The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 02-05-92 Meeting Agenda.a ,. ..,..._ AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia February 5, 1992 7.00 P. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Election of Planning Commission Vice Chairman .................... A 2) Meeting Minutes - December 4, 1991 and December 18, 1991 ........... B 3) Monthly and Bimonthly Reports ............................... C 4) Committee Reports ......................................... D 5) Citizens Comments .......................................... E 6) Revised Master Development Plan #004-91 of Wakeland Manor for single family detached houses and multi -family dwellings. This property is located north of Route 642, Macedonia Church Road, in the Shawnee District. (Mr. Tierney) ........................................ F PUBLIC HE, 7) Conditional Use Permit #001-92 of Kim A. Nail for retail sales of archery equipment (cottage occupation). This property is located off of 522 North, past the Back Creek Bridge, in the Gainesboro District. (Mr. Miller) .............................................. G 6 8) Conditional Use Permit #002-92 of Kim A. Nail for an off premise sign. This property is located off of 522 North, past the Back Creek Bridge, in the Gainesboro District. (Mr. Miller) ............................... H 9) Conditional Use Permit #003-92 of John C. Mayhew for gun sales and repairs (cottage occupation). This property is located off of Route 50 West on Route 259 in the Back Creek District. (Mr. Miller) .................. I OTHER 10) 1991 Annual Report (attachment) ............................... J 11) Professor Warren Hofstra, Shenandoah University, to discuss an update of of the archaeological survey. (attachment) ........................ K 12) Other. (attachment) .......................................... L MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on December 4, 1991. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were.• James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; Beverly Sherwood, Vice Chairman; Manual C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; John Marker, Back Creek District; Carl M. McDonald, Gainesboro District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Citizen at Large; Todd D. Shenk, Citizen at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Citizen at Large; and James Barnett, City Liaison. Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Francis D. Stanley, Planner I. ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Kenneth Y. Stiles, Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. McDonald, the minutes of November 6, 1991 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee Mrs. Sherwood said that the first public meeting on the Comprehensive Plan was held on December 3. She said that discussion centered on transportation and rural issues. 2 Capital Improvements Plan Subcommittee Mr. Romine reported that the Subcommittee met with the School Board to discuss school needs. He said that the next meeting will be December 16. SUBDIVISIONS Subdivision Application of Coventry Court for 38 single-family homes to be located on Route 656, north of the intersection of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road, in the Shawnee District. This property is identified by GPIN #55000020000185. Action - Approved Mr. Miller read the background information, agency review comments, and staff recommendations. Mr. Miller clarified that the staff is recommending that Farmington Boulevard be constructed only to the property line and not past the boundaries of this property, to connect to the Abrams Point property. Mr. Edward W. Dove, President of Dove & Associates, the engineers for this subdivision, said that the main issue involved with this development was the need for a road connection to Abrams Point and out to Greenwood Road. Mr. Dove anticipated that the cost of constructing the road (Farmington Boulevard) would be high because of the required grading and culverts, and he felt that construction needed to be coordinated between Coventry Court and Abrams Point. Mr. Dove asked that they be permitted to phase their plan so that development could proceed and revenue could be acquired to offset the cost of constructing the road. He said that in order to accomplish this, they have created a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Farmington Boulevard and have included two separate sets of stormwater calculations on the plan --one for Phases II and III and one for Phase I, which includes the extension of Farmington Boulevard. Mr. Dove said that the applicant is agreeable to submitting grading and site plans only for lots 19, 25, 26, 27, and 38, since the buildability of those lots were in question. Mr. Dove was not in favor of doing grading and site plans for all of the lots suggested by the Planning Staff. Mr. Dove also felt it was not reasonable to ask that the entire Farmington Boulevard be bonded before any work was done on the site. He felt it was reasonable to bond the road in sections, according to the phases built. He asked that the development be bonded section by section and that stormwater management be required section by section. 3 Chairman Golladay stated that he would not be in favor of approving any lots that may have water problems without a grading/site plan. Mrs. Elaine Longerbeam, one of the owners of Coventry Courts, felt that the Abrams Point developers were unwilling to participate in the construction of the connecting road at this time. She felt it was unfair for the county to base approval of the Coventry Courts subdivision on the completion of the connecting road. Mrs. Longerbeam felt that each property owner should be required to bond Farmington Boulevard to their own property line. Mrs. Longerbeam also felt it was unreasonable to require grading and site plans for any additional lots other than those originally cited by Mr. Strawsnyder, the County Engineer, in his letter of November 1, 1991 to Dove & Associates. Mr. Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Engineering for Frederick County, carne forward to address the stormwater issue. Mr. Strawsnyder said that approval the original plan relied on the construction of culverts and an embankment for stormwater management for Section I. He said that because this stormwater management plan relied on connection to the Abrams Point property, the Coventry Courts developers elected to abandon that approach in favor of a modified stormwater management plan for Sections II and III. Mr. Strawsnyder said that he reviewed and approved the calculations submitted. Mr. Dove said that to complicate matters further, a non -vacated residence was located on the Abrams Point property and had a prescriptive easement that ran directly through the proposed stormwater detention culverts. Mr. Charles Maddox, Jr., the engineer for the Abrams Point property, said that they revised their master plan (Abrams Point) to reflect the road connection as suggested by the Planning Commission and Board. Mr. Maddox said that they acknowledge that the road can be built and are not against building the road. Mr. Maddox noted that the connection would result in zero impact problems as far as Abrams Point was concerned. The Commission realized that the construction of Farmington Blvd would be an expensive endeavor, however, its construction was previously agreed to by all the parties involved at the time of master plan approval. Commissioners also felt that because a major portion of the development was in areas of steep slopes and there was also a high potential for stormwater drainage problems, that individual site plans were needed for the lots indicated by the staff. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve the subdivision application of Coventry Courts for 38 single-family lots on 14.5239 acres with the following conditions and/or requirements being complied with prior to final plat approval: 4 1. All review agency comments must be adequately addressed. 2. The developer must commit to installation of the culverts in the Farmington Boulevard extended area and construction of the stormwater detention facility in this area. 3. The developer must provide information to prove that lots 24, 25, 26, and 38 are buildable lots. 4. The developer must submit individual lot site/grading plans for lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 177 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 38. If lots that are required to have individual site plans are sold to other builders, the developer will be responsible for providing the new owner with the site/grading plan. 5. This entire project will be bonded prior to final plat approval. Bonding will cover the Farmington Boulevard extension and culvert installation. Subdivision Application of Senseny Glen for 161 lots on 67.85 acres zoned RP and located north and adjacent to Senseny Road and east and adjacent to Apple Ridge Subdivision in the Shawnee District. This property is identified with GPIN #650000A0000041 and #650000A0000048. Action - Approved Mr. Miller read the background information, review agency comments, and the staff recommendations. Staff recommendations were for approval on the condition that all review agency comments be addressed prior to approval of final plats. Mr. Ron Mislowsky of G. W. Clifford & Associates, the engineers for the project, presented the subdivision to the Commission. The Commission discussed the fact that stormwater detention facility #2 overlays a major portion of Lot 93 and is also located in an area of a possible street connection to property to the east. They questioned whether or not Lot 93 was buildable. Mr. Mislowsky said that it was their position that lot 93 would not be built on until the pond was moved and the road put in. Mr. Mislowsky said that they felt Lot 93 would require a site plan. He added that they would submit individual site plans for all the lots suggested by the county engineer, plus any additional lots that the county engineer felt was necessary. Mr. Romine moved for approval with the condition that all review agency comments be addressed and that the useability of Lot 93 be resolved prior to approval of final 5 plats. This motion was seconded by Mr. McDonald and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve the subdivision application of Senseny Glen for 161 single-family detached urban lots on 67.85 acres, zoned RP, with the condition that all review agency comments be addressed and that the useability of Lot 93 be resolved prior to approval of final plats. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #012-91 of Roger and Betty DeHaven for a Cottage Occupation for a well -drilling operation to be located on Route 682 in the Gainesboro District. This property is identified by GPIN #210000A0000037. Action - Approved Mr. Miller said that the DeHavens currently operate their business from a location along Route 522 North, just north of Hogue Creek. He said that Mr. DeHaven's father started the well -drilling business many years ago and it has continued to operate as a legal, nonconforming business. He said that the DeHavens now wish to move the business to their farm located off Route 682. Mr. Miller said that it was the staff's opinion that this would be an acceptable location for this business. Both Roger and Betty DeHaven were present to answer questions from the Commission. Mrs. DeHaven said that their property consists of 75 acres and is not a densely populated area. She said that they have complied with all requests that have been made of them from the reviewing agencies. There were no public comments Upon motion by Mr. McDonald and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #012-91 of Roger L. and Betty S. DeHaven for a Cottage Occupation for a well -drilling business with the following conditions: This permit will be reviewed and renewed annually. 2. If the business is to expand or additional employees are hired, a new conditional use permit will be required. A Conditional Use Permit #013-91 of Dick Ballenger for an off -premise sign to be located on Route 522 North in the Gainesboro District. This property is identified by GPM #110000A10000051. Action - Approved Mr. Miller said that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for an off - premise business sign to advertise the business of Ballenger's Cash and Carry. Mr. Dick Ballenger was present to answer questions from the Commission. There were no public comments. Upon motion by Mr. McDonald and seconded by Mrs. Sherwood, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #013-91 of Dick Ballenger for an off -premise sign with the following conditions: 1. The sign must meet the requirements of height, size, spacing, and setbacks as they are listed in the zoning ordinance. 2. The sign must meet the requirements established by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Conditional Use Permit #014-91 of Robert and Mary Turben for a Cottage Occupation for a locksmith business to be located on Purcell Drive in the Stonewall District. This property is identified by GPIN #53A000A0000840 and. #53A000A0000850. Action - Approved Mr. Miller said that the applicant's locksmith business has been in existence since September of 1991 and currently has two on -premise business signs. He said that the applicants have stated that they will be receiving assistance from the Federal Government in the form of equipment upon approval of this permit. Robert J. and Mary F. Turben were present to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Turben said that the government will purchase a small key -cutting machine for him to cut keys by code and some code books. Mr. Turben said that before he could acquire the government contract, he had to have a county permit to operate. Mr. Turben added that he has off-street parking for his business. There were no public comments. Upon motion by Mr. McDonald and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #014-91 of Robert J. and Mary F. Turben for a Cottage Occupation for a locksmith business with the following conditions: 1. This permit will be reviewed and renewed annually. 2. An increase in the intensity of the use or expansion of the facility for the use will require a new conditional use permit. 3. Existing on -premise business signs must comply to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 4. No vehicle shall await service longer than twenty four (24) hours. 5. No more than two vehicles awaiting service shall be allowed on the premises at a time. Rezoning Application #009-91 of Alson and Margarette Smith to rezone 0.965 acres from B2 (Business General) to RP (Residential Performance) for a single-family dwelling. This property is identified by GPIN #420000A000195A and is located on the north side of Fox Drive, adjacent to Fox Ridge Subdivision, in the Gainesboro District. Action - Approved Mr. Watkins said that the site was steep and not well suited for commercial development. He said that the only existing access is on an easement from Fox Drive and there is no direct access to a state -maintained road. Mr. Scott Marsh, an engineer with G. W. Clifford & Associates, was representing this application. There were no public comments. Upon motion by Mr. McDonald and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #009-91 of Alson H. and Margarette M. Smith to rezone 0.965 acres from B2 (Business General) to RP (Residential Performance) for a single- family dwelling. K OTHER Letter Received From the Industrial Parks Association of Winchester -Frederick County Mr. Watkins presented a letter from C. Douglas Adams of the Industrial Parks Association to both the City and County governments concerning the repair and maintenance of the entrances to the City and beautification by individual businesses along roadways. Mr. McDonald, Liaison to the Economic Development Commission, said that this subject has been discussed at recent EDC meetings. Route 37 Meeting and Bus Tour Mr. Watkins said that there will be a meeting at 10:00 a.m. on December 17, 1991 regarding Route 37, which will be with State and Federal Resource Agencies. Mr. Watkins said that this is one of the main "kick-off" meetings for the Route 37 study to get key agencies involved. He said that a bus tour will follow the meeting. Mr. Watkins extended an invitation for anyone wishing to attend. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. by unanimous vote. 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 December 18, 1991. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; Beverly Sherwood, Vice Chairman; Carl M. McDonald, Gainesboro District; Manual C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; John Marker, Back Creek District; Todd D. Shenk, Citizen at Large; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; and Roger L. Thomas, Citizen at Large; and Kenneth Y. Stiles, Board Liaison. ABSENT, S.. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Citizen at Large. Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary and Planning Director; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director; and Lanny C. Bise, III, Planner I_ CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MONTHLY AND BIMONTHLY REPORTS Chairman Golladay accepted the reports for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Capital Impri—ovements Plan Subcommittee - 12/16/91 Mr. Romine reported that the CIP Committee interviewed Mrs. Marianne Roos with the Handley Library and Mr. James Doran, Director of the Parks and Recreation Department to determine their CIP needs. He said that the completed CIP package should be ready in January. 2 Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee Mrs. Sherwood said that another public meeting was held. Mr. Watkins said that the citizen comments gathered at all the meetings will be submitted to the Committee. Route 37 Field Trip - 12/17/91 Mr. Romine said that a very interesting and informative field trip was held concerning the Route 37 area. Those persons on the tour viewed the area, where the residential areas were, and where roads are and need to be. He said that it set the stage for further investigation. Economic Development Commission - 12/5/91 Meeting Mr. McDonald reported that Mrs. Helm, the mayor of Winchester, was in attendance and her main topic of discussion was historical sites and battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley. He said that the Winchester -Frederick County area would like to have the historical center for the introduction of the northern Shenandoah Valley located in this area. Expiration of Terms for Commission Members Chairman Golladay stated that the Commission will be losing several members at the end of the year --Mr. McDonald and Mr. DeHaven are not seeking re -appointment, Mrs. Sherwood will be moving to the Board of Supervisors, and Mr. Stiles term will expire. Chairman Golladay thanked everyone, on behalf of the Commission, for their effort, insight, and work that goes along with being a member of the Planning Commission. ADJOURNED TO A WORKSESSION - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL FOR REZONINGS The Commission unanimously voted to adjourn to a worksession at 7:30 p.m. The topic of discussion was the development of a methodology and a computer model for Frederick County which measures the impact of rezonings on the costs of capital facilities. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman MONTHLY REPORT Zoning Comparison of Individual Monthly Totals December 1993 Total December 1990 Total 1989 31988 1987 198 8 o a WWw 0 w �a cW WW U W 0 H0 0 P a W ZE-4 to 8 EH H H. H H 9 EA m � tt� a � � 0 � x 4 tD E � j H �E1--, O U C7 U1 PQ En p O O O O p " U U U U O TOTAL PERMITS AP- U U PROVED FOR ZONING 50 12 9 20 14 105 13 14 16 19 19 81 70 98 117 100 553 1. Multi -family 34 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 1 5 6 80 15 15 0 2. Single-family dwellings 6 4 2 11 4 27 4 4 4 8 4 24 28 42 38 31 22 3. Mobile itomes 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 .2 1 1 1 5 2 9. 5 19 7 - New Units 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 - Replacements 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 0 6 2 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 3. 3 7 4. Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0T22 0 0 0 2 5. Commercial b 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 15 3 2 5 6. Miscellaneous 9 8 7 9 9 42 8 7 10 9 8 32 56 33 17 PERMITS - County Total 400 300 a 200 I ' 100 I i 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1 89 1990 1 91 TC�^'�L - COUNTY - ''ESIDENTIAL — — -- - —.• — - MOBILE HOMES FOR Cu-.4TY --__ _-- - COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL � ABINED) MONTHLY REPORT Zoning 1612:1-121-12 Comparison of Accumulative Monthly Totals Total -2. 1991 Total Jan - Dec 1990 PROVED FOR ZONING r9 ooff U U pHp H 0 U H 0 U H U H 1911 1899 1975 2016 O a W 262 H 282,211_353.429 a a W 1566 299 (� 285 pt 483 1. Multi -family 41 17 z 39 HW1 148 0 8 147 W� o 2. 01V 0 U) CQ x 93 27 21 w 2 6 1n :.1132 50 148 U) 45 p TOTAL PERMITS AP- 1612:1-121-12 1-12 Total 8 7_88/87 PROVED FOR ZONING r9 ooff U U pHp H 0 U H 0 U H U H 1911 1899 1975 2016 1340 1445 262 291 282,211_353.429 242 53 1566 299 306 285 538 483 1. Multi -family 41 17 0 39 51 148 0 8 0 147 107 2. Single-family 74 93 27 21 0 2 6 dwellings :.1132 50 148 1.00 45 ' 43 898 788 "767 T858 F613 78 43 62 143 59 385 93 61 73 163 69 3. Mobile Homes 29 38 15 2 21 105 19 41 13 17 43 - New Units 19 15 11 2 14 61 18 - Replacements 10 23 4 0 7 44 l 30 0 12 3T- 4. Industrial 1 17 0 3 1 22 0 17 3 3 4 5. Commercial 8 6 5 8 5 32 25 32 30 24 21 6. Miscellaneous 134 161 129 158'292 874 162 147 166 184 239 PERMITS - County Total 2200 1612:1-121-12 1-12 Total 8 7_88/87 OH E+N U U r9 ooff U U pHp H 0 U H 0 U H U H 1911 1899 1975 2016 1340 1445 262 238 244 242 53 209 459 682 661 642 463 ,'409 133 120 155 172 160 131 74 93 27 21 0 2 6 29 :.1132 50 148 1.00 45 ' 43 898 788 "767 T858 F613 624 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report DATE: January 23, 1992 (1) Rezonin s Pending: dates are submittal dates (Shaw) church Winc. Warehousing 9/05/90 Twin Lakes 4/04/90 (Shaw) (RA to B2/RP) (Ston) Marshall Williams 3/12/91 (Shaw) (RA to M2) S.F. & T.H. Zuckerman Co. 12/04/91 (Ston) (Ml to M2) (2) Rezonings Approved: (dates are BOS approval dates) Youth Development Ctr. 09/11/91 (Shaw) None (3) Conditional Use Permits Pending: dates are submittal dates (Opeq) Church Kim Nail 1/07/92 Gaines Retail Sales- -Archery Equipment Kim Nail 1/07/92 Gaines Off Premise Sign John Mayhew 1/14/92 Bk Ck Gun sales & repairs (4) Conditional Use Permits Approved: dates are approval dates None (5) Site Plans Pending: dates are submittal dates Wheatlands Wastewater Fac. 9/12/89 (Opeq) trmt.facil Grace Brethren Church 6/08/90 (Shaw) church Winc. Warehousing 9/05/90 (Ston) warehouse 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 Lanes 05/24/91 (Ston) Whse. Addition Youth Development Ctr. 09/11/91 (Shaw) Youth meeting facilities Valley Bible Church 11/25/91 (Opeq) Church 2 Sherando Softball Complex 12/31/91 (Opeq) Softball fields Dr. Thomas Gromling 01/03/92 (Opeq) Medical Ofc. Addition Hershey Pasta Group 01/13/92 (Ston) Pasta Production Facility (6) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval dates) None (7) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates) J.I.C. Ltd. 12/24/91 Shawnee (8) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin.Approval: (Pic approval dates Abrams Point, Phase I Frederick Woods Hampton Chase Lake Centre Hershey Property Fredericktowne Est. (sections 5, 6 and 7) Covenrty Courts Senseny Glen 6/13/90 Shawnee 5/16/90 Opequon 02/27/91 Stonwall 06/19/91 Shawnee 10/02/91 Stonewall 10/16/91 Opequon 12/04/91 Shawnee 12/04/91 Shawnee (9) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Wakeland Manor (revised) 06/05/91 (Shaw) (10) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: (dates are BOB approval dates Brookland Est. Abrams Pt. 6/13/90 Shaw (11) FMDP Administ. Approved (dates are admin. approval dates) Henry Business Park 1/17/92 Stonewall (12) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pending:(submit. dates) None 3 (13) BZA Applications Approved• (approval dates) Mark Kneeland 1/21/92 BkCk 27' rear (house) (14) BZA Applications Denied• None (15) PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER None P/C review date: 07/17/91 P/C review date: 09/04/91 P/C review date: 02/05/92 REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #004-91 WARELAND MANOR LOCATION: North of Route 642 - Macedonia Church Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-100 and 75-A-101 PROPERTY ZONING: RP (Residential Performance) ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING AND USE: R -A (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance), Uses - Agricultural and Residential PROPOSED USES: Single family detached houses and multi -family REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Va. Dept. of Transportation: No objection to preliminary master plan. However, it appears minimum sight distance at the proposed Golladay Road intersection cannot be obtained without major reconstruction of Route 642. 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, IV 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: Fire lanes will be required in areas where parking is allowed near fire hydrants per Frederick County Chapter 10. Any ponds or storm water management ponds that have a _near round surface of water should have fire lanes, complying with'Chapter 10, leading to waters edge. 1) Fire protection items will be addressed on site plans as each phase progresses. 2) Access during construction is required at all times. 3) Provide temporary street signs to facilitate fire and rescue crews in locating addresses. Page --2- Wakeland Manor MDP Parks & Recreation: See attached letter to Rex Wakeman dated May 16, 1991. Inspections Dept.: Buildings shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1990 Edition) and section 309 - Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code 1990. Sanitation Authority:_ Approved. Countv Engineer: See attached memo dated August 23, 1991. Planning & Development: BACKGROUND A MDP for this site was first submitted on May 1, 1989. On August 9, 1989 the Board of Supervisors approved phase one of the MDP with the condition that the plan be revised to show a major north -south collector road in conformance with the area transportation plan, and that no subdivision of the property outside of this phase would be approved prior to the MDP revision. A second MDP was submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 4, 1991. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this version of the plan to the Board of Supervisors. The version of the plan being considered now has been revised in response to staff, review agency and Planning Commission comments. DENSITY The MDP proposes a total of 527 units on 298 acres for an overall density of 2.1 units per acre. Two hundred and nineteen of these units will be townhouses with the remaining 408 units being single family traditional lots. This is in conformance with the RP'zoning of the property. PLAN REQUIREMENTS The plan indicates 18% openspace which exceeds the 150 = required by the Zoning Ordinance for developments containing a mix of single family and multi --family units. Environmental features have been located and the amount to be disturbed falls -within the limits established by the Ordinance. The location of required buffering has been shown and a notation indicating that buffers will conform to ordinance requirements. Proposed phasing has been indicated although, phase ten is not labeled. NORTH -SOUTH COLLECTOR ROAD A north -south collector road has been provided with internal connections to minor residential streets within . the development. The applicant has proposed phased construction of the north -south collector road, to correspond with subdivision of various phases of the development itself. The staff supports the idea of phased construction as laid out in a letter dated January 7, 1992 from H. Edmunds Coleman (attached) , however, the information in the letter needs to be placed on the plan itself and item number (5) on page three of the letter should be deleted. This item implies that the construction of the road will be the responsibility of some entity other than the applicant. While it may be that actual construction of the road is done by a subsequent owner or developer of the property, in no event will the County under take construction of the road. It is also difficult to envision a set of circumstances which would lead to VDOT constructing the road. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PJC MTG. OF 2/5/92 Approval contingent upon the staff comments listed above along with all review agency comments being satisfactorily addressed including Parks and Recreation and the County Engineer. COUNTY of FREDERICK Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Engineering & General Services 703/665-5643 FAX: 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Kris Tierney, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Harvey E. .•,snyder, Jr., P.E., Director tj, .,g , 'eer , ng SUBJECT:. Review of Wakeland Manor Stormwater Calculations DATE: August 23, 1991 ------------------------------------------------------------- I have completed my review of the stormwater calculations submitted with the revised Wakeland Manor Master Development Plan. It should be noted that these calculations were limited to an evaluation of the drainage channel required to convey stormwater runoff parallel to the proposed Golladay Drive. To my knowledge, no effort has been made to evaluate the stormwater management requirements within the proposed development. I learned that the calculations were prepared by Mr. Robert Koirtyohann who is currently employed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The methods of analyses employed by Mr. Koirtyohann are accepted procedures in evaluating stormwater and related conveyance sections. Generally, I agree with the trapezoidal section recommended by the analysis for a ten (10) year storm. However, I have the following comments. 1. The analysis does not make any .allowances for future development within the upstream area. E. A runoff coefficient of 0.5 was adopted for open .areas within the drainage area. This value is - somewhat conservative, but is satisfactory for this particular analysis. However, for future evaluation of post development and stormwater management, it is recommended that a runoff .coefficient of 0.35 be adopted for pre—development open areas. Kris Tierney Page Two August 23, 1991 3. The analysis has adopted a rainfall intensity of 1.2 inch per hour for a ten (10) year storm with a time of concentration of 71 minutes. The time of concentration was based on a channel flow distance of 9,500 feet and overland flow of 1,000 feet. It should be emphasized that the Soil Conservation Service design guide TR -55 only allows a maximum sheet flow or overland flow distance of 300 feet. The remaining flow should be calculated as concentrated ditch flow. This procedure would result in a somewhat lower time of concentration. For this analysis, I recommend that a 60 minute ten (10) year storm be adopted with a rainfall intensity of 1.9 inch per hour. 4. The resulting velocity determined by the analysis* for the trapezoidal channel section will only require a vegetative cover to control erosion. 5. It is difficult to determine from the 1" = 200' master plan if the road and proposed channel can be adequately constructed within the existing drainage Swale. I understand that G.W. Clifford and Associates has been engaged to determine if the proposed road alignment can be constructed to satisfactorily accommodate the drainage channel and an existing sanitary sewer. Obviously, the proposed drainage channel cannot be constructed in its entirety within the proposed road right-of-way. If this alignment is approved, I suggest that a drainage easement at least 30 feet in width be dedicated in addition to the required road right-of-way. HES:rls cc file COUNTY of FREDERICK Parks and Recreation Departmeni James M. Doran, Director 703/665-5678 - FAX: 703/667-037( 199 May 16, 1991 Mr. Rex Wakeman Route 2, Box 58A Stephens City, VA 22655 Dear Rex: Please be advised that, after receiving a clarification from David Furstenau, the 13.2 acres referenced in this department's May 14, 1991 comment sheet must be revised. Comments for Wakeland Manor from the Parks and Recreation Department should now read as follows: Plan appears to meet open space requirements. However, because 28.85 acres of the open space consist of land intermingled with steep slopes and lay along both sides of a future major collector (Golladay Drive), I am not sure that the intent of the open space regulations have been met. Ideally, the dedicated open space would have several potential uses for the development's residents. The 28.85 acres of usable open space along Golladay Drive appear to provide very few opportunities other than acting as a buffer for the lots along Golladay Drive. Sincerely, i James M. Doran Director JMD/sjm cc: Kris Tierney, Assistant Director Frederick County Planning Department L w OFFICES KUYKENDALL, JOHNSTON, COLEMAN & 208 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET POST OFFICE BOX 2760 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601-1960 J. SLOAN KUYKENDALL GEORGE W. JOHNSTON, III H. EDMUNDS COLEMAN, III J. SLOAN KUYKENDALL, III January 7, 1992 HAND -DELIVERED Kris C. Tierney Deputy Planning Director Department of Planning & Development The Courthouse Commons 9 N. Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Fri _7 1(c ; ji l IV V2 f� TELEPHONE (703) 667-4644 FAX (703) 667-2769 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. BOX 2760 Re: Wakeland Manor - Revised Preliminary Master Development Plan Dear Kris: Pursuant to your review of the revised Preliminary Master Development Plan of Wakeland Manor (revision date 11/20/91), seventeen copies of which were sent to you under cover of my letter dated January 3, 1992, Rex Wakeman proposes the following plan for construction of Future Golladay Road consistent with the phased development of the Property: (1) Wakeman shall reserve a right-of-way for the future extension of Golladay Road through the Property, which right-of-way shall be 60 feet in width and shall be located as shown on the revised Preliminary Master Development Plan.(revision date 11/20/91) prepared by David M. Furstenau, L.S., subject, however, to such realignment as may be deemed necessary by final and detailed engineering of the Property. (2) Coincident with the phased development of the Property (as described hereinafter), Wakeman shall dedicate portions of the 60 foot wide right-of-way to the County and shall construct twenty-two (22) feet of pavement (i.e., two lanes), with appropriate shoulders, with base and surface coating requirements as shall be determined by the.Virginia Department of Transportation, with Golladay Road being a two-lane minor collector road. Development contemplated for the Property shall have the right of access onto Golladay Road, as the same is to be constructed through the Property, in accordance with the entrances shown on the revised Preliminary Master Development Plan (revision date 11/20/91), being two entrances from the west (Craig Drive Extended and proposed Vincent Drive) and two entrances from the east (Craig Drive Extended and an unnamed proposed road); these entrance roads shall be constructed with twenty-two (22) feet of pavement (i.e., two Kris C. Tierney January 7, 1992 Page 2 -lanes), with appropriate shoulders, in compliance with subdivision road base and surface requirements. (3) Development of the Property shall be in phases as reflected on the revised Preliminary Master Development Plan (revision date 11/20/91), and dedication and construction of future Golladay Road and the access/entrance roads shall be as follows: (a) Upon commencement of development of Phase 4, Wakeman shall dedicate and construct that portion of Golladay Road beginning in the south at Route 642 and running generally north to the intersection with proposed Craig -Drive Extended, and Wakeman shall dedicate and construct that portion of proposed Craig Drive Extended running from the proposed intersection with future Golladay Road in a generally eastward direction to the proposed intersection of Craig Drive Extended and the 50' Right - of -Way (which right-of-way intersects Route 642); (b) Upon commencement of development of Phase 5, Wakeman shall dedicate and construct that portion of -proposed Craig Drive Extended beginning in the west at the boundary/phase line of Phase 1 and Phase 5 and running in a generally easterly direction to the proposed intersection with Golladay Road; (c) Upon commencement of development of Phase 12, Wakeman shall dedicate and construct that portion of Golladay Road beginning in the south at the Golladay Road -- Craig Drive intersection and running in a generally northerly direction to the proposed intersection of Vincent Drive and Golladay Road, and Wakeman shall dedicate and construct that portion of proposed Vincent Drive beginning in the west at the boundary/phase line between Phase 1 and Phase 12 and running in a generally easterly direction to the proposed intersection with Golladay Road; (d) Upon commencement of development of Phase 13, Wakeman shall dedicate and construct Golladay Road beginning in the south at the intersection of Vincent Drive and Golladay Road and running in a generally northerly direction to the proposed intersection of Golladay Road and the unnamed road providing entrance onto Golladay Road on the east side of Golladay Road, and Wakeman shall dedicate and construct the unnamed road from the intersection of said road with Golladay Road in a ---- generally easterly direction to the boundary/phase line of Phase 10 and Phase 13; Kris C. Tierney January 7, 1992 Page 3 (e) Upon the commencement of development of Phase 14, Wakeman shall dedicate and construct Golladay Road from the location identified in (d) immediately above, and running in a generally northerly direction to the boundary/phase line of Phase 14 and Phase 15; and (f) Upon commencement of development of Phase 15, Wakeman shall dedicate and construct Golladay Road beginning from the location described in (e) immediately above and running in a generally northerly direction to the boundary of the Property where Golladay Road would depart the Property. (4) In the course of the phased development of the Property, Wakeman shall be responsible for the dedication and construction of Golladay Road only as described in Paragraph (2) herein and only in conjunction and contemporaneous with the phased development as described in Paragraph (3) herein. The timing of construction shall be dependent upon the phased development and not upon any calendar time schedule. In the event of development of properties adjacent to and/or in the area of the Property necessitating the construction of all or portions of Golladay Road prior to the dedication and construction thereof by Wakeman pursuant to Paragraphs (2) and (3) herein, then Wakeman shall dedicate the portions of the 60' wide right-of-way (shown for the future extension of Golladay Road through the Property) to accommodate road construction to be performed by the County, the Virginia Department of Transportation, or by others, but Wakeman shall not be responsible for such construction. (5) In the event Golladay Road is not constructed by the County, by the Virginia Department of Transportation, or by others, and/or in the event plans for construction of the remainder of Golladay Road are terminated, then that portion of the 601 wide reserved right-of-way which is not utilized for construction of Golladay Road shall revert back to Wakeman and/or the then -current property owner(s). Rex and I will be happy to discuss the phasing proposal with you at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, H. Edmunds Coleman III ZT HECIII/lt .cc: Rex Wakeman COMMONWEAL' TH of VIRCIR TI - ---- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG. 2 4 COMMISSIONER (703) 984-412833 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN June 27, 1991 RESIDENT ENGINEER Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick, Virginia P. O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Kris: Ref.: Wakeland Manor Preliminary Master Development Plan Frederick County This is in regard to our recent telephone conversation. We can expand our comments relative to the subject submission as follows: - Before we can fully assess any aspect of this plan, a detailed capacity analysis of the road network will have to be furnished. This will need to be similar to the analyses submitted for the Wheatlands and Urquhart tracts. In particular, attention will need to be focused on the intersections with Route 642 and any other major internal intersections. If the proposed connections and intersections do not meet a level of service C, then mitigating treatments must be offered. - r"brainage details must be addressed before this office can begin to effectively evaluate the efficacy of this proposal. - EPavement design will need to be based on the capacity analysis and concomitant traffic volumes. These are the major components necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. They must be addressed by personnel legally qualified to make such judgements, i.e., licensed Professional Engineers. If you need additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, 2 ��)o / z /V. � �e_ - William H. Bushman, P.E. Transportation Resident Engineer WHB/sl xc: Mr. Robert B. Childress APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date • June 4, 1991 OWNERS NAME: Ralph iii. and Mae C. Wa.Tkeman Application # 004-91 (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) APPLICANT/AGENT : H. Edmunds Coleman 111 Address: P • 0. Box 2760 Winchester, Va. 22601 Daytime Phone Number 667-4644 DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: Furstenau Surveying Address: P. 0. Box 1057 Stephens City, Va. 22655 Phone Number 869-5682 Contact Name Lave Furstenau 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. Backqround Information: 1. Development's name: Wakeland Manor 2. Location of property North of Route 642 -Macedonia Church Rd. 3. Total area of property: 298.2188 Acres 4. Property identification numbers: Tax map Tax parcel inolini Tax ID # (21 Digit) -01000 S. Property zoning and present use RP 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: RA, RP 7. Proposed Uses: Residential 8. Magisterial District: Shawnee District 9. Is. this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended 5 - y .; , ; JUN, 51991 General Informations 1. Have the following items have been included? North arrow Yes X No Scale Yes X No Legend Yes X No Boundary Survey Yes X No Total Area Yes X No Topography Yes X No Project Title Yes X No Preparation and Revision Date Yeses_ No Applicant Name Yeses_ No 2. Number of phases proposed? 16 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes_x No 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. Yeses_ No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? YesNo 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes X No .8. Describe the following environmental features: - Total Area Disturbed Area in Open Space 4 :.._. Floodplains ....._. .:. _ . _ 0 0 Lakes and ponds 2.2 0 2.2 Natural"retention. areas 3.20 -3.2 Steep slopes`(15% +) 25.9 _ 0 25.9 Woodlands 102.5 40.0 0 - 6 - 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan? Street layout Yes X No Entrances Yes X No Parking areas Yes X No 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 X No 12. The plan should include signature lines for the Director of Planning and the County Administrator. Have the signature lines been included? Yes X No 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? Siag,e Sing,Family & Multifamily 2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each phase: Open space acreage Yes X No Acreage in each housing typerc, Yes__y�No Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes No Total acreage Yes_0 Number of dwellings of each type. Yes— X No 3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common s open space? 15% 4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes x No 5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed?_Ml,1tifamily use only. - 7 - 6. Are separation buffers required? Yes X No 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes__2_No 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes No X 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes X No 10. Are any of the following bonus improvements proposed to be used? Recreational Facilities Yes Nom_ Energy Conservation Yes No_X Pedestrian or Bikeway System Yes No__X__ Underground Utilities Yes_y_No Street Design Yes -No- y 11. How many bonus factors have been earned? 12. How will the bonus factors be used? Name:_ Crar'1 PR P�I ck,e III Address: L4Ste hens Cit Va 22655 Property I. D.#: �S_r_nn _009_x-00.0-0006 01000 Name: H. Cornwell Address: ddll TZ=4-1---Ste hens Citv, VA 22655 Property I.D.#: _ 9_0000-0006-01020 Name Shickle Address: .4 aWinchester, VA 22601 Property I.D.#: 9-0000-0.006-01030 -01070 Name: Address: ester, VA 22601 'Property I.D.#; 0-0006-01040 Name: & 'IT--cy Cowder y Address hens Cit VA 22655 Property I.D.#: 9-0000-0006-01050 Name: W. uettle Jr. Address: rlawn Ct. Stephens City, VA 22655 Property I.D.#; -00-0000-0007-01060 Name: Address: Property I.D.# Name: uscito 1- awn Ct., Stephens City, 007009-0000-0007-01080 - J.. Lister Address: VA 22655 _. rlawn Ct., Stephens City, VA_ 22655 Property p y I.D'..' 0-009-0000-0007-01090 Name: Edward N. & Alma M. Brown Address: Rt'.2 Box 58, Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 75C00 -001--0000-0000-00a80 Name: Address: -Ste hens City, VA 22655 Property I.D.#: 0-0000-0000-01010 -01000 Name: - d E. & Karen L. Whitacre Address: Rt.2 Box 38, Stephens City, VA 22655 Property I:D.#: 75000-A00-0000-0000-01020 Name: nwood T. & Dorothy V. Nichols Address: Rt.2 Box 40, Stephens City, VA 22655 Property I.D.#: 0-A00-0000-0000-01030 -01 UaA Name: Add Partnership Address: P.O. Box 497, Stephens City, VA 22655 Property X.D.#: 75000-A00-0000-0000-01050 Name: Jasbo Inc. Address: Box2598, Winchester, VA 22601 Property I.D.#: 7000-A00-0000-0000-00310 75000-A00-0000-0000-01040 Name: ri Jr. Address: 75 Winchester, VA -"22601 Property I.D.#:- -A00-0000-0000-00130 Name: Address: hronia J. Stafford Jr. r. Winchester, VA 22601 Property x.D.#:6000-A00--0000-0000-00220: Name:_ Rnni to T TPnlr' Address: -- U+ `� Rnx ��, St��hens City VA 22655 Property I.D.#: 75C00-QQ1=0000-0000-00040 Name: Ritter,Jr. Address: StepbPn,-;.City, VA 22655 Property Name: a F. Jenkins, Jr. Address: Ste hens City, VA 22655 Property I.D.#: 75C00-001-0000-0000-00070 -0016 Name: -0017A Baker Address: hens City, VA 22655 Property I.D.#: -0000-00080 Name: wad Manor Inc, ' Address: RQx 58-B Ste hens City, VA 22655 Property I.D.# -001-0000-0000-00090 -0 Name: Address: Rt "2 . � ,,moo x 5 8 B Stephens City, VA 22655 Property I.D.#:_ 75QO0-001-0000-0000-001110 - 0UTIZ0 Name: lmar -00130 F E. & Louise A Hillyard Address: Rt2 Box 56, Stephens City, VA 22655 Property I.D.#: 75C00-001-0000-0000=00140 75C00-001- - Name:_rim, M,xine Young Address:—,tBox 58 Stephens City, VA 22655 Property I.D.#; 7 C00-001-0000;-0000-00170 Name: Robert H. & Joette Clark Address: Stephens City, VA 22655 Property I.D.#: 75GB0-009-0000-0007-01110 Name:—.John L. Barley,- Jr. Address: 956 wes�,eland Dr. Stephens City, VA 22655 Property I.D.#: 73( -,BO -009-0000-0008-01120 Name: Robert C. Cou erthwaite Address: 921 Canaan Ct., Stephens'City, VA 22655' Property I,.D.#: 75GB0-009-0000-0008-01130 Name: Walter E. Miller Jr. Address: 9 Brookneill Dr., Winchester, VA 22601 Property I.D.#:_ 75GB0-009-0000-0008-01140 -01150 Name: n Warner Address: _Stephens city, VA 22655 Property I.D.#: -009-0000-0008-1160 Name: Win ester-Artri Limited Partnershi Address: Ct, hesda MD 20895 Property Name: rbArles R. & Stephanie J. Taylor Address: 7side Dr., Stephens City, VA 22655 Property I.D.#: G00-009-0000-0003-00410 Name: Address: Winchester, VA 22601 Property I:D.#; _ -0000 0007-01100 Na -me: 1 Address:Box 47. RtSte hens City, VA 22655 'Property I.D.#: -001-0000-0000-00060 Name: Address: Property I.D.#: Name: Address: Property I.D.#: Name.- Address: ame:Address; P/C Review Date: 2/05/92 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #001-92 RIM A. NAIL Cottage Occupation Retail Sales - Archery Equipment LOCATION: Off of 522 North, fourth drive on the right past Back Creek Bridge MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 19000OA0000027 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use - residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use - residential and vacant PROPOSED USE: Retail sales of archery equipment REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation• No comment. Inspections Department: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 308 Use Group M, (Mercantile) of the BOCA National Building Code 1990. Existing building will need a permit for change of use and provide accessibility and usability for handicapped people. (ANSDI A117.1/1986) Fire Marshal: Building being used for public access should meet all building code requirements to ensure public safety. Approval of this CUP will not adversely impact fire and rescue resources. Health Department: No objection to proposal for shop with no water to shop and no employees. Planning Department: This activity is planned to be conducted in an accessory building located adjacent to the applicants residence which is approximately 1/4 mile off Route 522N. The activity associated with this use would probably be very low and would have no significant impact on the neighborhood. The applicant does not own the land but the land owner has agreed to allow this use on the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2/05/92 PC MEETING: Approval with the following conditions: 1. All outstanding comments from review agencies must be adequately addressed. 2. If the use changes or intensifies to the point of causing traffic problems, a new conditional use permit will be required. Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA I. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: � I ,,,, 1 i c, 1 TELEPHONE $� 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: L, Fo ul- 3-4 g* 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions) O e- t- 4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of feet and consists of acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property. is owned by L. �-p as evidenced by deed from recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 3 4 9 on page rJ registry of the County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. Magisterial District I n,a Currentizoning 7. Adjoining Property:.. USE ZONING North' VAMArr RA East VAZAMT," South V _ 9AWest i 6n -RA _ page -2- CUP Application August, 1990 8. the type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) }a ; L, ,SL e_ c 00��Cka Up'q-F,C)KI 9. It is -proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property sought to be permitted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.) NAME 11 R> l R Address wif- ] -Bay 35'1 1. Luemm l' Ii A Property ID# C1 %LL j� es�'�G1oRe� Address u5 on Aeste R,i� Property ID# V h6�C1 UnQ��2S �' Addresso Property ID# 19 0c�� e Address b j L N . Property ID# j q , Address j N, �. I N CoL N N v Property 1D# Shr��l�£.��ara ►tr� T��1C �o5e Yl AddressoJ�e_°ke�RR�UtI�['r Property ID#. _ _-W m Address Property ID# 09,y C-\ Sa N, AC L Nk� q A Address Property ID,# ��h �. ` 74 1 Address O0 Ree Property ID# 19 —A a �AY1 ��6S�MC Address 111 � �� I � S�D U -V 4e �J' co &M Property ID# IC� _ - 4 Re&�\CV ouN C, -/p 1 �c�Q gOCk Address J 3 G operty ID# 19 — 4 - Address 6LDi3tv ", e Property ID# �1 Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# m page -3- CUP Application August, 1990 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. lv" Z Vr R, 4 J ` _ N _ , ,l kA (� ki �. w 1. � page -4-- CUP Application August, 1990 12. Additional comments, if any: 1 (I', the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. T understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Signature of Applicant )-,A IY° e1V�31 Signature ofd Owners 19 OwnersMailing Address #C '3� -3 3 Owners' Teleph ne No g e7 e- P/C Review Date: 2/05/92 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #002-92 RIM A. NAIL Cottage Occupation Off Premise Business Sign LOCATION: Off of 522 North, fourth drive on the right past Back Creek Bridge MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 190000AD000027 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use - residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• land use - residential and vacant PROPOSED USE: off premise business sign. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), Virginia Dept. of Transportation• See attached letter to Rim Nail from Robert Childress, dated December 4, 1991. Inspections Department: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 311 Use Group U, (Utility and Miscellaneous) of the BOCA National Building Code 1990. Planning Department: The applicant originally erected a sign for the proposed business on the VDOT right of way. VDOT directed the sign be removed from their domain in their December 4, 1991 letter that is included with this application. Mr. Nail acquired permission from an adjoining property owner to locate the sign there and has since moved the sign off the VDOT right of way. Off premise signs require a conditional use permit. Under VDOT requirements, since Rt. 522 is a Federally aided highway, the maximum allowable size for this sign is 21X 21. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2105/92 PC MTG.: Approval with the following condition: 1. That the sign be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning ordinance and the Virginia Department of Transportation. 2. If the dimension of this sign is changed, a new conditional use permit will be required. COMMONWEALTH of VIRC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL // EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER - RESIDENT ENGINEER _(_703) 984-4133 Fay---- ( 703 )—g 8-4 --9 7 6 1 December 4, 1991 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED fir. Kim A. Nail Ref: Route 522 North (East Side) HC -36, Box 358-A At 0.37 Mile North of Inter. w/ Route 684 Winchester, VA 2-5�'_ Frederick Countv Dear Mr. Nail: The referenced sign has been installed on the right-of-wav of Route 522 and is in violation of the State of Virginia's Outdoor Advertising Laws. This sign is considered an illegal encroachment and must be removed within thirty (30) days from receipt of this letter. If it is not removed within this thirty (30) day period our forces will remove it. When a sign is re—moved r:-.- tl:e Denartment of Transportation, you may reclaim it within thirty (30) days of the date of rerzoval provided you reimburse the Department for the cost of labor and ecn;iprnent. The Maintenance Superintendent will advise you of the cost which may be paid by either a certified check or money order made pavable to the Department to Transportation. Please give this matter your prompt attention by removing this illegal encroachment from the State's right-of-way. Should you wish to reinstall the sign on private property a permit to do so will have to be applied for through our District Office in Staunton. You may do so by contacting Mr. Larry Curry at (703) 332-9142. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman s. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Enclosure xc: Mr. Larry Curry Mr. Earl H. Parker Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting A L- I APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Aptplicant (The applicant if the owner l/ other NAME: 2 /L ADDRESS: J��U'' Alt TELEPHONE -- 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: - 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions) 4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of feet and consists of j(�;�0 acres. (Please be exact) 5 . The property is owned by �frQ fl ?1 L- �rC)0 + as evidenced by deed from recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 349 on page 0 -- Ji registry of the County of Frederick. 6. 7.. 14 -Digit Property Id Magisterial District Current Zoning Adjoining Property: USE North. Vhf East y South V C West grmp616TJ114L ification No. ci ►ln ZONING 2A KA 0 page -2- CUP Application August, 1990 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) A�y2f�.s 9. It is -proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property sought to be permitted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.) NAME �►rtt i Cl �� Jnr) ` 12n, it ZoQ Address fie. ! .�' r �1 ;�, VA � Property ID# IC Address , Property ID# Address 2'�'�. V,4. Property ID# r. Ib' — Address Property ID# ) `T -3- �p ` Address Ulu Property ID# U)Oi don —r r r Address &X J7ZJ / V1JP V4 Property IDI NAME page -3- CUP Application August, 1990 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. '6 � &JWL9 page -4- CUP Application August, 1990 12. Additional comments, if any: tha undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application_. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Signature of Applicant J-A,kfb Signature ofd Owner Owners' Mailing Address 32 Y Owners'- -• . - P/C Review Date: 2/05/92 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #003-92 JOHN C. MAYHEW Cottage Occupation Gun Shop - Repairs and Sales LOCATION: 2.5 males south of Route 50W on Route 259 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 37000OA0000710 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use - residential - ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use - residential PROPOSED USE: Cottage occupation - gun repair and sales REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation.- No objection to conditional use permit for this property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Inspections Department: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 303 Use Group B, (Business) of the BOCA National Building Code 1990_. Permits required would be a change of use on building and'a building permit for sign. Health Department: No objection to proposal for shop with/no additional employees or water usage. Fire Marshal: Storage of any gunpowder and reloading equipment must comply with BOCA Building Code and State Fire Prevention Code at all times. I strongly recommend the area where black powder and reloading supplies are stored be Page -2- Mayhew CUP protected by a limited area automatic sprinkler system and that smoke detectors be provided throughout. Request that a condition of approval be an annual inspection by the Fire Marshal's Office for all applicable sections of the Fire Prevention Code. Where black powder is used or stored there shall be "No Smoking" signs and strict adherence to same. Planning Department: This activity will be conducted in an accessory building adjacent to the applicants residence. The applicant has advised that he will not be selling gunpowder of any type but will be selling ammunition. Adequate off'road parking exists to accommodate customers. Approval of this permit would not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2f05/_92 PC MTG.: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Applicant will adequately address all review agency comments and comply as required. 2. Existing sign will be maintained in accordance with the. requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. 3. If the current use expands or significantly intensifies,.a new conditional use permit will be required. Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting a APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Aioplicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: `J O M ADDRESS: —F .30�Gnec_' TELEPHONE[`'i "7 "' . ` (--)g r7 1 2. Please .list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: `10 N D MAA f--: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions) Off of - n ;w1Li PA*i GoRE - 5 "" 4 . The property has a road frontage of q 14'73 feet and a depth of y 19. 12_ feet and consists of J, q 51a acres. (Please be exact) -- 5. The property is owned by as evidenced by deed from r T recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 1,) 9 - on page registry of the County of Frederick - 6. ''x'14 -Digit Property Identification No. 3*7 00000'7 Magisterial District Current fZ oning 7. Adjoining Property:. - North USE ZONING � East - South West Al lciau41.wa1 page -2- CUP Application August, 1990 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) COf+S ,e 0cn_uO'-q+1nn / 9. It is -proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: lo. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property sought to be permitted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT M MBER.) NAME Wocclland 65+a+e5 ,=rx-- C/o �oscph C B«�fdc - Address jMo J 413 FOt`5T bltl-L : UCgTi ClMOp Property IDS MAURICE-4 B£TTrt &.kMA4 Address BA Ave,WtiJC. VA 2.2 0 Property ID# Sari 65Y5 Address R«uTc I Box Mi-, Gorc VA ZZ43 Property ID# 370OWAOQO006q Danny Mar+ n Address %Uie I Box 70H Q Gore VA Z2L,,,3r7 Property ID, 3? A OpOQO Lfl�} Kennith a B Ligh+ .: Address Pp .Box Capon Brr dqc W\/ Property TDA 370CZORO000R Address Property ID#,_ page -3- CUP 3-CUP Application August, 1990 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. t J E-- 130 �F SHOP 15 f+ Q` O kx 91.7.3 5 5t page -4- CUP Application August, 1990 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and mai tained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' p#lic hearing. ---7 Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing AddressUf , I�oX '/(� '"fir�i� Owners' Telephone No.� — r- - _ - •I;.��J - -,� f {�' Yom_ Y � 0�- '�".��+.. '+, •j, }G'E ,4 y rf.'� Y .T _ S _' � zY#. qtr ,r C � �+.'fs^ � h' t powDse , . •� r -yd _ b �3 •may dam.., -�'• .y P4.. 9,�-. aS+.� y+ -r1P Rt Ste"' Ji N"'}. �� L - '�•�-� T�^{s a M -�f` ��Ik� • ( 1 . r : M' _ _ t... Y Y�'G Y "'x� 5 ,�{ - Y � 0�- '�".��+.. '+, •j, }G'E ,4 y rf.'� Y .T _ S _' � zY#. qtr ,r C � �+.'fs^ � h' 7! COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Direct �� RE: Report on Archeological Survey of Upper Opequon DATE: January 16, 1992 As most of you are aware, from December 1, 1990 through March of 1991, an archeological survey of the upper Opequon Creek watershed was conducted. This survey was funded in part through a matching grant from the Virginia Division of Historic Resources, Frederick County, Shenandoah University and James Madison University. The study was headed by Dr. Clarence Geier, an anthropology professor at JMU and Dr. Warren Hofstra, Associate Professor of History at Shenandoah University. Attached is a map which depicts the geographic area of the County covered by the survey. Numerous sites of historic and prehistoric activity were discovered and documented by the survey effort. A detailed report was produced, a copy of which has been provided to those of you who were on the Commission at the time of its completion. Additional copies are being run for those of you who are more recent members. Doctors Geier and Hofstra have requested time on the agenda to review the findings of the survey as well as the recommendations which are included in the report. If you have any questions concerning the study, please let me know. KCT/slk THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS 9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 .. Sriai:�xr�s E.aYti6�t. n:said ...m.:v._ w,�:,aa�aantw��.� • �:.,�:,. ,, w,�.. .... ._., _ l .IL IfNN Opequon Creek Survey Area Age: l : l Study, Area Political Boundary Primary Roads -"` Rivers. & Streams '0. Co. rr ;Irg a C ff* by Jana W. W mn at .lana i oft may a PC =/IK x ve ,- 1 OoleOl . . , i ,s, ♦ , 'A i - l ,r Opequon Creek Survey Area Age: l : l Study, Area Political Boundary Primary Roads -"` Rivers. & Streams '0. Co. rr ;Irg a C ff* by Jana W. W mn at .lana i oft may a PC =/IK x ve ,- 1 . . , i ,s, ♦ , 'A i - l ,r Opequon Creek Survey Area Age: l : l Study, Area Political Boundary Primary Roads -"` Rivers. & Streams '0. Co. rr ;Irg a C ff* by Jana W. W mn at .lana i oft may a PC =/IK x THE SIC rhe Winkler Botanical Preserve, Millions of personal 'a 43 -acre patch of woods in Alexandria, is on the front line Choices seem harmless `he ceaseless struggle between and nature. enough when taken one The preserve is large enough that someone standing in the heart of its hardwood fastness would have to strain to hear the sounds of cars and trucks several hundred yards away on Interstate 395. Yet, as shut off as it is from the outside world by em- bankments, stone walls and other barriers, there is no escaping the proximity of man. When it rains, a 600 -acre water- shed of pavement and rooftops in the surrounding city collects flash -flood volumes of water and funnels it through a tiny creek known as Win- kler Run. Only a few years ago, the runoff sliced through the preserve, eroded banks, toppled trees and swept debris toward the Potomac River. Now, a series of containment ponds slows the torrent, allowing the sedi- ment to settle, and traps the trash: r,3ndy wrappers, fast food contain - plastic jugs, soda cans, and an iridescent film of oil and gasoline. Also, says William C. Nussbaum, _vice president of the Mark Winkler ` Co., L he ponds filter much of the invisible VIRGINIA BUSINESS at a time, but they add up to the suburban sprawl that has devastated Virginia ecosystems. pollutants, such as an estimated 140 pounds of phosphorus, that wash through the preserve every year. This particular patch of urban woods is healthier than most. Mark Winkler, founder of the real estate company bearing his name, set up a foundation to maintain it as a botani- cal preserve for species native to the Potomac basin. An eight -person staff tends the property almost as _ care- #ally as if it were a garden, while the k Mark Winkler Co., which owns, most of the surrounding land, takes special pains to limit the impact of develop- . ment. But anyone flying over Virginia's major cities can see that such cohe- sive chunks of forest amount to little more than oases in -a desert . of by James A. Bacon asphalt, shingle roofs and ecological scrub. Often what passes for "green space" consists of no more than trees, shrubs and grasses shorn from their natural context, incapable of supporting any diversity of plant or animal life. Over the past 14 years, Virginia has been losing roughly 60,000 acres per year of forest, an increasing share of it to urban development. Compounding the loss of acreage, woodlands have been carved up by roads, utility lines, driveways. lawns, fences, parking lots and cther works of man. The resulting fragmentation of woodlands habitat has been dev- astating to numerous species of plants and animals, especially songbirds, and it generates horrendous quanti- ties of storm water runoff laden with heavy metals, pesticides and phos- phates. . The process of disruption, always relentless, has been accelerating. Many blame it on population growth and its handmaiden, real estate 'de- . velopment. Vowing to minimize,',the environmental impact, many Vrginia localities have adopted a strategy of limiting zoning densities. On the exur- ban fringe of Washington, Richmond, Hampton Roads, and even smaller cities, development on vast -tractF has been restricted to lots of five 2 even 10 acres. Rather than slowing growth, how- ever, these and other controls, along with the dynamics of the real estate market, simply rechannel it into a sprawling, leapfrogging pattern that consumes more land than ever — and displaces it into neighboring coun- ties and watersheds. While the popu- lation of the Chesapeake basin grew 50 percent between 1950 and 1980, the amount of land used for residen- tial and commercial purposes soared 180 percent, according to the Report of the Year 2020 Panel to the Che- sapeake Executive Council. Since 1980, new development has become more land intensive. Without radical changes in land -use patterns, the amount of developed land in Virginia could increase from 10 per- cent of the state's land mass to 18 percent by 2020, the report said. Unfortunately, the debate over reme- dies has been characterized by ex- traordinary suspicion and ill will. De- velopers accuse environmentalists of running roughshod over property rights and imposing regulations with- out any regard to their cost. Environ- mentalists charge that developers op- pose any change in the status quo. Still, there is hope. The warring camps are in surprising accord on at least one premise: Sprawl is bad. There is even considerable agree- ment on the proposition that many local zoning policies are counterpro- ductive. A dialogue has begun in the General Assembly's Commission on Population Growth. Simultaneously, a diverse group of constituencies is groping for common ground in pri- vate roundtables. Serious thinkers in the environ- mental and the development commu- nities agree that there's a big differ- ence between growth, which is inevi- table, and sprawl, which is the prod- uct of existing institutions. To protect the environment, the most pressing task is to tame sprawl. Knowing what we don't want — a replication of the Northeast corridor — is a first step, says Gerald P. McCarthy, executive director of the Virginia Environmental Endowment. Now the challenge is to build an alternative vision of development that incorporates respect for private prop- erty and stewardship of the land. What we need, he says, "is a bal- ance between the public interest and the private interest." Tast year Joe Mitchell, a Univer- sity of Richmond professor, It kegan keeping tabs on the animals that his four domestic cats killed and left in his suburban yard. A collaborator at William and Mary recorded the kills brought home by her cat in the country. Over 11 months, the five felines hunted down some 187 animals, including cardi- nals, goldfinches, sparrows, moles, chipmunks, mice, frogs, lizards and snakes. "Cats kill things," even when they're well fed at home, says Mitchell. The hunting instinct is distinct from the need to eat. Extrapolated statewide, he estimates that Virginia's 1.05 mil- lion tabbies kill between 3.1 million and 26.2 million small animals every year. That makes a significant dent in the population of native animals, in- cluding some threatened species of neotropical songbirds, Mitchell says. But don't blame the cats. They're SrnaH-Tow T tmc s here a� or 1ti'f t_r p� o -ap Market .. . LnYOF RrAX Ao - .-� Fairfax'o ... _ Maryland County DULLS In the Heart of . . 4.►TIONAL % � �:, 0%RrvA� Northern Vvrguua ,� AaiPO ' ULLE AlgppgT District A s of Loudoun Columbia County` '� Ch Fn. 5 Ar Co 230 WASHINGTON WAY(149F) NNATIONALppO/NAfL '_ AIFt pII - Virginia �- r. Z•-� Economic Development Office Fairfax City Hall Prince William Maryland 10455 Armstrong Street County • i Fairfax, Virginia 22030 703-385-7862 800437-1658 ' just doing what comes natu- rally. "It's not a cat problem. _ It's a human problem." Sprawl, a human invention, 'ragmenting Virginia's tradi- _ __ial woodland habitat at a y dizzying pace. Songbirds, which nest deep in the woods' interior, are especially vulner- able. Every road punched through a block of forest opens up an invasion path for para- sites such as cowbirds and predators such as cats, blue jays, crows, squirrels and rac- coons. Every utility line, every cul-de-sac, every lawn pushes back the safety zone for nest- ing sites in adjacent wood- lands. '.itchell cites an experiment by Pnnceton biologist David S. Wilcove, who showed that eggs placed in nests in small woodlots suffer from a significantly higher rate of predation than in larger tracts. In Virginia, many large tracts are shrinking fast. The forest fringe is hospitable to many small mammals, such as squir- r: raccoons and rabbits. That cre- an impression among people rending in the neighborhood that they are living in harmony with na- ture. But, in fact, we are systemati- VIRGINIA BUSINESS DECEMBER 1991 cally destroying the forest interior habitat that once blanketed the Mid - Atlantic and gave rise to many native plant and animal species. Chopping up the woodlands also encourages the invasion of non- native plants, such as Japanese hon- eysuckle and, more recently, garlic mustard. "These invasive species don't normally take root in the middle of healthy woodlands," says Jocelyn Sladen, with the Virginia Native Plant Society. "They take root on dis- turbed land." Sprawl also puts native trees un- der stress, notes forester Tom Sundin at the Winkler preserve. Air pollution, changing drainage patterns and damage by human hands all weaken native trees, making them more vulnerable to diseases or the depredations of insect pests such as the gypsy moth. Why should anyone care? Isn't nature all about change? We should care because as an ecosystem loses diversity, it loses many of its built-in checks and balances, says David Tice, a Charlottesville forestr/ con- sultant. Neotropical songbirds, for instance, are voracious in- sect eaters. The disappearance of these predators may prompt explo- sions of pest populations. Another concern: Some birds play important roles in the propagation and spread of plants. "We just know the tip of the iceberg," says Tice. "We don't know what [impact] the loss of a particular species might have on the way our trees, shrubs and other plants reproduce. ... We're playing Russian roulette. Maybe nothing will happen. Maybe it'll be a catastrophe." onder for a moment what hap pens when it rains. Some rain- drops fall into woodlands, where 29 ash �,` I Ad cally destroying the forest interior habitat that once blanketed the Mid - Atlantic and gave rise to many native plant and animal species. Chopping up the woodlands also encourages the invasion of non- native plants, such as Japanese hon- eysuckle and, more recently, garlic mustard. "These invasive species don't normally take root in the middle of healthy woodlands," says Jocelyn Sladen, with the Virginia Native Plant Society. "They take root on dis- turbed land." Sprawl also puts native trees un- der stress, notes forester Tom Sundin at the Winkler preserve. Air pollution, changing drainage patterns and damage by human hands all weaken native trees, making them more vulnerable to diseases or the depredations of insect pests such as the gypsy moth. Why should anyone care? Isn't nature all about change? We should care because as an ecosystem loses diversity, it loses many of its built-in checks and balances, says David Tice, a Charlottesville forestr/ con- sultant. Neotropical songbirds, for instance, are voracious in- sect eaters. The disappearance of these predators may prompt explo- sions of pest populations. Another concern: Some birds play important roles in the propagation and spread of plants. "We just know the tip of the iceberg," says Tice. "We don't know what [impact] the loss of a particular species might have on the way our trees, shrubs and other plants reproduce. ... We're playing Russian roulette. Maybe nothing will happen. Maybe it'll be a catastrophe." onder for a moment what hap pens when it rains. Some rain- drops fall into woodlands, where 29 I. they seep into the soil or collect in rivulets that flow into streams. The water may pick up some leaves and other organic material along the way, irgini� but, by and large, it stays clean. Other raindrops fall upon Virginia's cities and suburbs, landing on roads, = parking lots, rooftops, driveways and ' other "non -permeable" surfaces. r Water flows along gutters, where it .,...,, a joins the runoff from lawns and - patches of landscaped greenery, then rushes down storm drain pipes to the nearest river. Along the way, the rain water becomes a chemical broth of lead from automobile exhaust, oil and e p� One-Stvey, 153y.7�N S�. ft. gasoline from car drippings, phos-. industrial facility with acreage phates and pesticides from lawn fer- tilizers, salts from snow removal op - B I N S 1/YAN G E R SOUTHERN erations and plain; old-fashioned dirt. 230 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202.704-377-0801 - FAX 704-377-9046 Toxic compounds poison the fish.-. . Y ` Philadelphia, PA-New)brk, NY -Chicago, IL -Boson, MA -Providence, RI -St Louis, MO -Marshall, MI Sediment chokes up navigation chan- Milwaukee WI -Dallas, TX -Denver, CO -Atlanta, CA -Raleigh, NC -Miami, FL -Greensboro, NC -Columbia, SC -Lexington, KY -Oxford, MS - 7ok}o- London. Brussels. Frankfurt- Rotterdam -Amsterdam -Paris nets and disrupts shellfish beds. Phos - COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE phates promote algae blooms which deplete the water of oxygen and suffocate the marine life. The popular wisdom attributes this "poison runoff," as the Natural Re- sources Defense Council has dubbed it, to growth. The conventional solu- tion has been to restrict zoning densi- ties, on the logic that the fewer v people residing in a watershed, the less damage they will do. Such a strategy does limit damage locally, CARING FOR A COMMUNITY'S but it's a disaster regionally. People must live somewhere; low - NATURAL RESOURCES IS NOT AN OPTIONAL density zoning pushes them into a - ELEMENT IN OUR MASTER PLANS. neighboring watershed. And when people spread out, they use more roads, burn more gasoline (and gen- erate more air pollution), run longer ' utility lines and cut down more trees to make room for bigger lawns. It is IT'S AN INTEGRAL ONE. a fundamental axiom of environmen- talists and developers alike that low- density development degrades the environment far more rapidly than well-designed "cluster" development. N In the eyes of many, the current trend to large -lot, low-density com- munities, reinforced by many local zoning ordinances, is largely .to FRIENDSWOOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY blame," stated the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay in a 1989 white DEvELoP&RS OF paper. If the Bay region continues R.EsIDENr= AND CommERCLU PWPOGIHS on its low-density growth trajectory, SINCE 1962 roads will 'consume an additional 80,000 acres of land surface by the 12500 Fair Likes Circe, #100, Fairfax, VA 22033 (703) 818-2700 year 2020, as opposed to only 32,000 acres in the high-density scenario. �n VIRGINIA BUSINESS DECEMBER .1991 of sediment through erosion h low-density growth, compared 10.4 million tons with high-density ti. The low-density route would N,jme more energy and water, I spew out roughly twice as much iitional carbon monoxide, hydro - bons and nitrous oxides. mpcsing all the best management ctices known to man on new ,elopment won't cancel out the nage of sprawl. Even the contain - it ponds at the Winkler Preserve which represent state-of-the-art inology far more effective than thing required by law — will ave only half the phosphates that ?rough. Regulations and engi- ring alone cannot save the envi- nent. In the long run, Virginia it follow a new pattern of growth. n apath-breaking report, the 2020 Panel on the Chesapeake Bay articulated a new vision .of devel- opment that would accommodate both growth and respect for the environ- ment. Several key points emerged: ® Development should be concen- `tr�t�� in suitable areas. All zoning a ,ublic capital spending should be consistent with the goal of cluster- ing growth. Growth should be directed to existing population centers and away from resource centers. tO Protection should be extended to ecologically sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodplains, aquifer re- charge areas, important habitats, sce- nic vistas and large forest tracts. This vision has earned widespread acceptance. The problem is that dif- ferent groups disagree on how to achieve it. Mainstream environmental- is;s place their faith in better plan- ning. Previous planners botched the job, but this time they'll get it right. Just give them more power. Having seen the political process warp the best of intentions in the past, however, developers don't have much faith in the virtues of planning. Unfortunately, the business commu- nity has failed to come up with an al' ative. Although developers ar- gL n the abstract in favor of free market principles, they have done litt!e work in devising ways to apply them. confined VIRGINIA BUSINESS DECEMBER 1991 .®: ne r ,o,5 Y fo r V i - a :;;; Our goal at Washington Gas is to bring you the best energy value. Whether its a simple response to a billing question, or the mobilization of a crew to restore service. From keeping pace with growing business and residential demands to helping the community rally behind a worthy cause. The people of Washington Gas are here to sene And while were building a better community, we're improv- ing the environment Natural gas is clean -burning, and when used as a vehicle fuel, reduces air -pollution dramatically. Meeting transportation needs with this clean alternative will improve the quality of our air Whether at home, at worst, or on the road Washington Gas has the energy for Virginia. 90 V_Vashingtoini Gas Virginia Division ' 31 Some basic concepts are emerg- ing, however, from a group that calls itself the Friends of Virginia's Future. Encompassing an array of environ- mentalists, business interests and academics, the organization is at- tempting to establish a consensus on principles to guide the pattern and density of land use. (The author of this essay, James A. Bacon, is a member of the advisory board.) At this point, the thinking has focused mainly on ways to undo the negative influence of state and local government. One guiding principle would totally revamp the way governments pro- vide services, "The supply of public services should be allocated in such a way that the beneficiaries pay a fee that reflects the cost of providing them," says E.M. Risse, a private sector planner and one of the group's three co -facilitators. Currently, public spending on everything from roads, utilities and public safety subsidizes sprawl. Eliminating those subsidies would transform the dynamics of development overnight. In a related principle, state and local spending on roads and utilities should focus on reworking territor that's already been developed rathr than opening up new land. If all Fairfax County were developed at the density of Reston, a comfortable anc well-planned suburban community, itz entire population could fit in one-third of its land mass, Risse says. A third principle would be to creatE a level regional playing field, Risse says. At present, localities optimize their self-interest at the expense of their neighbors. Many strategies to cope with traffic, runoff and other concerns simply displace them to other localities or watersheds — often making the problem worse over- all. In concrete terms, Risse sees twe things happening: redevelopment and downbuilding. On the one hand, de- velopers would rebuild the sprawling, autocentric mess erected over the past 40 years. On the other, land- owners would convert marginal urban land back to forest, farmland or other open spaces. Once government reorients its cap: tal spending programs, Risse say, market forces will do much of the work. It may be necessary to put into place an additional mechanism to protect environmentally sensitive land. Whether that should be transferable development rights, conservation ease- ments or some other device hasn't been worked out yet. Concentrating clean-up efforts on new development alone will have limited value. When it comes to gen- erating runoff and chopping up wild- life habitat, some of the worst offend- ers are projects that were planned and designed in the 1950s and 1960s. Redeveloping hideous old subdivi- sions and strip shopping centers could support a larger population — thus relieving pressure on forests, farms and wetlands — and provide . an opportunity to retrofit environmental controls that don't exist now. "Everything gets better when you concentrate development," says Al- exandria developer Michael Rolband who has been active in addressir, environmental issues. "You disturb less area, build less road, less park- ing lots.... Denser development mini- mizes the impact on the environ- ment." it F TIrginians are no strangers to environmental regulation. In 1610, the colonial authorities made it a flogging offense for settlers to empty washtubs in Jamestown or to attend to the "necessities of na- ture" within a quarter mile of the fort. The English settlers believed that soapy water, like excrement, was pestilential. It wasn't long before the governor discovered the virtues of land -use controls as well. By 1618, the cultiva- tion of tobacco had become so lucra- tive that settlers grew it to the exclu- sion of food. Rather than risk famine, Gov. Samuel Argall ordered "every man to set two acres of corn. ... Penalty: forfeiture of corn & tobacco & be a slave a year to ye Colony." Virginia's conflict between individual liberties and the protection of the public good is as old as Jamestown. Today's penalties may be less draco- nian, but there are many more rules. A deluge of environmental regula- tions in the 1980s — runoff con- trols, wetlands, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act — threatened to -ender private property a quaint, out- moded concept. By 1990, however, the courts had established clear limits to regulation. "It's clear that the law is in transition The Fifth Amendment, which protects property owners from uncompensated confiscation, is the cornerstone of the latest strategy for protecting the environment.* harnessing the energy of the free market. now," says Henry Butler, a George Mason University law school profes- sor. "There is the realization that we have gone too far. Greater protection of economic liberties, that's the wave of the future." Now the political system is fum- bling for a new balance. Novel envi- ronmental strategies, based upon to- tally different principles from the old bureaucratic -command model, :are emerging. Free market environmen- talists are experimenting with con- cepts such as storm -water 'utilities, which levy taxes on runoff, and con- servation easements, which decouple development rights from the underly- ing property. The hope is to harness tennis Montgomery d James A. Bacon the dynamism, the flexibility and the innovation inherent in free enterprise. These principles play to a strong tradition in the Old Dominion: a belief in the primacy of property rights. Despite the heavy-handed start in Jamestown, land in Virginia was plen- tiful and, outside the cities, people had plenty of elbow room. Because rural land uses rarely conflicted in a frontier society — except clashes between .European settlers and na- tive Americans — there was little need for regulation. People could do what they wanted to with their land without harming anyone else. By the late 20th century, however, lifestyles had changed dramatically. Automobiles, roads, power lines, gar- bage, sewage, fertilizers and pesti- cides made civilization far more intru- sive. Routine human activity acceler- ates soil erosion, generates runoff, interrupts scenic vistas, adds to traf- fic congestion, pollutes the air, and disrupts habitat for hundreds of plant and animal species. In what some call the "tyranny of small decisions," landowners are mak- ing choices regarding the use of their land without taking into account the public cost of their actions. Water quality is suffering. Wildlife popula- tions are declining. The tributaries of VIRGINIA BUSINESS 33 the Chesapeake Bay are filling with silt and nutrients that choke crabs and oysters. Although Virginia law traditionally has been protective of property rights, legal theory doesn't regard them as absolute. The state possesses the power of eminent domain, and the courts have consistently upheld gov- ernment's right to prohibit incompat- ible land uses and to protect the public health. As Jerry McCarthy, president of the Virginia Environ- mental Endowment puts it, "There is no constitutional right to do whatever you want to with your property." In recent years, the government has expanded its power to protect wildlife, to clean water and to pre- serve the Chesapeake Bay. Usually, the resulting foss of property value was negligible: Most wetlands are isolated and economically undesir- able. But in some cases, the pecuni- ary loss to landowners was consider- able, especially if they had paid hefty premiums in anticipation of develop- ing the land or if they had invested in Save $2 500 Herman Miller Remanufactured Panel Systems Like New Condition • Up to 50% less than new: List Price: $4,045 Sell Price: $1,415 • In stock • Acoustical or fabric • New work surfaces & pedestals • Local showroom • Delivery/Installation • 1-101 workstations • Quick delivery • Many colors & fabrics available �r❑vrv�iv SYSTEM S The Affordable Alternative Richmond 804-233-1012 A single component oran entire office system, we can pull the items you need from inventory, remanufacture them to your specifications, and deliver your order for a fraction of the cost in a fraction of the time. Showrooms: Richmond, VA, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, GA, Greenville, S.C. Agents: Norfolk, Roanoke, Raleigh, Charlotte, Oriando,Tampa 1-800-525-3549 LISTED Industrial. • .Mechanical Electrical • Process Control 7231 forest Ave. • Suite 200 • Richmond, Virginia • 23226 • (804) 288-6767 significant improvements. At some point, declared the U.S. Supreme Court, regulation becomes what the Constitution calls a "tak- ing." And the Fifth Amendment says that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. That sounds clear enough, but what happens when the government only nibbles at the land rather than gobbling it outright? Then it's up to the courts. It's like obscenity, says William & Mary law school professor Lynda Butler: The justices can't describe it, but they know it when they see it. What the courts saw in the wet- lands cases looked a lot like "tak- ings." A series of court decisions over the past few years have created a new set of rules: Governments still can regulate land uses, but not with the same abandon as in the 1980s. Now the challenge is to devise pro- grams that protect the environment while respecting property rights. The change in philosophy would augur well not only for property owners but for the environment too. Armajor drawback to the bu- eaucratic-police approach is hat it mainly affects new de- velopment. The accumulated sins of the past few centuries are grandfath- ered in. Loading the clean-up burden onto new houses and offices isn't fair. Existing property owners, society's "haves," lose nothing; they just en- joy the benefits of other peoples' sacrifices. Those who ultimately pay are the "have nots" — the young, the poor, the minorities, the upwardly mobile households who will take out bigger mortgages to cover the price of the new environmentally sensitive housing. There are alternatives that would spread the costs more fairly -- and accomplish a lot more. One is the concept of a storm -water utility. The General Assembly has passed ena- bling legislation allowing any Virginia locality to set one up. Storm-wate utilities would tax property owners for the volume of runoff generated by impervious surfaces such as roads, rooftops and parking lots. The greater the runoff, the higher the tax. Every- one who contributes to the problem Id pay his share. Conceptually, such a tax is consis- ent with strong property rights and free market, "The sensible solution s not to regulate land use around the gay," says Jerome Ellig, a George "Mason University economist. It makes -,ore sense to set uo a "system that :ncourages people to think of ways o avoid damaging the environment." A storm -water utility would make andowners pay for the incremental ;hare of the environmental damage hey inflict upon society. At the same Mme, it would create an incentive for andowners to minimize runoff. A -unoff tax, for instance, might prod more people to build with porous -Davement instead of impervious as - ,halt, allowing water to percolate hrough the soil, says Michael �olband, an Alexandria developer. _)evelopers might rethink their park - 1g requirements and install fewer _)arking spaces. Depending on how ` the taxes were, the whole calcu- ,f construction could change. A storm -water utility would use its 3x revenues to fund storm -water anagement projects. In contrast to the current system, which leaves many of the worst runoff problems untouched, the utility could fund pro- jects "that yield the greatest removal of pollutants for the dollar," Rolband says. Because utilities would cover ev- eryone, they would reduce storm - water pollutant loads an estimatec 65 percent, says Stephen M. Cum- bie, president of the Northern Virginia chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks. That would accomplish much more than the Chesapeake Bay Act, which af- fects only new development and "at best will keep future pollutant loads at today's levels." So far, there have been no takers on the storm -water utility idea. Al- though it would exempt developers from many Chesapeake Bay Act requirements, it would be politically unpopular with existing homeowners — who tend to vote their pocket- books. Some politicians have charac- terized the concept as an attempt by developers to evade the regulatory costs of the Chesapeake Bay Act. Escaping the heavy hand of the act, however, actually would benefit the Chesapeake Bay, Rolband says. Arcane provisions, which set allow- able levels for phosphorus runoff, encourage sprawl by going easier on property owners in low-density set- tings — thus creating a material incentive for property owners to spr �d out their development. Not everyone agrees with Roiband's analysis, but if he's right, the Che- sapeake Bay Act could actually un- dermine a key tenet of the Save -the - Bay movement: to concentrate devel- opment in order to disrupt less land. In the long run, says Rolband, the only way to accommodate Virginia's population growth and save the envi- ronment is to steer growth into tighter, more compact areas. Regardless of what happens on the regulatory front, devel- opers are recognizing that the environment sells. As Americans be- come more environmentally conscious, they want to live in communities that protect wetlands and wildlife. Devel cpers will compete to provide what-.. ever home buyers want. The Governor's Land at Two Riv- .9GiNIA BUSINESS DECEMBER 1991 35 D a x M 0 0 0 M ers, a 1,444 -acre project in James City County, is one of the first in Virginia to make environmental sensi- tivity a major selling point. The devel- opers studied the wetlands, flood plains, soils, slopes and even the archaeology before breaking ground. The planning engineers designed the golf course to do double duty, employing marshes as hazards and sand traps as water filters. They recycled storm water runoff to irri- gate the golf course. They ran nature trails through wetlands, creating an amenity for nature lovers. Now the developers, Dominion Land Inc., are negotiating the transfer of a 200 -acre conservation easement on a wetlands buffer to the Historic Rivers Land Conservancy, a local organization established to protect the Peninsula's natural heritage. Once Dominion gives up the development rights, home buyers .can -be assured the natural setting will remain intact. Govemor's Land exceeded the stan- dards .of the Chesapeake Bay Act, and the Bay Foundation holds it up as a model for development- But such sensitivity doesn't come cheap. WE HAVE SPACE FOR YOU! from 500 to 250,000 square feet of warehouse/ distribution space for immediate occupancy from $2.00 per square foot CAMP MORRISON INDUSTRIAL PARK NEWPORT NEWS Easily accessible to P64 and 1.664 with close proximity to the - Port of Hampton Roads DRU CKER &FALK REALTORSO SINCE1938 For inforrna#ion phone: DRLCKEi & FALK. REALTOF;S (eo4) a73-i4oi (Peninsula.) -7. (804) 627-s (ft9side) 1-aoo-4�s�s�a3 Although the project's 722 lots will average only six -tenths of an acre, they will cost about $100,000 each, says Don Priest, a Dominion Land vice president. The challenge will be to create environmentally sensitive communi- ties that the middle class can afford. John A. Clark, a Northern Virginia developer, proposes building one in Caroline County. The key to paying for state-of-the-art storm water, waste treatment and wildlife protection is to increase density — spreading the costs over more people, he says. Like Dominion Land, Clark would protect environmentally sensitive land on his property with a conservation easement, which he would donate to a land trust. Conservation easements and land trusts are institutions whose time has come. "One of the things that land trusts have been able to do is just convince everybody, including the busi- ness community, that we are not taking anything," says Carolyn Lowe, president of Historic Rivers. "What we're doing is good for everyone." . Landowners have powerful incen- tives to donate the easements. For one, they might be entitled to tax benefits. For another, easements pre- serve an amenity that makes their other property more marketable. Easements, says Edward Clark, a board member of the Virginia Out- doors Found:5cn, which holds 400 easements on land totalling 80,000 acres, "guarantee that the property will maintain its integrity and charac- ter in perpetuity." he most ambitious project in- volving easements is unfolding on the Eastern Shore. There the Nature Conservancy has estab- lished the Virginia Coast Reserve, a 40,000 -acre wilderness of barrier is- lands and salt marshes. Tied in with state and federal holdings, the re- serve protects one of the last pristine areas in the Eastern United States, a sanctuary for birds and marine life. The reserve has two zones. The first is a core area that receives maximum protection; human activity is limited to fishing, bird watching and other low -intensity pursuits. The sec- ond zone, mostly on the mainland, allows some development, but only under conditions that guard water, quality — "the lifeblood of this ecosystem," says John Hall, directc of the Nature Conservancy. Although some have criticized the Nature Conservancy for throwing its weight around, the organization has achieved spectacular gains by work- ing with landowners. In fact, the organization has found that when a cluster of neighboring landowners grant conservation easements, they can actually increase the value of their land. What a landowner loses in development rights, he gains from the assurance that the neighborhood will retain its integrity. - Although the Virginia Coast Re- serve was designed .to protect one of the world's great ecosystems, Hall sees no reason that the same con- cepts can't be replicated on a more modest scale around the state. An environmental policy based upon conservation easements might not grant the immediate, blanket protec- tion some zealots crave, but it might yield superior results in the long run. "As long as property rights are well defined, as long as we know who owns what, environmental problems will take care of themselves," argues Ellig, the economist. The trick is to get landowners -to stop thinking of property rights as indivisible. People in the Virginia coalfields have been buying and sell - !ng "surface" rights and underground "mineral" rights separately for more than 100 years. There's no reason why landowners can't sever develop- ment rights from a property's existing land use, and buy and sell them independently as well. The social good will best be served when a market for conservation ease- ments eventually emerges. If shifting economic patterns increase the value of development rights in a particular parcel of land, a non-profit foundation can sell it and invest the proceeds- in . easements for more ecologically valu- able land elsewhere. A free market would make possible a far more efficient, more responsive mechanism for balancing economic and environ- mental priorities than is possible now. "We are taking small steps in the right direction," says Hall. "We've only scratched the surface of what the possibilities are." 0