCT/slk attachments THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS 9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 LAW OFFICES SWIFT & BUCHBAUER, R C. 215 SHARP STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 DOUGLAS M. SWIFT, JR. POST OFFICE DRAWER 890 PETER W. BUCHBAUER JENNIFER R. SANTA BARBARA May 26, 1993 Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development P. 0. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22604 RE: UNIMIN CORPORATION - REZONING OUR FILE NUMBER: 93-0171 Dear Bob: AREA CODE 703 TELEPHONE 662-0003 MAY1 993 DECEIVED DEPT, OF PLANNING AND DEYMPMENT i This will confirm my telephone conversation with you on May 25 during the course of which I told you that UNIMIN Corporation is interested in being placed on the Agenda of the Frederick County Planning Commission meeting to be held on Wednesday evening, June 16 at 7:00 p. m. for the purpose of an informal review. The purpose of this letter is to confirm that request. I understand that Susan Armentrout, Senior Environmental Specialist for UNIMIN Corporation, left a package of materials at your office on May 25 for your review. You told me during our telephone conversation that you plan to send out the Agenda to the Planning Commission members on June 4. We will be furnishing you with fifteen (15) copies of an updated package on or before that date. In the meantime, please let me know if we can provide you with any additional information in conjunction with the informal review. Thanking you very much for your consideration in this matter, I remain Yours very sincerely, Dou wift, Jr. DMS:bj cc: Andrew G. Bradley, Senior Counsel UNIMIN Corporation Susan M. Armentrout, Senior Environmental Specialist UNIMIN Cornoratinn TO: FROM: HM I COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 Planning Commission Members Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director� Request for waiver of State Road Requirement in a Rural Subdivision DATE: June 4, 1993 Attached is a letter from Mr. Thomas Brubaker requesting time on your agenda to discuss a request for a waiver of section 144-31-B-(2) provided for in that same section of the subdivision ordinance. This section requires all roads within major rural subdivisions to be built to VDOT's Tertiary Street Standards. A major rural subdivision is any division in the RA zone of more than three lots. Among other things, tertiary street standards require a minimum right-of-way of fifty feet. Accompanying Mr. Brubaker's letter is a sketch which shows nine lots. Lots one through five (fronting on Cedar Creek Grade) were subdivided in 1989 and already have houses on them. Lot numbers three and four both utilize a thirty foot easement for access. Mr. Brubaker has stated that it was his intention, in 1989, to divide the twenty acres, shown on the sketch as lots six through nine, into four lots and provide them access via the existing right-of-way. This would have been permitted at that time, however, the revisions to our rural subdivision regulations, adopted in 1991, now require that the four lots (6,7, 8, and 9) be served by a tertiary street. Section 144-31-B-(2) also authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a waiver of tertiary street requirement, or more specifically to "... permit the extension of private roads within any subdivision to be built to standards consistent with existing roads within that subdivision." This provision was intended as a means of relief in cases where the development of a subdivision had begun prior to the amended regulations. It allows for the continuation of existing roads within a subdivision without upgrading roads already in existence. In this instance, Mr. Brubacker would be permitted to divide the twenty acres into three lots without upgrading the right-of-way. Given that a waiver of the tertiary street standards would result in only one additional lot utilizing the thirty foot right-of-way, the staff is not opposed to the granting of a waiver. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this matter. KCT/slk attachments 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Mr. Thomas G. Brubaker Banff Design, Inc. 3407 Cedar Creek Grade Winchester, VA 22602 June 2, 1993 Mr. Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Tierney: Pursuant to our conversation on May 21, 1993, I would like to meet with the Planning Commission on June 16 regarding the access to the 20 acre parcel on Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622). As I mentioned, the thirty foot right of way was designed to accommodate the existing ordinance and was approved on the 14th of August of 1989. As you know, the code has been changed since then requiring a 50' right of way. On August 14, 1989 the 20 acre tract was planned for future development into four 5 acre lots. See attached plats. Consideration has been given to all the boarding property owners, who at this time have no plans of future development. Not approving these four lots would create a tremendous hardship on both me and my company. It might be noted that I have gone to great lengths to remain sensitive to the surrounding area. The properties do have and will continue to have strict covenants and architectural restrictions benefitting not only the new owners but also all adjacent property owners and neighbors. I recognize that Cedar Creek Grade is a beautiful and historic route in our county. I fully intend to finish the development with slow careful attention to every detail. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Thomas G. Brubaker Enclosure u Q v N N rr W F - Q J 0 ACR. GENTRY r �I1 I 5.00 ACR i I I 1 1 2 � 3 0 F -LJ LWJ 1 5.00 ACR, 5.00 ACR 7 I 4 CEDAR CREEK GRADE DO' ITE 622 FURSTE:NAU SURVEY11- STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 DATE: MAY 27, 1993 SCALE: I" = 200' DWN. •Y: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 /665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II lq RE: Route 277 Corridor ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Proposal DATE: June 4, 1993 Enclosed is a narrative and general location map for an ISTEA Transportation Enhancement proposal for Frederick County. Transportation Enhancement activities are funded under the Surface Transportation Program (STP) of ISTEA. Each state is required to set aside ten percent (10%) of STP funds for enhancement proposals. It is estimated that Virginia will provide approximately seven (7) million dollars each year for enhancements throughout the life of this program. Staff will present this proposal and provide a detailed map of this planned area during the June 16, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Staff presented this proposal to the Joint Winchester/Frederick County Transportation Committee on June 1, 1993, and the Frederick County Transportation Committee on June 7, 1993. The application package for this funding source directs municipalities to provide official and civic support for all proposals. It would be very beneficial if this committee would endorse this proposal by resolution. Staff will present this proposal to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on July 14, 1993. Ultimate approval of the Board of Supervisors is necessary prior to project submittal to the state. Approval by the Board on July 14, 1993 will give staff adequate time to meet the Transportation Enhancement Project submittal deadline of August 1, 1993. EAW attachments 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 ISTEA TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL The following information has been compiled to provide details regarding a proposal for ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Funds: 11 Enhancement Activity Qualification. This particular proposal is for the creation of a bicycle/pedestrian facility near the Fairfax Pike (Route 277) Corridor. This qualifies as one (1) of the ten (10) project categories specified in the Transportation Enhancement Program. 2) Project Location and Description This facility will provide a networked connection between various high density residential subdivisions, the Sherando Park property on the north and south side of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), and the new Sherando High School. It is envisioned that this facility would be phased to provide future connections with high density residential subdivisions along Aylor Road (Route 647), Double Church Road (Route 641), Macedonia Church -Road (Route 642), Warrior Drive, and other public facilities such as Robert E. Aylor Middle School and Bass Hoover Elementary School. 31 Project Need. The Fairfax Pike (Route 277) Corridor has experienced significant growth over the last several years. This growth has accounted for an increase in residential use, as well as additional recreational amenities and public facilities. The Fairfax Pike (Route 277) Corridor has become a major attractor for this reason. The creation of a planned networked connection for various transportation modes would benefit the area included within Fairfax Pike (Route 277), Aylor Road (Route 647), Double Church Road (Route 641), and Macedonia Church Road (Route 642). It is desirable to separate vehicular traffic from that of pedestrian and bicycle traffic whenever possible. It is also prudent to plan for a facility along existing and planned rights-of-way when this separation of traffic is not possible. The creation of this type of facility would enhance safety, as well as provide for recreational and utilitarian uses. Players. The proposed facility would require cooperation between various groups. This particular phase will be created through the cooperation of the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department, the Frederick County School Board, and Dr. John E. McAllister. This partnership will provide a facility that will connect the Sherando Park facility, the new Sherando High School, and the residential subdivisions of Jefferson Village, the Village at Sherando single family development, Deer Run at Sherando, and the Village at Sherando townhouse development. Critical Areas. The proposed facility will traverse Fairfax Pike (Route 277) at the entrance to the new Sherando High School, and at the entrance to the new Sherando Park Softball Complex. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is installing a traffic light at the entrance to the new high school. Part of this proposal will require the installation of a box culvert under Fairfax Pike (Route 277). This box culvert has been discussed with VDOT in the past and is a feasible solution. 6) Project Funding. Two (2) funding sources will be applied for. The first funding source is the Recreational Access Fund. This is a 100% grant from the state and will be enough money to cover the construction costs associated with this facility throughout the Sherando Park properties on the north and south side of Fairfax Pike (Route 277). The second funding source will be the ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Program. This will provide 80% Federal Funds which will complete the connection throughout the referenced residential developments, the Sherando High School property, and the installation of the box culvert under Fairfax Pike (Route 277). It is anticipated that the local 20% match can be achieved through in-kind matches such as land grants, the provision of materials and services, and required residential improvements. D Phase I and Additional Phases. Phase I is proposed to serve an area of approximately 650 lots in planned residential subdivisions. This phase would traverse the Village at Sherando townhomes, Deer Run at Sherando, the Village at Sherando single family area, and Jefferson Village. Phase I would have a terminus that would be accessible to Georgetowne Court, and Fredericktowne Estates. Additional phases of this facility will be planned for approximately 3,000 additional lots in planned residential subdivisions. These phases will be planned over time and applied for throughout the annual application process. It is envisioned that a networked facility that will provide safe, efficient access for recreational and utilitarian uses can be created within this project area. B) Projected Cost - Phase I. The Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department has compiled information regarding the projected cost of Phase I. This cost projection considers the construction of a 100 foot tunnel under Fairfax Pike (Route 277), and a bike/pedestrian facility that is six (6) feet wide throughout the residential subdivisions, and eight (8) feet wide throughout the Sherando Park property, the Sherando High School property, and the VDOT right-of-way. The completion of the entire area defined as Phase I is estimated at $529,970. The Recreational Access Fund will provide $60,000 towards this project, leaving $469,970 that will be applied for through the ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Program. The Transportation Enhancement Program will provide 80% of this cost or $375,976. Frederick County would be responsible for the remaining 20% of this cost or $93,994. Frederick County will attempt to provide in-kind services that will equal the 20% match. 2B 72A 88 op) 82-79 - o`� E 229-171� 0 e�' N — • F H o c 2 81 M.. �. corn 332-343 752 '` • 111 N N ^, a, )^" A 103 • See 113 �, • 12 �� (V o ti N 139 a` \� 78 306 8098 10�^^? �...31I-312 I 141 43C J 141 z ''`,,. .� GENERAL LOCATION MAP • 0 PHASE I STUDY AREA 14a 79 143B 14 79A " /Z143 toAj 70 ti (F, / 202 A� IV y l� k0 Pts/ 213A71 / �iq \ SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN ISTEA ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL STUDY AREA Subdivisio 2t of Lots ALBIN VILLAGE FREDERICKTOWNE FREDERICKTOWNE ESTATES FREDERICK WOODS FREETON GEORGETOWNE COURT GREENBRIAR NORTH GREENBRIAR SOUTH GREENBRIAR VILLAGE JEFFERSON VILLAGE LAKESIDE NOTTOWAY PLYMN O WENS THE PINES THE VILLAGE AT SHERANDO WAKELAND MANOR TOTAL LOTS IN ISTEA STUDY AREA: 3,669 TOTAL LOTS IN PHASE I: 642 220 403 113 92 18 83 8 18 351 52 992 222 56 242 172 627 -------------------- Bikeway Sherando High School (Culdesac/Warrior Drive) to Fairfax Pike 1,000 L.F. @ $15.71/L.F. $15,710 Subdivisions Georgetown Court, Jefferson Village, Village at Sherando 5,410 L.F. @ $15.71/L.F. $85,000 Sherando Park Bike Lane 6,000 L.F. @ $15.71/L.F. $94,260 Tunnel 100 L.F. (Based on Actual Construction Cost) $335,000 Sherando Hirth School School Property (Park Roadway to Warrior Drive) Paint lines on existing interior roadway 1,525 L.F. No Cost Approximately 13,935 L.F. 2.64 miles A, RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER Chairman Frederick County P. O. Box 601 9 Court Square Winchester, VA COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 May 20, 1993 Board of Supervisors 22601 EARL C. COCHRAN, JR. STATE LOCATION AND DESIGN ENGINEER Appalachian Corridor H Fed. Proj: APD -484 (59) City of Winchester/ Town of Strasburg Frederick and Shenandoah Counties Fr: Elkins, West Virginia To: Interstate Route 81 (in Virginia) I would like to take this opportunity to advise that the Commonwealth Transportation Board of Virginia at its meeting today endorsed a resolution to advance the Corridor H project to a Tier II study along the Southern Corridor with the following conditions: 1. The endorsement does not constitute approval or a commitment on the part of the Commonwealth to any subsequent approval or construction of any project in Virginia, but directs the factual data necessary for analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of this project to the Commonwealth and its citizens. 2. The Board directed that all alternative funding mechanisms be explored in order to avoid expenditure of Virginia and Staunton :District transportation resources. 3. The Tier II study of the Southern Corridor would be conducted at no cost to the Commonwealth. 4. The study will evaluate alternative improvements to existing highways which might satisfy the objectives of the Corridor H program without requiring construction of a new highway. 5. The study will seek to develop alternatives that would facilitate designs of the highway in keeping with the broad COPY TO.. - .,_,,J G D _V:'HS_CVIIO_ RMS plis _ LL STAFF COPY DATC: �� 1 2 TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY IGINAL. FA.L Chairman Frederick County Board of Supervisors Page 2 community goals to develop the region as a tourist and visitor attraction. 6. The Board directed that all alternatives be explored to achieve the goals expressed above, although it is the sense of the Board that in order to achieve such goals and accommodate desired traffic the alignment and ultimate design of the highway should be more parkway in character, in preference to a traditional four lane interstate or arterial standard facility. 7. The Department is directed to work with the local governments in the region to establish an appropriate advisory committee to participate in the Tier II study in pursuit of the above resolves. Sincerely, C � E. C. Cochran, Jr., P.E. State Location & Design Engineer 0 X40 /' June 9, 1993 Dear Jim: Listed below are the citizen members appointed to both subcommittees. Call if you have any questions. Susie COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS David W. Ganse Jay S. Banks George B. Hughes Robert Oliver Back Creek District Stonewall District Gainesboro District Opequon District DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND REGULATIONS John R. Krueger Shawnee District Norma Jean Shaw Opequon District