Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012-89 (Caleb Heights) - Top of Virginia Development Corp. - Backfile (2)PHONE CALL A.M. FO C� DATE T' , / -P.M. M ONEO OF D _ RETURNEE) PHONE YOUR CALL AREA CODE NUMBER FXTENSIDN E CALL M SAGE WILL GALL AGAIN CAME TO ✓�. SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU SIGNED SECONONATURE^' t*, RECYCLED TOPS , FORM 74620 RECEIPT u Lii : MOUNT DUE $ %( AMOUNT PAID $ ,X) itALAj"' DUE n w PAID 6T CASH CHECK OTHER iERICK COUNTY DEPT. OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 'bOX 6G1 • 9 COURT SQUARE .....,,NESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 ---/1-- DAT146� �w / RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS THE SUM OF✓.�_L� )i „'l `..1;1 DOLLARS S `/ t i ter / � � ( q,l i. �� l%(. •%l C � FOR / C L l )o GA, I(�f �/ _ _ ....- __ i � o BY DAY -TIMERS REORDER No. 3221 — P—led in USA � ( v 10 REZONING CHECKLIST The application is not complete if the following are not present: Submission Package Comment sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan: �"L VDOT 6.;_LCity of Winchester 1CL_29 Co. San. Auth. 6-6�* Co. Hlth. Dept. (� o� Inspections Dept. Fire Marshall Loa County Attorney (G 2. application form C 3. location map 7� 4. survey / 5. deed TRACKING D O 9 Application Received Parks & Rec. W� Airport Authority 6. taxes paid statement J 7. sign received 8. fees paid 9. impact analysis 10. proffer statement Rezoning forwarded to consulting engineer, if required. (�e5 Consultation held with planning staff Rezoning reviewed by Zoning Review Committee �i Adjoiner notifications mailed for PC public hearing QO Rezoning heard by PC 0*-P( , �0 �i Public hearing date set by BOS Ordinance of amendment with conditions proffered prepared for BOS Adjoiner notifications mailed for BOS public hearing Rezoning heard by BOS Zoning map amended Rezoning records updated 1 A. Is • TOP OF V IRGI yIA DEVELOMENT CORPORATION N SEP I I POST OFFICE BOX 327E W I NC NESTER , V I RG I N I i i 2260 September 9,1 91 Clearbrook Fite Department -,Treasurer Post- Office Box 56 Clearbrook,Virginia 2624 Dear Clearbrook Fire Department-, Please t ino enclosed a check in the amount of S 5,'--QU.'.+'-' to be applied to the proffers. he finish of this will be art odi t-ion l S 5,000,0which will be issued July , 1992. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Dave Holliday, President Top of Va. Development Corp. TOP OF VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1-89 1204 i P. O. BOX 3276 WINCHESTER, VA. 22601 68-524 PAY _� 510 201 TO THE ORDER OF $ �n CIO/ DOLLARS ' O Jefferson - National Bank 20410249901 inch aster. Virginia 2MI FOR 1140000 1 20 i'e0 -- •0410 S 100 S 24 S'. 2 04 10 2499vo i ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 P.O. BOX 820 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (703) 836-8400 FAIRFAX OFFICE 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 P.O. BOX 12001 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 641-4200 LEESBURG OFFICE SUITE 300 44084 RIVERSIDE PARKWAY LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 2207S (703) 729-6500 0 • LAW OFFICES Hazel&Thomas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION RICHMOND OFFICE 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 600 P.O. BOX 3-K MANASSAS OFFICE RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 THE OLD PIEDMONT BUILDING (804) 344-3400 THIRD FLOOR WINCHESTER OFFICE 9324 WEST STREET 107 NORTH KENT STREET, FOURTH FLOOR MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 2 21 10 P.O. BOX 740 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 330-7400 (703) 665-0050 METRO (703) 803-7474 MARY LAND OFFICE FAX (703) 330-7430 SUITE 2100 120 EAST BALTIMORE STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202 June 3, 1991 (301) 783-3500 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED The Honorable Kenneth Stiles Chairman, Frederick County Board of Supervisors 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Chairman: WASHINGTON OFFICE SUITE 400 2001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. /! WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 (202) 659-7000 Top of Virginia Development Corporation is the owner of the property known as Caleb Heights, which property was previously rezoned by the Board of Supervisors to the RP zoning district in May of 1990. The property is more specifically identified as 21- digit property identification number 54000-A00-0000-0000-00880 located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The proffers which are applicable to the property are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. This letter is submitted in accordance with the provisions of subsection 15.1-491.2:1 of the Virginia Code Annotated. This letter constitutes the landowner's notice of intention to proceed with the implementation of the proffers associated with the above -referenced property. It is meant to insure the retention of such rights as might accrue to the landowner under the provisions of the afore -cited statute. Sincerely yours, HAZEL & THOMAS P.C. By Michael J. McHugh Enclosures cc: John Riley, Jr. County Administrator (Certified Mail-RRR) May 9, 1990 PROFFERS CALEB HEIGHTS REZONING APPLICATION 1. Preliminary matters. Pursuant to Section 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Virginia Code Annotated, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application Number 012-89 for the rezoning of 211 acres from the A-2 Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, ("the subject property"), development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and in substantial conformity with the terms conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant, and such be approved by the County in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, or its legal successors and assigns. 2. Generalized Development Plan. The development of the subject property, and the submission of any Master Development Plans therefor, shall be in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development 2 Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Phasing of Development. In order that the County may be able reasonably to anticipate the pace of development on the subject property, a phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Phasing as shown on the said Master Plan shall be accomplished such that not more than fifteen per cent (15%) of the total permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single- or multi -family units, may be constructed in any one year; provided, however, that this figure shall be cumulative, and any number of such units not constructed in any given year, may be constructed in later years, plus in any year an additional five per cent (5%) of such units in years after December 31, 1991. 4. Transportation. A. The Applicant shall design and construct all roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these proffers. 3 B. (1). The Applicant proffers that it shall design and construct a two lane road from the southern edge of its property to a satisfactory connection to existing Regency Lakes Drive, generally at the location designated as "Interparcel Connector" on the Generalized Development Plan, for ultimate inclusion in the State System of Secondary Highways. It shall construct such road only provided that dedicated right-of-way for such extension has been made available by others. In the event that either the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, or the Virginia Department of Transportation, determines to exercise its powers of eminent domain to acquire right-of-way sufficient to the purposes hereof, however, the Applicant agrees to advance or reimburse to either agency the costs of the exercise of such power, including reasonable attorneys' fees and engineering costs, and the cost of the condemnation itself, in order to obtain the right-of-way necessary to construct the roadway agreed to under this proffer. (2). The Applicant further agrees that the said Interparcel Connector shall be the first section of the road network providing primary access to the subject property to be constructed, provided that the right-of-way necessary for the construction thereof shall have been made available in accordance with the terms of this proffer not later than January 1, 1991. • �1_ 4 C. (1). In order to assist in the provision of an ultimate four lane undivided collector road from State Route 661 south to Route 7, as generally shown on the County's adopted thoroughfare plan, and in the area designated as "Major Collector 80' Right -of -Way" on the Generalized Development Plan, the Applicant shall dedicate the right- of-way necessary for two lanes of an ultimate four lane Major Collector Road between indicators B and C as shown on the said Plan. At such time as the Virginia Department of Transportation approves final design for any portion of such Collector Road, the Applicant shall contribute the reasonably estimated costs of construction of one lane of such Major Collector. The Applicant shall access such Major Collector by its Local Collector Road in the location generally shown on said Plan. (2). The Applicant shall further dedicate all of the necessary right-of-way for the aforesaid four lane undivided collector road between indicators C and D as shown on the Generalized Development Plan, where the right-of-way for such proposed collector runs entirely through the subject property. The Applicant agrees that it shall construct two lanes of the ultimate four lane right-of-way between those two points, to VDOT standards. (3). The phasing of dedication and construction of the roadway located between indicators C and D on the Generalized Development Plan shall be accomplished as part 5 of the consideration of a Master Development Plan for the subject property. (4). The Applicant shall construct a Local Collector Road in the location identified on the Generalized Development Plan, to provide temporary access to the property and to the Major Collector Roadway from State Route 661. It shall insure that all roads internal to the subject property will be designed to serve compatibly with the Major Collector Roadway. (5). The Applicant shall not be responsible for the construction of any other portion of the Major Collector, than is set out herein. (6). In order to avoid proliferation of entrances on State Route 661, when the aforesaid Major Collector Road has been constructed to State Route 661 and has been accepted into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant agrees that it shall initiate the necessary legal steps, in conjunction with the County and VDOT, to close any through traffic from the Local Collector directly onto State Route 661, and to redirect such traffic from within the property onto the Major Collector Road at a suitable access point. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit the Applicant from providing suitable and customary access from State Route 661 to the ten acre remainder parcel located adjacent to State Route 661, and shown on the Generalized Development Plan, provided that that access (except for emergency traffic) is 6 not permitted to the Local Collector once it has been closed to through traffic. 5. Environmental considerations. A. Existing live trees with a trunk diameter greater than six inches shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible, through restrictive covenants of record, consistently with the physical location of dwellings, and except as may be necessary to construct roads, or sewers, water lines or other utilities or required infrastructure. B. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ all reasonable Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. C. Despite its belief that construction on the subject property will have no detrimental effect on Redbud Run, the Applicant agrees that prior to initiation of any construction on the subject property, it shall obtain baseline data as to the existing water quality in the Run from a person, company, or agency, approved by the Director of Planning and Development for Frederick County, and shall thereafter monitor the water quality in the Run semi-annually, and report the findings of such monitoring to the County. In the event that the Director of Planning determines that development of the subject property has directly caused degradation in the water quality of the Run, below the baseline data acquired hereunder, the Applicant shall 7 immediately mitigate such degradation in accordance with engineering reports identifying the resolution thereof, and shall continue to do so for so long as the applicant is engaged in any development activity on the subj ect property. D. The Applicant shall further comply with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the protection of the environment. 6. Maximum permitted density. The overall density of the development of the subject property shall not exceed three and three tenths (3.3) dwelling units per gross acre; and provided further that maximum density shall not exceed two and two tenths (2.2) dwelling units per gross acre in the area of the subject property identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Area A, and eight units per gross acre on the area of the subject property identified thereon as Area B. Only single family dwellings shall be constructed in Area A, and only townhouses shall be constructed in Area B. 7. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development on Schools. The Applicant shall pay to the County's General Fund the sum of $2,200, for each lot or parcel which is approved for development with a single family dwellings, and $1,200, for each lot or parcel which is approved for development with townhouses. Payment of such sums shall be made at the time of recordation of a final subdivision plat for any portion of the subject property, either in cash, or in the form of a non -interest bearing note, for the per -lot sums owing, payable to Frederick County, Virginia, and made payable in twelve months from the date of recordation of said final subdivision plat. The obligor shall have the right to prepay prior such note to the due date thereof. Such payment shall be made for the sole and express purpose of implementing the provisions of the currently adopted Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan with respect to school construction costs in the general vicinity of the subject property. In the event that the money proffered hereunder is not used for the purpose for which proffered within ten years from the date this rezoning is approved, it shall be refunded on demand to the Applicant, or such other entity or person as may have made any payment provided for herein, with interest accrued at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the first such payment is made. 8. Historic Preservation. A. The Applicant shall dedicate to the appropriate public or private agency or authority, in fee simple absolute, those areas identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Historic Preservation Areas, provided 9 that it shall retain the necessary rights -of -way, dedications, easements, and permissions required to construct roads, sewers, water lines and other necessary infrastructure within those preservation areas, as they may be required for the development of the subject property and approved in a Master Development Plan. B. All infrastructure other than roads shall be located underground, and any land area disturbed during construction shall be restored to its original condition after construction is finally completed. The Applicant shall provide suitable buffering and landscaping along any road which may be constructed, compatible with the historic preservation purposes of this proffer, and approved by the Director of Planning and Development as being in accord herewith and with the standards established in the Frederick County Zoning ordinance. C. Historic signage of a kind similar to that used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to mark historic places shall be placed in locations satisfactory to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. D. Notwithstanding any other provision of these proffers, the Applicant agrees that it will not commence construction of any kind on the subject property prior to January 1, 1991. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the applicant from preparing and submitting plans for development 10 of the subject property prior to such date, nor shall it preclude review thereof by appropriate public agencies. E. The Applicant further agrees that at any time prior to January 1, 1991, it will enter into good faith negotiations for the purchase of the subject property with any ready, willing, and able party or parties whose bona fide purpose is to acquire the subject property for the creation of a park, open to the general public, to commemorate the Battle of Third Winchester. The subject property shall be offered at fair market value, as that value is determined by a qualified MAI certified real estate appraiser acceptable to both the Applicant and Frederick County. No such offer shall be accepted unless settlement is provided to occur within ninety days following receipt of a bona fide offer as provided herein, or such other time as the Applicant may agree to. F. The applicant agrees that it shall so phase the development of the subject property that the portion thereof located between what are known as the Huntsberry and Nash properties, and which is generally identified on the Generalized Development Plan, shall be the last portion of the subject property to be developed. If, prior to the submission of subdivision plats for approval for that section of the subject property, any ready, willing, and able party or parties whose bona fide purpose is to acquire the subject 11 property for the creation of a park, open to the general public, to commemorate the Battle of Third Winchester, indicates that it desires to enter into good faith negotiations for the purchase of that portion of the subject property, it shall be offered to such party at fair market value, as that value is determined by a qualified MAI certified real estate appraiser acceptable to both the Applicant and to Frederick County. No such offer shall be accepted unless settlement is provided to occur within ninety days following receipt of a bona fide offer as provided herein, or such other time as the Applicant may agree to. G. The Applicant agrees that it shall dedicate to the public, or otherwise reserve and make available for public use, an eight foot (81) pathway along the frontage road bordering the Huntsberry property, in order to connect potential future park areas by an appropriate walking trail, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan. 9. Contributions to Fire and Rescue Services. A. The applicant agrees that it shall donate the sum of $100.00 for fire and rescue service purposes, for each dwelling unit constructed on site, such donation to be made at the time of recordation of a final subdivision plat for any portion of the subject property, either by cash or check. B. All of the aforesaid contribution shall be made to 12 the Clearbrook Fire Hall, Stonewall District; provided, that in the event a fire and or rescue station is hereafter constructed which assumes the responsibility of providing service to the subject property, and further contributions are yet remaining to be made in accordance with this proffer, asuch contributions shall be made to that station. C. The Applicant further agrees that no later than August 1, 1990, it will provide the additional sum of $10,000 in cash to the Clearbrook Fire Hall, to be used for downpayment on a currently required rescue squad vehicle. The Applicant further agrees that it shall contribute the further sum of $5,000 in cash on each of August 1st of 1991, and 1992, for application to the purchase of the said rescue vehicle. 10. Limitation on submission of subdivision plats. The Applicant agrees that it shall not submit for approval any subdivision plat for the Subject Property, nor shall the County be obligated to review or approve any such plat, until such time as the Director of Planning certifies that there is access to the Property from Route 7 then existing or to be available within a reasonable period of time. �J • 13 TOP OF VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION STATE OF VIRGINIA ) to -wit: COUNTY OF Feeds-KiQk ) I, a Notary Public in the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Dave Holliday, President of Top of Virginia Development Corporation, and who is authorized to act on behalf of said Corporation, whose name is signed to the foregoing, has personally acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand and seal this 9th day of May, 1990. My Commission Expires: 1_4w �2 my kwlss;ea _Ores Garber 27, 1991 Z� — Nota lic JHF2:proffers.001 REZONING APPLICATION #012-89 TOP OF VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CALEB HEIGHTS Rezone 211.04 Acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) LOCATION: Two miles northeast of Winchester, just north of VA. Rt. 7, located south and adjacent to VA. Rt. 661 and east and adjacent to US I-81. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall ADJACENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Agricultural, vacant and residential uses zoned RA (Rural Areas). PROPOSED USE AND IMPROVEMENTS: residences. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Single-family and multi -family Virginia Dept. of Transportation - No objections to rezoning. Before development, VDOT will require a complete set of construction plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data for review. An entrance will have to be constructed to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. It appears existing fences and vegetation will have to be removed from the adjoining properties to obtain adequate sight distances. Sanitation Authority - See attached documents. Health Department - No objection as long as property is served by central water and sewage facilities. Winchester Regional Airport - The Frederick County Airport Zoning District requirements for obstructions must be strictly adhered to. Questions concerning the requirements and restrictions imposed by this zoning may be addressed to the airport manager. Frederick County Fire Marshall - Review for hydrant location, fire protection, etc. will be done on site plan and construction drawings. At present, there are no water mains to the site to calculate water flow. Inspections Department - This request for rezoning, shall comply to Use Group R (Residential), Section 309.0 of the BOCA National Building Code, 1987. Historic Resources Advisory Board - See attached resolution. Planning & zoning - The following issues should be considered: Location - Most of the site is located in the Urban Development Area as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Eastern portions of the site may be beyond the Urban Development area. The site is adjacent to Regency Lakes Estates, zoned MH1 (Mobile Home Community) and RP (Residential Performance). No land with frontage on Rt. 661 is currently zoned RP. Site Suitability - The site is physically suitable for development. Small areas of steep slopes and floodplain are located on the site along Red Bud Run. Large areas of woodlands are located in the southern portions of the site. The Sanitation Authority tells us that gravity sewer can be provided to an 8" line 400' away in Regency Lakes. It can also be provided by force main to a 10" line 500' located several thousand feet away in Regency Lakes and across I-81. The applicant proposes to serve one-half of the site with sewer using a utility easement available to Regency Lakes. Potential Impacts - The applicant has provided an impact analysis. The following impacts should be considered: Traffic: The applicant has proffered a maximum gross density of 3.3 dwellings per acre for the site. Development of the site would result in the generation of over 6,000 average daily trip ends from the site. Development could result in substantial adverse impacts on Route 661. The applicant is proffering additional road improvements allowing access to Route 7 in conformance with the proposed general road plan for the County. The applicant has proffered to construct a road connection from the site south to Regency Lakes Drive. The proffers state that such a road will be constructed if the off -site 9 0 3 right of way is provided to the applicant. The applicant proffers to advance or reimburse the County for the cost of acquiring such a right of way through eminent domain if necessary. The applicant does not specify during which phase of development such a road would be constructed. It is the opinion of the staff however that such a connection could be required during the first phase of development under current ordinance requirements. The applicant has proffered to provide an 80 foot right of way for a north -south major collector in conformance with the proposed general road plan. The applicant proffers to construct a two lane collector road in portions of that right of way. Along the northern portions of the collector, the proposed road will straddle the western boundary of the parcel. The applicant has proffered to construct one lane of the road over that portion when VDOT approves final design of that road. Another local collector road is proposed to be used until the major collector is constructed, at which time the local collector would be closed. Some specification on the time of such road construction in relation to the phases of development would be appropriate. A complete road system linking the project to Route 661 and Route 7 are proposed along with a segment of major collector road. The phasing of such road construction is not totally clear. It is the opinion of the staff that we will be able to address the phasing issue at the time of master development plan review. Community Facilities: It can be projected that, at the densities proffered, full development of the site could result in 374 addition school children in County schools. To address the impacts of the development on school facilities the applicant has proffered to provide $2,200 per single family dwelling and $1,200 per townhouse dwellings based on the relative number of school children projected for each housing type. Such funds would be provided to be applied to the school projects identified in the Capital Improvements Plan. Such payments are proffered to be made at the time of building permit issuance. It is proffered that the applicant, or its assigns or legal successors, will be responsible for the payment of the cash proffers. The staff prefers that cash proffers be provided in association with final subdivision plan approval. It is the staffs opinion that it would be 4 more straightforward to enforce the cash proffers in association with subdivision. The staff does not agree with the applicant's statement that the project would have no impacts on the Parks and Recreation budget. The development would not necessarily have to provide recreational facilities and residents of the development would undoubtedly use County programs. It is the opinion of the staff that this development would result in some increase in the use of facilities at Clearbrook and other County recreational facilities and programs. However, the applicant is proposing to dedicate parkland to the County. The staff would add that there will be additional costs associated with service by the fire and rescue company. The applicant has proffered to provide $100 per dwelling to be applied to emergency services facilities. Such contributions would be made at the time of building permit issuance. Environmental: The Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances of the County provide for various forms of environmental protection. The applicant has proffered to preserve trees with a diameter greater than six inches. The applicant proffers to employ Best Management Practices to protect water quality on and around the site. The applicant proffers to establish baseline data concerning water quality in Redbud Run. The applicant proffers to monitor water quality and to submit the results to the staff for five to ten years. If the staff determines that water quality has degraded, the applicant proffers to "take reasonable steps to mitigate such degradation." Historical: The Historic Resources Advisory Committee has reviewed this proposal and recommended denial of the rezoning. The Committee states that the site is at the center of the land comprising the remaining undisturbed portions of the Third Battle of Winchester Battlefield. Portions of the site to be rezoned are recognized and specifically referenced in historic accounts of the battle. The applicant has proffered to dedicate to a public or private agency an area of the site to be used for historic preservation parkland. Appropriate landscaping and buffering is proposed along the major collector road to promote preservation purposes. The applicant proffers 0 5 to not commence construction January 1, 1991 and to agree negotiations for the sale of public park commemorating the on the property prior to to enter into good faith the site for purposes of a Third Battle of Winchester. The sale price would be based on fair market value to be determined by a certified appraiser. Conclusions - The site is located in the Urban Development Area. The Comprehensive Plan states that new urban development should only be approved in the Urban Development Area when facilities and roads of sufficient capacity have been provided. The applicant has proffered substantial road improvements in conformance with the proposed general road plans. Substantial contributions are proposed to the school, parks and fire and rescue systems. These contributions are appropriate in relation to current policy. Study and discussion is underway in association with the revision of the comprehensive plan which may suggest different evaluations of impacts. Various conditions are proffered to mitigate various impacts. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 414190: Approval with acceptance of proffers PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 414190: Approved with proffers by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Copenhaver, McDonald, Dehaven, Romine, Thomas, Golladay NO: Marker, Sherwood, Wilson, Rinker ��1/Ci/ ✓ �r!(/;�riy yl! .v '.�F`r y �t E T � A • REZONING REQUEST County of Frederick, Virginia Stonewall Magisterial District Prepared for Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 May 1989 by gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. FREDERICKSBURG WINCHESTER 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 rezoned. (Use additional pages if necessary). These people will be notified by mail of this application. {PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 21-DIGIT NUMBER) Name: Development of America Co. / Address: P.O. Box 520 Westminister, MD 21157 ' Property I.D.# 54000-A00-0000-0000-0099F Name: Charles William Huntsberry Address: 611 Handley Ave. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.# 55000-A00-0000-0000-00030 Name: Charles William Huntsberry Address: 611 Handley Ave. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.# 55000-A00-0000-0000-00040 Name: Louis R. & Vera J. Herring Address: Rt.8,Box 455 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.# 55000-A00-0000-0000-00050 Name: Wayne D. & Stephanie P. Siepel f Address: Rt. 8.Box 408. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.# 55000-A00-0000-0000-00180 Name: Wayne D. & Stephanie P. Siepel v Address: Rt. 8.Box 408. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.# 55000-A00-0000-0000-00190 Name: Wayne D. & Stephanie P. Siepel Address: Rt. 8.Box 408. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.# 55000-A00-0000-0000-00200 Name: Wayne D. & Stephanie P. Siepel Address: Rt. 8.Box 408. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.# 55000-A00-0000-0000-00210 Name: Robert A. Nash 0 16 APPLICATION FOR REZONING FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Zoning Amendment No. 012-'e9? Submittal Deadline is Application Date: 6/29/89 P/C Meeting: Fee Paid 5�(.�o?C:. �'"�c B/O/S Meeting: 1. APPLICANT (The applicant is the —owner XX other (check one) NAME: Top of Va Development Corporation ADDRESS: P.O. Box 3276 Winchester. Va 22601 TELEPHONE:(703) 667-2120, 2. Please list all owners of the property or parties in interest: RED BUD ASSOCIATES 3. The property sought to be rezoned is located at (please give exact directions) 2 miles Northeast of Winchester. Just north of Va.Rte 7. Located south & adjacent to Va Rte. 661 and East & Adjacent to U.S. Interstate 81, 4. The property has a frontage of 200 feet and a depth of -- feet and consists of 211.04 acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property to be rezoned is owned by Red Bud Associates as evidenced by deed from James V.L. Kiser, et ux as recorded in deed book no.683 on page All, registry of the County of Frederick. 6. 21-Digit Property Indentification No:54000-A00-0000-0000-00880 Magisterial District:STONEWALL 7. It is requested that the property be rezoned from &- to BED 8. It is proposed that the property will be put to the following use: Single Family & Multi -Family 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: Housing as allowed by Rg Ordinance. Address: c/o American Security Bank 730 15th St.,N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Property I.D.# 55000-A00-0000-0000-00220 Name: Roger L. & Ruth B. McBride Address: Rt. 8.Box 508 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.# 43000-A00-0000-0000-01570 Name: JJJA Associates Address: c/o Driggs Corp. 8700 Ashwood Drive Capitol Heights, MD 20743 Property I.D.# 54000-A00-0000-0000-00870 Name: Guy B. & Jeanne A. Robinson Address: Rt. 8.Box 496 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.# 43000-A00-0000-0000-01590 Name: Alvin L. Glatkowski & Janice Marle Kirby Address: Rt. 8.Box 493 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.# 43000-A00-0000-0000-0159A Name: Harry L. McCann Address: 315 Jefferson St. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.# 43000-A00-0000-0000-01580 11. Additional comments, if any I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of the Frederick County, Virginia, with the above facts as support of this appllication. Signature of Applicant: y G a I �'A Signature of owner. �� f% �// * e C q r cv Owners' Mailing Adress: 5.30 �✓�,; 7s(Crc 5�.� %e.S-�cr� Owners' Telephone No: 1,4 7_ 8 SdC For Office Use Only PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING RECOMMENDATION OF (date) j//S/IIjO Approval Denial SECRETARY (signed) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING ACTION OF (date) 6/`�/''0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 AMENDMENT FAX 703 / 667-0370 FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE Approvals: Planning Commission Board of Supervisors on April 4, 1990 with proffers a-JF An ordinance amending the zoning district map for application #012- 89 of Top of Virginia Development Corp. WHEREAS, Rezoning application 012-89 of Top of Virginia Development Corp to rezone 211.04 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), located two miles northeast of Winchester, just north of Va. Rt. 7, located south and adjacent to Va. Rt. 661 and east and adjacent to US I-81, in the Stonewall Magisterial District and designated as property ID# 54000-A00-0000- 0000-0088-0 , was referred to the Planning Commission on August 2, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on August 2, 1989 and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a draft statement of conditions proffered prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this application on May 9, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors received a signed statement of conditions proffered prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds this .rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, convenience and good zoning practice; THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: That Chapter 21 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 211.04 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance located two miles northeast of Winchester, just north of Va. Rt. 7, located south and adjacent to Va. Rt. 661 and east and adjacent to US I-81 in the Stonewall Magisterial District and designated by property ID# 54000-A00-0000-0000-0088-0, as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and property owner as follows: 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 0 0 May 9, 1990 PROFFERS CALEB HEIGHTS REZONING APPLICATION 1. Preliminary matters. Pursuant to Section 15.1-491.1 et sea. of the Virginia Code Annotated, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application Number 012-89 for the rezoning of 211 acres from the A-2 Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, ("the subject property"), development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and in substantial conformity with the terms conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant, and such be approved by the County in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, or its legal successors and assigns. 2. Generalized Development Plan. The development of the subject property, and the submission of any Master Development Plans therefor, shall be in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development 2 Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Phasing of Development. In order that the County may be able reasonably to anticipate the pace of development on the subject property, a phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Phasing as shown on the said Master Plan shall be accomplished such that not more than fifteen per cent (15%) of the total permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single- or multi -family units, may be constructed in any one year; provided, however, that this figure shall be cumulative, and any number of such units not constructed in any given year, may be constructed in later years, plus in any year an additional five per cent (5%) of such units in years after December 31, 1991. 4. Transportation. A. The Applicant shall design and construct all roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these proffers. e B. (1). The Applicant proffers that it shall design and construct a two lane road from the southern edge of its property to a satisfactory connection to existing Regency Lakes Drive, generally at the location designated as "Interparcel Connector" on the Generalized Development Plan, for ultimate inclusion in the State System of Secondary Highways. It shall construct such road only provided that dedicated right-of-way for such extension has been made available by others. In the event that either the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, or the Virginia Department of Transportation, determines to exercise its powers of eminent domain to acquire right-of-way sufficient to the purposes hereof, however, the Applicant agrees to advance or reimburse to either agency the costs of the exercise of such power, including reasonable attorneys' fees and engineering costs, and the cost of the condemnation itself, in order to obtain the right-of-way necessary to construct the roadway agreed to under this proffer. (2). The Applicant further agrees that the said Interparcel Connector shall be the first section of the road network providing primary access to the subject property to be constructed, provided that the right-of-way necessary for the construction thereof shall have been made available in accordance with the terms of this proffer not later than January 1, 1991. 4 C. (1). In order to assist in the provision of an ultimate four lane undivided collector road from State Route 661 south to Route 7, as generally shown on the County's adopted thoroughfare plan, and in the area designated as "Major Collector 80' Right -of -Way" on the Generalized Development Plan, the Applicant shall dedicate the right- of-way necessary for two lanes of an ultimate four lane Major Collector Road between indicators B and C as shown on the said Plan. At such time as the Virginia Department of Transportation approves final design for any portion of such Collector Road, the Applicant shall contribute the reasonably estimated costs of construction of one lane of such Major Collector. The Applicant shall access such Major Collector by its Local Collector Road in the location generally shown on said Plan. (2). The Applicant shall further dedicate all of the necessary right-of-way for the aforesaid four lane undivided collector road between indicators C and D as shown on the Generalized Development Plan, where the right-of-way for such proposed collector runs entirely through the subject property. The Applicant agrees that it shall construct two lanes of the ultimate four lane right-of-way between those two points, to VDOT standards. (3). The phasing of dedication and construction of the roadway located between indicators C and D on the Generalized Development Plan shall be accomplished as part 5 of the consideration of a Master Development Plan for the subject property. (4). The Applicant shall construct a Local Collector Road in the location identified on the Generalized Development Plan, to provide temporary access to the property and to the Major Collector Roadway from State Route 661. It shall insure that all roads internal to the subject property will be designed to serve compatibly with the Major Collector Roadway. (5). The Applicant shall not be responsible for the construction of any other portion of the Major Collector, than is set out herein. (6). In order to avoid proliferation of entrances on State Route 661, when the aforesaid Major Collector Road has been constructed to State Route 661 and has been accepted into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant agrees that it shall initiate the necessary legal steps, in conjunction with the County and VDOT, to close any through traffic from the Local Collector directly onto State Route 661, and to redirect such traffic from within the property onto the Major Collector Road at a suitable access point. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit the Applicant from providing suitable and customary access from State Route 661 to the ten acre remainder parcel located adjacent to State Route 6611 and shown on the Generalized Development Plan, provided that that access (except for emergency traffic) is 9 0 6 not permitted to the Local Collector. once it has been closed to through traffic. 5. Environmental considerations. A. Existing live trees with a trunk diameter greater than six inches shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible, through restrictive covenants of record, consistently with the physical location of dwellings, and except as may be necessary to construct roads, or sewers, water lines or other utilities or required infrastructure. B. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ all reasonable Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. C. Despite its belief that construction on the subject property will have no detrimental effect on Redbud Run, the Applicant agrees that prior to initiation of any construction on the subject property, it shall obtain baseline data as to the existing water quality in the Run from a person, company, or agency, approved by the Director of Planning and Development for Frederick County, and shall thereafter monitor the water quality in the Run semi-annually, and report the findings of such monitoring to the County. In the event that the Director of Planning determines that development of the subject property has directly caused degradation in the water quality of the Run, below the baseline data acquired hereunder, the Applicant shall 7 immediately mitigate such degradation in accordance with engineering reports identifying the resolution thereof, and shall continue to do so for so long as the applicant is engaged in any development activity on the subject property. D. The Applicant shall further comply with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the protection of the environment. 6. Maximum permitted density. The overall density of the development of the subject property shall not exceed three and three tenths (3.3) dwelling units per gross acre; and provided further that maximum density shall not exceed two and two tenths (2.2) dwelling units per gross acre in the area of the subject property identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Area A. and eight units per gross acre on the area of the subject property identified thereon as Area B. Only single family dwellings shall be constructed in Area A, and only townhouses shall be constructed in Area B. 7. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development on Schools. The Applicant shall pay to the County's General Fund the sum of $21200, for each lot or parcel which is approved for development with a single family dwellings, and $1,200, for 0 each lot or parcel which is approved for development with townhouses. Payment of such sums shall be made at the time of recordation of a final subdivision plat for any portion of the subject property, either in cash, or in the form of a non -interest bearing note, for the per -lot sums owing, payable to Frederick County, Virginia, and made payable in twelve months from the date of recordation of said final subdivision plat. The obligor shall have the right to prepay prior such note to the due date thereof. Such payment shall be made for the sole and express purpose of implementing the provisions of the currently adopted Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan with respect to school construction costs in the general vicinity of the subject property. In the event that the money proffered hereunder is not used for the purpose for which proffered within ten years from the date this rezoning is approved, it shall be refunded on demand to the Applicant, or such other entity or person as may have made any payment provided for herein, with interest accrued at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the first such payment is made. 8. Historic Preservation. A. The Applicant shall dedicate to the appropriate public or private agency or authority, in fee simple absolute, those areas identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Historic Preservation Areas, provided 0 i 9 that it shall retain the necessary rights -of -way, dedications, easements, and permissions required to construct roads, sewers, water lines and other necessary infrastructure within those preservation areas, as they may be required for the development of the subject property and approved in a Master Development Plan. B. All infrastructure other than roads shall be located underground, and any land area disturbed during construction shall be restored to its original condition after construction is finally completed. The Applicant shall provide suitable buffering and landscaping along any road which may be constructed, compatible with the historic preservation purposes of this proffer, and approved by the Director of Planning and Development as being in accord herewith and with the standards established in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. C. Historic signage of a kind similar to that used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to mark historic places shall be placed in locations satisfactory to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. D. Notwithstanding any other provision of these proffers, the Applicant agrees that it will not commence construction of any kind on the subject property prior to January 1, 1991. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the applicant from preparing and submitting plans for development 0 10 of the subject property prior to such date, nor shall it preclude review thereof by appropriate public agencies. E. The Applicant further agrees that at any time prior to January 1, 1991, it will enter into good faith negotiations for the purchase of the subject property with any ready, willing, and able party or parties whose bona fide purpose is to acquire the subject property for the creation of a park, open to the general public, to commemorate the Battle of Third Winchester. The subject property shall be offered at fair market value, as that value is determined by a qualified MAI certified real estate appraiser acceptable to both the Applicant and Frederick County. No such offer shall be accepted unless settlement is provided to occur within ninety days following receipt of a bona fide offer as provided herein, or such other time as the Applicant may agree to. F. The applicant agrees that it shall so phase the development of the subject property that the portion thereof located between what are known as the Huntsberry and Nash properties, and which is generally identified on the Generalized Development Plan, shall be the last portion of the subject property to be developed. If, prior to the submission of subdivision plats for approval for that section of the subject property, any ready, willing, and able party or parties whose bona fide purpose is to acquire the subject 11 property for the creation of a park, open to the general public, to commemorate the Battle of Third Winchester, indicates that it desires to enter into good faith negotiations for the purchase of that portion of the subject property, it shall be offered to such party at fair market value, as that value is determined by a qualified MAI certified real estate appraiser acceptable to both the Applicant and to Frederick County. No such offer shall be accepted unless settlement is provided to occur within ninety days following receipt of a bona fide offer as provided herein, or such other time as the Applicant may agree to. G. The Applicant agrees that it shall dedicate to the public, or otherwise reserve and make available for public use, an eight foot (81) pathway along the frontage road bordering the Huntsberry property, in order to connect potential future park areas by an appropriate walking trail, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan. 9. Contributions to Fire and Rescue Services. A. The applicant agrees that it shall donate the sum of $100.00 for fire and rescue service purposes, for each dwelling unit constructed on site, such donation to be made at the time of recordation of a final subdivision plat for any portion of the subject property, either by cash or check. B. All of the aforesaid contribution shall be made to f 0 • 12 the Clearbrook Fire Hall, Stonewall District; provided, that in the event a fire and or rescue station is hereafter constructed which assumes the responsibility of providing service to the subject property, and further contributions are yet remaining to be made in accordance with this proffer, asuch contributions shall be made to that station. C. The Applicant further agrees that no later than August 1, 1990, it will provide the additional sum of $10,000 in cash to the Clearbrook Fire Hall, to be used for downpayment on a currently required rescue squad vehicle. The Applicant further agrees that it shall contribute the further sum of $5,000 in cash on each of August 1st of 1991, and 1992, for application to the purchase of the said rescue vehicle. 10. Limitation on submission of subdivision plats. The Applicant agrees that it shall not submit for approval any subdivision plat for the Subject Property, nor shall the County be obligated to review or approve any such plat, until such time as the Director of Planning certifies that there is access to the Property from Route 7 then existing or to be available within a reasonable period of time. 13 TOP OF VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION STATE OF VIRGINIA to -wit: COUNTY OF I, a Notary Public in the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Dave Holliday, President of Top of Virginia Development Corporation, and who is authorized to act on behalf of said Corporation, whose name is signed to the foregoing, has personally acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand and seal this 9th day of May, 1990. My Commission Expires: tly Corllj,�is2 09 £spires Odder 27, 1991 � Nota y PU16 lic JHF2:proffers.001 This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Passed this 9th day of May, 1990. A Copy Teste John R'.\ il'e , Jr.j Frederick County Administrator Environmental & Planning Impacts for Top of Virginia Development Corporation. June 1989 ?_ V I JUN 3 0 1989 j The firm of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. has been commissioned to evaluate the above referenced project in light of several major planning issues, as outlined and required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This document is prepared in support of and in preparation to rezone the property from present Agricultural, General District(A-2) to Residential Performance (RP). 1 ) Traffic Impacts The 211 acres of land, zoned residential performance, will yield approximately 570 homes (at 2.7 dwelling units per acre density). At 7 trip ends per day per dwelling unit, approximately 4000 trips per day will be generated. Distribute this generated traffic equally between east bound to Route 7 and west bound to Route 11 at 181. The addition of 2000 trips per day to Route 661 will create the need to move improvement of this road to a higher priority in County planning. Gates may be required at the railroad crossing and signalization of US Route 11. Sewage service to this site can be provided in several ways; all involving pumping of sewage. It is recommended that a single pump station on Red Bud Run be considered for all uses however this plan needs to be coordinated with the FCSA planning and the planning of adjacent development interests. Access to the existing Regency Lakes sewerage system is provided by a utility easement connection at the southeast corner of the site. This connection can handle water and sewer linkage for a portion, perhaps 1/2 of the project. Other linkage points and for downstream improvements will be required to service the remainder of the project which ultimately connects to the Abrams Creek interceptor system and transfers waste flow to the Opequon Regional WWTP. Flows generated from the total development are estimated by the State Health Department at 228,000 (400gpd/home) gallons per day with an instantaneous peak flow of 395 gallons per minute. All sewage conveyance systems involved should have full capability of handling this additional flow as does the plant have the capability of treating and discharging this flow in satisfactory manor. An engineering evaluation of the impact on the existing sewage systems should be made coincident with the Preliminary Master Development Plan Phase. This project would connect to the existing water supply system located in the Regency Lakes Development. For the same reasons as with sewage, a study of appropriate offsite improvements needs to be prepared at the preliminary Master Development Plan stage coordinated through the FCSA. The estimated water use is the same as sewage flow (228,000 gpd). This project will generate one school age children per household. The County would have to provide facilities for approximately 570 children. This project would result in no impact on Parks and Recreation budget. The development of single family in lieu of agricultural will increase run off in small amounts over that which would be created in farming use. It is recommended that either suitable green space be allowed to reduce run off amounts or that the increased run off from the development be reduced prior to discharge from the site. In lieu of the above, additional storm water detention calculations should be presented with final design which would show no adverse impacts created by the imposition of this increase storm water. 7. Emergency Services Cost: Sheriff protection will be required by this facility. Routine patrols of the area should suffice for the majority of time and materials necessary to cover this facility also. Special patrols and activities may include a total of 2 hours per week. Special coverage at $50.00 per hour would involve approximately $5200.00 per year. There should be no other impacts on emergency services. r Costs to the County would be normal for this type of development. No special waste removal needs are planned. Waste removal by house to house collection is available by private contractor. 9. Environmental Impacts: There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity including run off, sediment, noise and traffic movements. These are to be minimized by proper compliance with local and state laws for environmental protection. A minor increase in run off quantity and a decrease in quality is probable from this development. The effects on the downstream impoundment and stream are minimal and in accordance with local and state regulations. There is no known loss of irretrievable resources involved with this project. There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be effected by this project. Ground water and air quality should be unaffected. A minor impact of a negative nature is associated with lighting for security and business use. These should be closely controlled during planning stage to minimize the adverse impacts on adjacent residential structures and impacts on the traveling public. 10. Other Fiscal Impacts: No other impacts were noted. 11. Historic Impacts: This project will be evaluated for sites of historic significance and such sites cataloged and shown on the Preliminary Master Development Plan. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineer C EM/ckd P OF //i12 (6 W D6tJ. �F. GaN/N<r• d /7 - S 9 43 i ... ... �•1 .w tA,^� /� � wi\ ti '� •.,.. {l' ��`t� din �� � �. _1f`��'/ / - � •y � - � w"4'�' % 1• '4' y5�� III M 55 � O aR RA RWP 3 RP f� •� " •4 - �1 RA T, _ = OA �, Ll Top of Virginia Development Corp. Post Office Box 3276 Winchester, Virginia 22601 May 14, 1990 Dear We wanted to take a moment to show you our true appreciation in the courtesy extended us during the hearings on our Caleb Heights project. Your spirit of leadership and dedication is part of what makes this county the great place it is. We need not tell you that your job isn't an easy one; and we certainly don't envy the time involved in your duties. It is very comforting to know Frederick County has people, such as yourself, leading it in positive ways to obtain managed growth and a great place in which to raise our children. Keep up the good work; if we can ever be of assistance in any way, please don't hesitate to call on us. Thanking you once again, we remain DBH/b Sincerely, TOP OF VA DEV CORP Da B. olliday, President Ronald V. Shickle, Secretary/Treas i c1, � Vl, 1� COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 May 17, 1990 Top of Va. Development Corp. Attn: Mr. Delbert E. Sibert P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Sibert: This letter is to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of May 9, 1990: Approval of Rezoning Application #012-89 of Top of Virginia Development Corp. (Caleb Heights) to rezone 211.04 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family and multi -family residences. This property is located two miles northeast of Winchester, just north of Va. Route 7, south and adjacent to Va. Route 661 and east and adjacent to US I-81, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This application was approved with the proffers submitted. If you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application, do not hesitate to call this office. Sincerely, Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk cc: G. W. Clifford & Associates 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - . 22601 May 7, 1990 Mr. David Holliday Dave Holliday Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 2715 Winchester, VA 22601 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Frederick County Planning Staff 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, as representatives of the membership of our organizations, are submitting the following proposals regarding the Caleb Heights re -zoning request: 1. As set forth in the Master Development Plan pre- sented to the Frederick County Planning Commission on April 4, 1990, there is a 2 lane road (with plans for expansion to 4 lanes) dissecting the 62 + - acres of open space. We request that this road be run around the periphery of the open space, so as to make the open space as educational and attractive an historic park as possible. 2. We request that the above open space be given over to Frederick County for safekeeping and development as an historic park (as opposed to a recreational park) before any construction of any type is begun anywhere on the Caleb Heights property. We further request that this open space be pro- tected and that any use of material from the open space or placement of material on the open space be prohibited and that prohibition be enforced unless it is directly related to improving the open space as an historic park. 3. We request that the most significant remaining historic sites be determined by representatives of the undersigned organizations and the builder, and that these be developed last. This request is made in order that the undersigned organization have a reasonable opportunity to take steps to preserve the sites in their undisturbed state. ~• ! 4. We request that Frederick County, should the rezoning application and Master Development Plan be approved, place an overlay Historic Site zoning on the 62 +- acres of open space which was prof- fered on April 4, 1990, and on any and all remain- ing acres of historic significance and on the pro- perty from the Huntsberry tracts and JJJA tract necessary to complete the battlefield park. Sincerely e\j l(�U ►�-� PVesmo�-f-io'► ov 41ti�oyiG wnclvslev, ItAc . 0 0 A. The submitted drawing shows a bend in the power line on parcel 90+90A. From this bend: 1. Water is available at the intersection of SR 661 and US 11. It is a loll diameter line and is approximately 6,300 feet away. 2. Water is available in the Battleview subdivision. It is an 8" line and is approximately 2,200 feet away. 3. Water is available in Regency Lakes. It is an 8" line and approximately 3,700 feet away. 4. There is a force main sewer on the other side of I-81. It is a 10" line and is approximately 500 feet away. The capacity of the existing pumping system will have to be studied to see if an upgrade in the pumps and/or line is needed. 5. Gravity sewer is available in Regency Lakes. It is an 8" line and is approximately 400 feet away. Refer to the attached drawings. B. There is water and sewer capacity available at this time. ��: ►ry deb; SVEf� L //YES �,;� F,f., � /• � eat/er . _ 11 � � � _ ��•^ l '01Xc ;. AK soh �wne - _� ,4. •��j''•'•\may • ,� ��p _ i -�?;- rh - bMF� r i.a _ !• r,` i i~ ' ,`t , '� �,• Tom, Path �bo o- � � � �141p�a,p • � ' Fi5bwr, terrace J . ,,� � Via. � � ` ::�� �••;• ',�� ,/ HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON CALEB HEIGHTS REZONING APPLICATION MARCH 6, 1990 On August 15, 1989 the Historic Resources Advisory Board, (HRAB) recommended denial of the Caleb Heights rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors based on the local, state, and national historical significance of the site. On December 19, 1989, at the request of the applicant's attorney, and in accordance with the wishes of the Board of Supervisors, the HRAB again met to hear a revised proposal for the property. Following the December 19th meeting the HRAB: * Made a site visit to the property on January 11, 1990, in order to obtain first-hand knowledge of the terrain and the relationship of the parcel to the surrounding area. * Heard from concerned individuals and groups, recognized authorities on the history of the Third Battle of Winchester, and the county planning staff at a meeting on January 16, 1990. * Received a proposal from the county planning staff suggesting an area that might be set aside as a memorial park on January 31, 1990. * Met to hear a development proposal from the applicants on February 20, 1990, modifying the boundary of the park area which had been developed by the county planning staff and discussed at the preceding meeting. Following careful consideration of all the input from the various individuals and groups received over the preceding months, information supplied by the applicant related to his various proposals, and the recommendations of the county planning staff, the HRAB has determined that: The entire Caleb Heights parcel and surrounding area, comprising the remaining RA (Rural Areas) zoned and undisturbed portion of the Third Battle of Winchester, is of such historical significance that the dedication of any portion of the Caleb Heights tract for a memorial park, would not adequately compensate for the approval of Residential Performance zoning and subsequent residential development of another portion of the parcel. HRAB Recommendation on Caleb Heights Rezoning, page2 The HRAB further recommends that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors consider taking the necessary steps to designate the area of the Third Battle as a Historic District including the development of appropriate ordinances designed to protect the district once designated. The HRAB offers the following as the basis for arriving at this recommendation: 1) Of the roughly three thousand acres which comprised the area of the Third Battle of Winchester, only about 600 acres of relatively undisturbed land remains under RA zoning. 2) The Caleb Heights parcel is situated in the center of the 600 acres of RA zoned land comprising the undisturbed portion of the battle. 3) Physical features of the Caleb parcel, such as the First and Second Woods, Dupont's Hill and the old east -west road are recognized and specifically referenced in many historic accounts of the battle. 4) Legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate which would authorize a study of Shenandoah Valley Civil War sites, including Third Winchester. 5) On February 20, 1990, The Virginia Department of Historic Resources determined that because of its significance in military history, the site meets the criteria for listing in the State and National Registers of Historic Places. 6) The HRAB was formed by the Board of Supervisors in response, partially, to the stated goal of the Comprehensive Plan to "Protect the Historic resources in Frederick County." and this recommendation is in keeping with that goal. 0 9 k Citizens for a Quality Community of Frederick County and the City of Winchester P. 0. Box 2558 Winchester, Virginia 22601 May 9, 1990 Frederick County Board of Supervisors 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 Gentlemen: My name is Claudia Bean. I am President of Citizens for a Quality Community of Frederick County and Winchester. We are here together this evening in a practical exercize of those obligations of citizenship that we all theorized about in the forums - Your Land, My Land, Our Land. In those forums, we heard of the need to balance the entitlement to personal freedom with the responsibility to one's community in assuring quality of life for ourselves and for future generations. CQC believes that any proposed development must be weighed on that scale. The balance must be struck between profit and responsibility to one's community. Landowners should collect their profit only after they have met these public responsibilities. CQC feels that the best interests of the community would be served by denying the Rezoning Request of Top of Virginia Development Corporation for 211.04 acres at Caleb Heights from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). Tourism is a growing industry in Virginia, and can be in Frederick County. An article in April's Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of Commerce Newsletter speaks to this. There is increasing recognition and documentation that tourism is a major factor in economic development. The dollars spent by tourists create jobs, generate wages, salaries, and business profits, and are the source of a variety of tax revenues. n Frederick County Boa•d of Supervisors May 9, 1990 4 Page 2 Citing recent growth in state tourism programs, (Public Administration Review) finds that, "Tourism development is increasingly seen in terms of economic diversification, not as a 'frill.' . . . The article (from PAR) concludes that "Tourism, though neglected as a policy sector, is ironically likely to have a major impact on revenues, employment, and quality of life in the United States into the middle of the 21st century," and that "The public sector has- a vital role to play in seeing that tourism's potential is realized." The April, 1990 North Valley Business Journal also had an editorial on the impact of tourism on the Northern Shenandoah Valley. Tourists spendz.a great deal of money in our area every year; the 1990 take should be in the $135 million dollar range . . . Triple this number for the multiplier effect of money passing hands in the community and you get $500 million added to the local economy. Tourism provides jobs and tax revenues without putting pressures on government services. To maintain the steady flow of tourists, the North Valley needs to preserve its scenery and heritage. This means restoring rather than tearing down old houses, keeping Civil War monuments and battlefields intact and using creative zoning to maintain the scenery of the countryside. Once gone they can't be resurrected. Politicians and builders need to compromise so that certain areas are designated as growth areas and others are restricted to development. . . (Development) . . . doesn't have to occur in the path of the tourist, a main contributor to the area's economic well-being. In the long run, businesses in the North Valley are better served. New Market Battlefield Park had between 60,000 and 70,000 visitors last year. That is twice the number of people who came to our Visitor's Center last year. New Market only spent $10,000 on advertising. The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, in its' business plan (which has been approved by area bankers and by the National Trust for Historic Preservation) has estimated that it will bring in a minimum of $250,000 to the local economy in its' first year of operation and promotion. The addition of a second battlefield site, historically connected to Cedar Creek, would increase the time and money spent by tourists to this area. If that tourist then spent the night in the area, there would be an even greater increase in tourist income. 52% of tourist dollars are spent on meals and lodging, as documented in the attached information from the U. S. Travel Data Center. Frederick County Boa of Supervisors May 9, 1990 Page 3 Many communities look desperately for tourist to bring people into their area. We are lucky don't have to build one -- it's already here, to be preserved, protected and promoted. attractions in that we it just needs CQC feels that we should be working toward the eventual acquisition of the property by either the county, state, federal government or combination thereof and establish a battlefield park which would attract tourist dollars to the area. Any county expenditures would be more than recovered in tourist dollars spent here - generally a 300% return on investment. Can the developer show us in black and white how this development will support itself and not increase the tax bill of every citizen of .this county? CQC does not feel that taxpayers should subsidize the profit of developers with their tax dollars. It is our feeling that every individual is responsible for contributing to the general good before realizing profits. Why do we need these houses in Frederick County? What are the costs to the county of this development? It will increase the burden on our school system -- we already need to build new schools, and our teachers are at the lower end of the pay scale because that is all we can afford to pay them. If 620 homes are built at Caleb Heights, we can estimate between .46 to .805 children per residence, depending on whether it is single family or multi -family. This means 285 to 500 children. The best current estimates are that each student generates $3700 in operating costs per year. Therefore, somewhere between 1 and 1.9 million dollars per year will be needed in operating costs alone to educate the children in this development. This doesn't even take into account the cost of building the schools necessary to house these students. Today, school buildings cost about $10,000 per seat for Kindergarten through eighth grade and $13,000 per seat for grades 9 through 12. And what about sewage treatment and water lines? The county must provide the lines up to the development, and, depending on the size of development, run the lines down the roads within the development. The new homeowner only pays for the connection between the street and the house. Generally speaking, the citizens end up bearing 60% of the cost. Frederick County BoAd of Supervisors • May 9, 1990 Page 4 If the rest of Frederick County's governmental costs are proportionate to our school costs (63% of our budget), county capital costs are between $5100 and $5300 per new single family unit and $3000 to $3350 per multi -family unit. Developing 400 single family and 200 multi -family units would generate around $3 million in capital costs. This does not include operating costs, sewer subsidies, or increased levels of service due to an increased urban fraction of our population. We already have problems with roads -- maintaining the roads we have, improving roads which need to be improved -- and now we will compound the problem by adding traffic to the Route 7/ Berryville Avenue corridor - which is already overburdened and unsafe?. One need only look at the problems we have at the Apple Blossom Mall area on Route 50 to envision what this development would mean to Route 7. According to a traffic count done by VDOT between April and June of 1989, the Average Daily Traffic onto Route 7 from Route 660 (which is a major southern connector for Route 661) was 1,453 vehicles. According to origin and destination studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a single family unit generates 10 trips per day, a multi- family unit generates 6.5 trips per day. These are trips of all kinds: school buses, delivery and service vehicles, commercial vehicles, as well as personal trips -- the same mix of vehicles counted by VOOT. Using these figures, this development would generate 5,220 trips per day. Assuming only half of these trips travel to Route 7, this would mean a traffic increase of 2,610 vehicles for a total average daily traffic of 4,064 -- almost three times the current traffic. According to Frederick County's 6 Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan for 1990 - 1991, Route 661 is ranked #22 on the Major Project Road Improvement Plan. The average daily traffic was estimated to be 400 vehicles. An additional 5,220 vehicle trips would mean 5, 620 trips per day on Route 661, 14 times the current traffic. At the Planning Commission meeting on April 4, the only way to ease this problem was to create a connector road -through Regency Lakes. To do this, the County must exercise Eminent Domain. The use of Eminent Domain has not been used indiscriminately in Frederick County. When it was used, it was for the benefit of the public at large. The exercise of Eminent Domain in this case would be purely for the personal gain of the developer -- and would still increase the traffic onto Route 7. The Planning Staff at the April 4 Planning Commission meeting indicated that it did not favor the use of Eminent Domain in this situation. Frederick County May 9, 1990 Page 5 BoOd of Supervisors • Another concern is the proposed bridge. Mr. Holliday has indicated that he will build a portion of it, and that VDOT will build the remainder. Does he have a Letter of Intent from the Virginia Department of Transportation? In addition, the proposed road system to support this project will open up areas outside the currently identified Urban Development Area. Another concern is the density of the project. According to the development plan presented on April 4, 1990, 41 acres will be developed as multi -family -units. The remaining 171 acres will be developed as single family. Subtract 30% for open space (or 63.3 acres) and you have 107.7 acres available for development. Roads and easements will use approximately 25% of this acreage (or 26.9,acres). This leaves 80.8 acres for actual building lots. The net density is 4.21 single family units per acre, less than 1/4 acre per house. This is a 10,500 square foot lot, a little more than 100 feet by 100 feet. CQC believes that this density does not contribute to quality of life in Frederick County. We have not managed the development in the Stephens City area well. Until we are able to control the quality of growth in that area, it does not seem reasonable to open up another area of the county to similar types of development. The development at Lakeside is a good example of why we should be concerned. There were fairly good drainage areas on the property before it was developed. These areas were either not recognized or not utilized correctly. Some houses in that development were built in drainage basins -- during storms these houses have water flowing through the yard or through the basement. Further, the open space at Lakeside was used as a construction dump site. It still has not been completely cleaned up, let alone maintained. The developer is responsible for establishing a Homeowner's Association. This has not been done yet, even though the single family home area of the project is almost complete. Because there is no Homeowners Association, the open space cannot be transferred to it for maintenance. The developer did donate land for a school. Unfortunately, that land is underwater most of the time. The county has not demonstrated, to the satisfaction of CQC, that it is capable of assuring and effectively enforcing quality development in Frederick County. We do not believe that another large scale development should be undertaken until such time as the county can demonstrate its ability to assure its citizens of quality development.. Frederick County May 9, 1990 Page 6 Bow of Supervisors • Given the historical significance of this particular property, it is doubly important that we do not sacrifice this piece of our heritage and replace it with additional burdens on the taxpayer or the quality of life in Frederick County. For these reasons, we urge you to deny this rezoning application. Should you decide to grant this rezoning request we request the fol l owi-rig : 1. As presented in the Master Development Plan on April 4, 1990 to the Frederick County Planning Commission, there is a 2 lane road (with plans for expansion to 4 lanes) dissecting the 62 +- acres of open space. We request that this road be run around the periphery of the open space. 2. We request that the above open space be given over to Frederick County for safekeeping and development as an historic park (as opposed to a recreational park) before any construction of any type is begun anywhere on the Caleb Heights property. We further request that this open space be protected and that any use of material from the open space or placement of material on the open space be prohibited and that prohibition enforced unless it is directly related to improving the open space as an historic park. 3. We request that the phasing of the development project be arranged such that the additional historic sites be in parcels to be developed last. This request is made in order that funds may be obtained to purchase these historic parcels. Regardless of how you vote tonight, we request that Frederick County place an Historic Overlay on the entire Third Battle of Winchester site, including all portions on the Holliday, JJJA/Driggs, and Huntsberry properties. We request that this be done with all possible speed. You have in your hands the letters of the children from Daniel Morgan Middle School which appeared in last night's Winchester Star, begging you to preserve this Battlefield. We urge you, be not like Esau. Do not sell their birthright unto Jacob for this proffered pottage. Let it rest like its revered dead, honored and protected from generation to generation. E2 1 .` OPEN AVAILABLE ROADS 9 ACTUAL SINGLE % Of MULTI- 1 OF NET NET TOTAL TRIPS % TRIPS TRIPS TOTAL TOTAL SPACE FOR EASMNIS DEVELOPABLE FAMILY TOTAL FAMILY TOTAL TOTAL ACRES DENSITY TRIPS PER DAY IN EACH PER EA ACRES ACREAGE (30%) DEVELOPMNT (25%) LAND UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS PER UNIT PER ACRE PER DAY PER UNIT PEAK HOUR PEAK HR REDBUD ASSOC/CALEB TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 211.04 100% 63.3 111.7 36.9 110.0 340 55% 280 45% 620 .18 5.60 5,220 8.4 10% 522 SINGLE FAMILY 171.00 81% 63.3 107.7 26.9 80.6 340 100% 0 01 340 .24 4.21 3,400 10.0 10% 340 TOWNHOUSES 41.00 19% .0 41.0 10.3 30.0 0 0% 280 100% 280 .11 9.11 1,820 6.5 10% 182 JJJA (HACKWOOD) TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 124.03 T00% 37.2 86.0 21.7 65.1 205 55% 167 45% 372 .18 5.71 3.134 8.4 10% 313 SINGLE FAMILY 100.46 81% 30.1 70.3 17.6 52.7 205 100% 0 01 205 .26 3.88 2,046 10.0 10% 205 TOWNHOUSES 23.57 19% 7.1 16.5 4.1 12.4 0 0% 167 100% 167 .07 13.53 1,088 6.5 10% 109 C W HUNTSBERRY TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 124.00 100% 37.2 66.6 21.7 65.1 204 55% 167 45% 370 .18 5.60 3,117 8.4 10% 312 SINGLE FAMILY 100./1 81% 30.1 70.3 17.6 52.7 204 100% 0 01 204 .26 3.86 2,035 10.0 10% 204 TOWNHOUSES 23.56 19% 7.1 16.5 4.1 12.4 0 0% 167 100% 167 .07 13.46 1,082 6.5 10% LOB C W HUNTSBERRY 55% 167 45% 371 5.65 3,126 0.4 10% 313 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 125.00 100% 37.5 87.5 21.9 65.6 204 .18 SINGLE FAMILY 101.25 61% 30.4 70.9 17.7 53.2 204 100% 0 0% 204 .26 3.84 2,041 10.0 10% 204 TOWNHOUSES 23.75 19% 7.1 16.6 4.2 12.5 0 01 167 100% 167 .07 13.39 1,085 6.5 10% 109 R A NASH TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 126.48 100% 38.5 09.9 22.5 67.5 212 55% 173 45% 385 .16 5.71 3,21/ 8.4 10% 324 SINGLE FAMILY 104.01 81% 31.2 72.6 18.2 54.6 212 100% 0 0% 212 .26 3.88 2,118 10.0 10% 212 TOWNHOUSES 24.41 19% 7.3 17.1 4.3 12.8 0 01 173 100% 173 .07 13.52 1,126 6.5 10% 113 L R HERRING TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 60.1/ 100% 18.1 42.3 10.4 31.7 100 55% 82 45% 182 .11 5.74 1,533 8.4 10% 153 SINGLE FAMILY 18.96 81% 14.7 34.3 6.6 25.7 100 100% 0 0% 100 .26 3.89 1,001 10.0 10% 100 TOWNHOUSES 11.48 19% 3.4 8.0 2.0 6.0 0 0% 82 100% 82 .07 13.58 532 6.5 10% 53 REGENCY LAKES TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 202.78 100% 60.8 141.9 35.5 106.5 71 10% 642 90% 713 .15 6.70 4,884 6.9 10% 488 SINGLE FAMILY 164.25 61% 49.3 115.0 28.7 86.2 71 100% 0 0% 71 1.21 .63 713 10.0 10% 71 TOWNHOUSES 38.53 19% 11.6 27.0 6.7 20.2 0 0% 642 100% 642 .03 31.72 4,171 6.5 10% 417 TOTAL AREA TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 975.77 100% 292.7 683.0 170.8 512.3 1,335 Ili 1,678 56% 3,013 .17 5.68 24,258 8.1 10% 2,426 SINGLE FAMILY 790.43 81% 249.1 541.3 135.3 406.0 1,335 100% 0 01 1,335 .30 3.29 13,353 10.0 10% 11335 • TOWNHOUSES 186.30 19% 43.6 142.7 35.7 107.0 0 0% 1,678 100% 1,670 .06 15.67 10,905 6.5 10% 1,091 SINGLE FAMILY: 10 CAR TRIPS/DAY TOWNHOUSES: 6.5 CAR TRIPS/DAY PEAK HOUR TRIPS PEA UNIT: SINGLE FAMILY: A.N. 0.75 P.M. 1.00 TOWN HOUSES: A.M. 0.46 P.M. 0.56 RULE OF THUMB: 10% OF ALL TRIPS OCCUR IN MORNING PEAK HOUR 10% OF ALL TRIPS OCCUR IN EVENING PEAK HOUR I PROVIDED BY THE WINCH ESTER-FREDERICK COUNTY VISITOR CENTER February, 1990 WINCIIESTER-FREDERICK COUNTY VISITOR CENTER COMPARISON OF FIGURES FOR CALENDAR YEARS OF 1988 AND 1989 ACTUAL COUNT OF VISITORS* INQUIRIES" Month 1988 1989 1988 1989 January 636 998 1,602 2,120 February 715 1,147 1,426 1,996 March 1,432 1,519 2,125 2,380 April 2,548 2,765 2,992 2,816 Alay 2,777 3,312 2,625 2,968 June 2,764 2,851 2,634 2,780 July 3,509 3,805 2,527 2,825 August 3,308 3,720 2,543 2,947 September 2,943 3,241 2,449 2,998 October 3,688 4,142 2,958 3,628 November 1,389 1,969 2,056 2,547 December 1,086 730 1,739 1,699 26,795 30,199 27,676 31,704 The totals indicate that 3,404 more people entered the Winchester - Frederick Visitor Center in the second full calendar year(1989) than in the first full calendar year (1988). That is a 13% increase in the number of visitors in 1989 over 1988. Also, there were 4,028 more inquiries handled at the Visitor Center in 1989 than in 1988. .Actual Count denotes the actual number of persons entering the doom of the Winchester -Frederick County Visitor Center. ••Inquines denote activity handled by the Visitor Center staff through phone, mail, and walk-in (by group) categories. April, 1990 INCREASED RECOGNITION OF TOURISM There is increasing recognition and documentation that tourist is a major factor in economic development. The dollars spent b tourists create jobs, generate wages, salaries, and business profit. and are the source of a variety of tax revenues. At the end of 1985, an article on state -sponsored tourisr development programs in Public Athninisrrarion Review (PAA reported that, "tourism was important to state economics Ion before government accepted a role in its development." The PA R article reports the findings of a 1984 survey of state an, territorial tourism offices and says that, "What emerges is a startlin, picture of massive state competition and activity generatin important and growing state revenues." It goes on to sa} "Tourism's impact on state government administration and per sonnel has been significant and is likely to increase. Tourisn development is one of the few areas of expanded state employmen since 1982." Citing recent growth in state tourism programs, it finds that "Tourism development is increasingly seen in terms of economi, diversification, not as a "frill." While the most rapid growth is programs begun since 1960, even in state with long establish tourism programs, it is a recognized fact that new initiatives will necessary to maintain a share of the trade and to expand to ne markets, particularly overseas." The article concludes the "Tourism, though neglected as a policy sector, is ironically likely have a major impact on revenues, employment and quality of life the United States into the middle of the 21st century," and the "The public sector has a vital role to play in seeing that tourisn potential Is realized," • 0 0 Chamber Favors Planned, Managed Economic Growth By SUSAN ABRAMSON. landscape, and culture is good Star Staff writer business. -It is also entirely neces- The Winchester -Frederick County sary if we are to retain the unique Chamber of Commerce wants to heritage which makes our com- encourage economic growth —as munity an attractive place.not only long as it is planned and properly to live, but to be visited each year managed. by thousands of tourists." To emphasize that point,,-, the Chamber President Steve chamber's board of directors has • Bauserman said on Wednesday that unanimously adopted a formal the organization wanted to make its position on growth. It reads: stance clear on a topic shaping the "Growth and the preservation of area's future. the quality of life we as citizens of .. "It's obvious that (growth) is the community enjoy. need not be • something in everybody's mind. -We` incompatible, so long as growth is felt it would be better to come out well -planned and properly manag- now with our position so people ed. We commend our local gov- would know how we feel." ernments for their action. to date in � In part, .the board's decision to this regard. and support their "con- establish 1'a formal position was tinued efforts. We encourage citizen g ..made to ' persuade people in the participation 'in the planning pro- community —official and other- cess. wise —to think . and talk about, the', "Economic.. development,, the subject. growth and prosperity of existing In the September "` chamber' ; businesses, agriculture,, and in- newsletter, Bauserman invited— dustry, and the selective recruit- chamber members, to comment on4,. ment of new businesses and in- the position. dustry, is not only compatible, but It is necessary,' he ' said,,) to urge: t; essential to a quality of life which' community. involvement �,in ° the, includes relatively low taxes and growth issue, so - than the actionv- jobs for our people. taken by policy -makers will reflect"" 'Growth in population without a what the community wants. corresponding growth in busineaa ',Win- "It doesn't, do someone any good. and industry will lead to to be, at a party sax, they, ;06Wt' chester-Frederick County becoming .and , like growth if they're not,willing.to a bedroom community resulting in spend some time and get involved," an additional. demand for services Bauserman said. without corresponding tax reve- Policy -makers should' also'en ='- noes. This is not an acceptable op- courage further comment from cit- tion. izens, he said. "Everybody, needs to "Preservation of our history, get imaginative," N . US Travel Data Center The (l.S. Travel Data Center, bored in Washington, U.C., is the nationalnon-profit research center devoted to travel and towrirm. Travelers Spent 6.9 Billion Dollars In Virginia In 1987 Travel Means Business, Jobs, And Tax Revenue For All Localities The following table summarizes expenditures by travelers in Virginia during 1987, and the payroll (wage and salary income), employment, State tax revenue, and local tax revenue directly generated by these expenditures. (Figures derived from the U.S. Travel Data Center's Travel Economic Impact Model.) Total Travel Travel State Local Travel Generated Generated Tax Tax Expenditures Payroll County/City (Thousands) (Thousands) 5, nerr cloringr and reduced sales activity in the arra. (3) Transfers of tales data to or from other localities rr/led a decline or increase in sales. (4) Due to limited howl/motel Travel Spending in Virginia Business Receipts Receipts (Thousands) (Thousands) Travel Business Group and Percent of Spending by Travelers Spending Public Transportation, 19'%............................................. $1,288,475,000 Auto Transportation, 12'y.............................................. 861,797,000 Lodging Places, 22'7( .................................................. 1,505,059,000 F(W Services, 30'7( ,.................................................. 2,061,336,000 Entertainment/Recreation, 8'y.......................................... 551,866,000 Miscellaneous Retail Stores, 917( ,........................................ 634,726,000 Total Travel Expenditures, 100%....................................... $6,903,259,000 Note: Details may not add due to rounding E U A 4 - NORTH VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL •APRIL 1990 Editorial Don't Destroy the Tourist Attractions Tourism is big industry for the North Valley. Tourists spend a great deal of money in our area every year; the 1990 take should be in the $135 million range, assuming a 5 percent increase in each of the last two years. Triple this number for the multiplier effect of the money passing hands in the community, and you get $500 million added to the local economy. Tourism provides jobs and tax revenue without putting pressure on government services. In addition, some tourists just might be executives who, if favorably impressed by the quality of life here, could eventually relocate their companies or build a plant in this area. The North Valley is well positioned for today's sightseer. It is strategically located within a four hour or less drive of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Richmond and D. C., which makes it ideally situated to cater to the type of day tripper and long weekend mini -vacationer who are jamming the highways today. The local chambers of commerce and visitor centers are busy dreaming up new services and programs for tourists. Of particular interest is the new quick reservation program in Winchester and the train and trolley rides in Front Royal. Shenandoah County and Front Royal are picking up on Winchester's video tape shown to tourists at its visitor center and are considering developing their own. Often a picture is worth a thousand words. Although many people are drawn to the North Valley area for specific events such as the Apple Blossom Festival in Winchester, the Mushroom Festival in Front Royal or Court Days in Woodstock, others are drawn by the area's history and scenery. The former are often day trippers, while the latter tourists are the ones spending freely, staying in overnight ac- comodations, eating three meals a day, buying a tank or two of gasoline and indulging in the purchase of souvenirs. To maintain this steady flow of tourists, the North Valley needs to preserve its scenery and heritage. This means restoring rather than tearing down old houses, keeping Civil War monuments and uattlefields intact and using creative zoning to maintain the scenery of the countryside. Once gone, they can't be resurrected. . Politicians and builders need toxompromise so that certain lands are designated as growth areas and others are restricted to development. Growth is inevitable in the North Valley. But with proper planning, it doesn't have to occur in the path of the tourist, a main contributor to the area's economic well-being. In the long run, businesses in the North Valley area will be better served. CAPITAL EMPROVEMENT COSTS After analysis of pupil generation from new subdivisions (in its 1989 triennial census), Loudoun County now counts .70 school members/eastern single family house, and .67 mergers/other single family house. It counts .40/eastern townhouse and .44 members/other townhouse. Frederick County's population averages 15% more school members/person than Loudoun, so our factors should be .77-.805 members/single family house and .46-.506 members/townhouse. Frederick now spends $12,489/space for school capacity, which with a little additional spending should last 40 years. Since members spend 13 years in the system, the capital cost is $3206-$335 1 /single family house and $1915-$2104/townhouse. If the rest of Frederick County's governmental costs are proportionate to our school costs (63% of our budget). county capital costs are about $5088-$5319 /new single family house and $3039-$3343/new townhouse.�gg1e -P x example. WwJ4.,b FYedcr4ok-Qounty.. $3T3.2 I&Si�.,al�fxal 9�QG�ingle�'ainily � a0 f 2V&Mg or-i-(nottineluding-operating: cost%.: sewer su�gidies or incre �i[��pri�a�,,tzuczearssd;uerhan-,f�c$iorL.q�.9b,u.�QR��.���. note: Our new 1200 member high school (budgeted at $16.7 millton) costs $15.463/member-space at 9096 average operattng capacity. Our next 635 member elementary-school (budgeted at $6.4 million) costs $11.167/member-space at 9096 auerage operating capacity. Cu-'JCII� sa�� j Cc,"dti,cke6 by Leh r,\4(as c, eers"1� o� V G\ e c. • G A The Winchester Star THOMAS T. BYRD, President and Publisher RON MORRIS, Managing Editor TIM THORNTON, Editorial Page Editor Established July 4,1896 Tuesday, May 8, 1990 v.. .� . ... f6Y 11 . J 1 D.Y .:. . .111 .i ' .:< F v•:• M .i "3'': Editor's note: In the course of studying local history, a group of seventh -graders at Daniel Morgan Middle School became interested enough in the preservation of one local• historical site, a section of the Third Battle of Winchester battlefield, to write to Frederick County Board of Supervisors Chairman Ken- neth Stiles. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to decide on a rezoning request for the property Wednesday night. Copies of many of the let- ters were also sent to The Star. Here is a sampling of those letters. Don't Erase I think you shouldn't erase the battlefield, because it might mean something to many other people than it means to you. There are many other places for houses to be built. Please do not destroy something that means a lot more than a bunch of houses. Be a sport. Save the third battle field of Winchester. Jarod Johnson Historic Why should the developers build on this historic land when the children can learn from from it? Our community is worried that the students are not learning what they are sup- posed to in school, so why should the county take learn- ing away from the students? This site of the Third Battle of Winchester is proof to the students that the Civil War was fought here..Please help us save this land. Why should the Frederick County Zoning Commission let the devel- opers take away America's pride. . CHI ford J. Doughty Reconsider I think you should recon- sider allowing houses on the land where the Third Battle of Winchester took place. I don't like studying history, sitting in a classroom or reading a textbook, but when it's histo- ry I can see, I take pride in it. At least you could consider making it into a historical park People would take more pride and an interest in histo- ry. If you allow houses on the site you're taking part of our country's history away, but a park would make you feel that you were there while the soldiers were fighting. Thank you for your time. Shana Helsley Alternatives I am not at all interested in your allowing 630 houses to be built on the Third Battle of Winchester site. It's a histor- ical site, and we want to preserve it. If you insist' on building something, try a visitor center or having reanactments. That would be cool. Eric Estep Preserve Our Past As I look forward I see a need to preserve our past. If the site of the Third Battle�of Winchester is not.preserved, and is developed into a sub- division, it would not only destroy history, but natural resources would be cut short. We must not look towards the fulfillment of one man, as the developer, but the fulfillment of our community. Living in an area of most historical value, we must not lose sight of this history. I ask that we preserve instead of destroy the site of the Third Battle of Winchester. Justin Omps Great Value ' I feel we should not put construction on the site of the Third • Battle of Winchester. This land has a great value. When you have something with great value you don't destroy it. So you shouldn't let the battlefield be destroyed. The other two battlefields have been built on. The peo- ple of this area have a chance to save it. So we must save it. This land is part of our heritage. We must save it so we can remember the people who fought to protect this area. So don't let them build houses on the land. Thank you for reading my letter. Bobby Weatherholt db 11 SIX YEAR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN MAJOR PROJECTS NEW HARD SURFACE PROJECTS BRIDGE & OTHER PROJECTS 1990 - 1991 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE V I RG I N I A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. ON 10/Z/89, 1990-91 Improvement Plan g Page 2 SIX -YEAR MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Continued) 1990-1991 ADDITIONS RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DISTRICT 16. 600 prev. const. 684 608 Gainesboro 17. 659 656 bridge *258 Shawnee 18. 657 ECL WINCH. 656 8762 Shawnee 19. 739 673 522 3957 Gainesboro 20. 636 277 642 -455 Opequon 21. 644 ECL WINCH. 522 4060 Shawnee 22. 661 11 7 -400 Stonewall 23. 622 621 37 3203 Back Creek 24. 657 656 Clarke Co. 3813 Shawnee 25. 641 647 277 -1736 Opequon 26. 761 11 664 *2061 Stonewall 27. 659 716 656 3217 Shawnee 28. 636 277 1.5 miles S. -510 Opequon 29. 621 1109 628 -1594 Back Creek 30. 600 753 614 2338 Back Creek 31. 655 50 656 2408 Shawnee 32. 642 0.2mi. W.1070 647 -5081 Opequon 33. 661 663 11 6964 Stonewall 34. 628 621 SCL WINCH. 2291 Back Creek r 0 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Traffic Engineering Division FREDERICK COUNTY Reduced Secondary Traffic Tabulation Counts taken: APRIL - JUNE, 1989 Copy: R. W. Watkins 11/8/89 sel , T33-TSP052R1 COMi�OEY°dcALTN Of 1l%RGINIA� PAGE 4 RUI, DATE 89-08-30 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATICN Run TIME 13:0ib:33 SEIONDARY TRAFFIC SECTION � REDUCED COUNT PROGRAM FREDERICK CO. ROAD FROM TO �. ROUTE CLASS TERMINI TERMINI LE14GTH ADT 0652 1 N RT 11 RT 816 0.26 6251 0653 2 RT 671 W VA LINE 0.90 59 0654 1 RT 715 RT 677 0.35 667 0654 1 W RT 679 55MW RT 679 0.55 494 0654 1 55MW RT 679 RT 50 1.42 494 0655 1 RT 50 44ME RT 50 0.44 2403 0655 1 44(ME RT 50 RT 656 0.35 240? 0656 1 RT 794 RT 793 0.25 22.54 0656 1 N RT 659 W RT 7 0.58 1210 0657 1 ECL WINCH RT 1204 0.19 3762 0657 1 RT 656 20ME RT 656 0.20 3813 0657 1 20ME RT 656 RT 794 0.13 3813 0653 2 RT 659 DEAD END 0.30 96 D659 1 RT 1240 02ME RT 1240 0.02 3217 D659 1 02ME RT 1240 RT 658 0.20 3217 D659 1 MID RT 7 RT 661 0.50 370 -� 0660 1 RT 7 W RT 661 0.35 1453 0661 2 W VA LINE W RT 669 1.84 35 0661 1 RT 671 RT 636 0.75 673 0661 1 F 732 22MS F 732 0.22 6564 0661 1 22MS F 732 S RT 11 0.08 6564 0662 2 RT 661 RT 838 1.10 45 0662 2 RT 833 RT 761 0.60 32 0664 2 RT 659 CLARKE CL 0.10 61 0665 2 W RT 672 861MS RT 672 0.86 70 0666 2 50MN RT 664 E Ri 761 1.40 117 0667 2 CLARKE CL N RT 663 1.60 106 0668 2 S RT 671 S RT 677 1.40 64 0668 2 N RT 677 90ME RT 677 0.90 71 0669 1 W RAMP RT 81 RT 670 0.74 1400 0670 2 RT 669 DEAD END 0.60 33 0 THE -IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA Defenders of,Sod. Air; Woods, .Wllrrs end Wildhlo The Winchester Izaac Walton League of America, and the_ Freder�'ick County Save Our Streams program, would like to.express our sincere'. concerns regarding the current rezoning application for the Caleb Heights subdivision. After careful study of the rezoning application., and the environmental impact statements, we'hbpe that those involved in considering this issue will also carefully consider the environmental problems we see associated with this development. We feel that these issues have added importance since the Red Bud Run, and the Ash Hollow Run watersheds deserve special consideration for several reasons. These include: 1. Red -Bud Run is one of the few remaining streams in Frederick County that is environmentally:unique in water clarity, temperature, nutrient composition and in its abundance of un— usual animal and 'pl ant species.' Evidence of t.h i s is Re-d Bud Run'.s ability to support reprod'ucing trout populations and a sp6c i al i zed wetl.a•r.d area. 2. The Red Bud Run and Ash Hollow Run serve as major clean water diluting sources for the Opequoh.Creek. This is especially valuable to maintain the Opequon's water quality below the Opequon waste water.treatment plant.. 3. That natural areas like'this provide a wide range of environs mental and aesthetic benefits to our community that preserve . the- quality of • al 1 our water, •soi 1-, air and .wi 1 dl i fe resources: Therefore, for these reasons, we would like to express the following environmental.concerns: 1. That short and long term detriments to this specifically fragile t.ype of ecosystem cannot be repaired or.replaced if destroyed. 2. That the complex set of water and soil.environmen.ts associated with Red.Bud Run cannot be maintained or preserved with concen— trated, heavy development of this type. 3. Th.at,.monotoring of this.watershed to maintain its present qual— ity goes far beyond'simpl a water testing. if rA. 4.. That monotoring enforcement and regulation of non -point water'. and environment pollution sources have not been successful in protecting our Natural Resources. 5. That non -point pollution sources from concentrated development .,in the form of waste ,water, surface runoff, lawn fertilizers and other chemicals, petroleum runoff from surfaces, road salts,, trash, and non-specific pollutants have serious and irreversible consequences. 6. That waste water disposal from this development through the -->present system at Regency Lakes will greatly compound existing sewage disposal problems in that area. .7. That road construction adversely effects the quality of water resources due to erosion sediment, stream water volume changes, stream bed composition, stream flow rate changes, and the .build- up other runoff contaminates. 8. High density development increases automobile and other air pol- lution sources in a concentrated area. Also, noise pollution .associated with high traffic areas will greatly increase.. 9. That National, State, and Local environmental organizations and services are not used to their full advantage to provide neces- sary information and expertise that affect our Natural Resour ces. 10...That additional and environmental studies heed to be conducted to identify rare and endangered species. Also, research +-o establish w�1tland designation and.protection under the Federal •..Identification and Delination of Wetlands program and specific and specialized water resource studies need to be conducted. 11.. That development of this type detracts from the rural nature of Frederick County and decreases the recreational, historical and aesthetic value of our community. 12. That rezoning considerations should not be based on short term„ economic proffers and considerations. That the long term casts to taxpayers, and the environmental problems we already face should take presidence in the decision making process. 13. That the long term needs and desires of the public should not be sacrificed or overlooked in exchange for the short term profits of a few individuals.' The above listed concerns express our dedication to the pr.e.Serva- tion of all our Natural Resources to maintain the Quality of Life that Frederick County and its residents deserve. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration of these.matters. Sincerely, t Oli-1JY-) Monty R. Loving Vice President Winchester Izaac Walton League of .America r 0 Opinions and Sources of background information and expertise for the above concerns were obtained from the following sources: Board of Directors.-- Winchester Izaac Walton League Virginia Natural Heritage Program -contact Katie.Perry (804) 786-7951 Water 'Control Board -- Joe Hassell -Wetlands Division (804) 367-6319 Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance.Department ='.'.Bud" Watson, Executive Director The "Federal Manual for Identi.fying and Del inating Jurisdictional Wetlands" - Copy available Mar i nr Resource Commission -- Chuck Roadl y Engineer U.S. Army Corp of Engineers "Code of Federal Regulations" General Policies (33CFR Chapter II) Izaac Walton League — Wetland Division -Linda Winter, Director (,703) 528-1818 Dr. Dan Downey, Professor of Chemistry -'Madison University "Trout Unlimited" - (703) 568-6635 "Save Our Streams Program" - Izaac Walton League of America Karen'Firehock,'Coordinator (703) 528-1818 "Landowners Guide to Managing Strams_in the Eastern United States" Virginia Cooperative Extension Service - Pub. 420-141 Controlling Non -point Pollution Sources Pollution by Mike Arnold'.. �6A APR 199ODea RICIN 11 Stonebrook 2289 Greenfield Rd. Winchester, Va. 22601 orge: fter following the debate over Mr. Holliday's zoning t, I wanted you to know my reasoning for approval: �V� The rezoning request seems reasonable and within the �iLZOL eral area already designated for such development. 2. I understand Mr. Holliday has offered considerable compromise concessions to satisfy reservations, including major educational grants, an access road, funds for fire and rescue support, and 60 acres for a park or other area commemorating or illustrating the historical significance of the area. 3. At the same time Holliday seems to have worked in good faith for a seemingly constructive compromise, much of the opposition seems to have only hardened their refusal to work toward any positive, constructive compromise. 4. It really goads my sense of reasonableness, my personal concern for productive, effective communication of our historical heritage and my sense of what should be "right" in our free enterprise system to see some of the loudest historical "idealists" refuse to consider anything but total and relatively inaccessible preservation, when so many of them spend less energy, means and time for other equally or more important historic projects such as Cedar Creej<, Star Fort, Kernstown, etc.... This area will benefit more definitely from Holliday's plan than any "hoped -for" rescue of the federal government. Besides, I understand Holliday has also agreed to withhold construction for a period to determine the government's determination on federal purchase. I'd much prefer that 60 acres be devoted to a creative re -telling and illustration of the battle than Holliday's 5- acre homes or even pristine preservation without productive, accessible communication of the area's significance. I hope your hearing will bring out Holliday's efforts to constructively compromise while "no -development romantics" hardened their pure preservationist positions. Your positive action on rezoning can provide the right kind of development, more tax revenue, and the possibility of a well planned historical park. Sincerely,, James M. Miller, Jr. March 27, 1990 George L. Romine 1277 Shockey Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Dear George, ,..1234sV A APR 1990 o VIP w C� ��� c� ��ZOZ6lg��� As you know, the rezoning of Caleb Heights Subdivision, owned by Dave Holliday, will be considered on April 4, 1990. As a citizen of Frederick County, I am very concerned about the precedence that might be set by this hearing. As a builder and developer, I am very concerned about the impact on the future of the construction industry in this area set by this hearing. It is both ridiculous and stupid to deny a rezoning because at one time a battle was fought on the land. I am all for historic preservation, but a great deal of land in this area was a Civil War battlefield. We can't preserve all of it. To use this as a reason, after a person buys a piece of land is unfair to that person and to an industry that plays an important part in the economy of Frederick County. It is my understanding that Mr. Holliday has been more than fair in setting aside land for a nice memorial and park. I realize that you have a difficult job, but I hope your decision on rezoning will be based on the comprehension plan and on the future benefit of Frederick County. Thaik you for your consideration of this issue. Very truly yours, Thomas C. Baker TCBsss U ���1Za4eea rAPR 1990 _l fl V19 f �12e'OZ60"'L�� Dear Fri nds Il have followed with interest the controversy over the development of the battlefield property at the site of the Third Battle of Winchester. Being a historian and an advocate of preservation of important historical sites in our community, I believe the creation of a battlefield park on a limited portion of the property which could be maintained in our park system is an essential consideration. I urge you to accept a compromise between the interests of landowners who wish to develop the property and advocates of preservation that desire the creation of a battlefield park. I believe it is reasonable for land owners to be expected to donate or set aside property under existing zoning provisions for the creation of the park. I also believe that proper historical identification of additional land that would help establish the park should be so designated in historical easements or districts. Future developers would know that essential areas to complete the park would be expected to be set aside and included in the park. It is essential for the county to accept the land in the park system and develop a maintenance and interpretation program. In order for the Third Battle of Winchester Park to be significant, at least 100 acres will be needed with access to proper roads and utilities. Also, the Red Bud Run should be protected in everyway possible as the area is developed. In fact, land should be set aside on both sides of the Run for the proposed park. In the future, I hope that a major interpretation facility can be built at the Kernstown site and other smaller battlefield areas at Stephenson, 2nd Battle of Winchester, Cedar Creek, and etc. can be similarly donated and accepted into a system. The inclusion of Winchester and Frederick County in the Battlefield Park program in the Shenandoah Valley is essential for historical preservation and also for quality economic development. We cannot wait for the Federal government to purchase the land and create the needed parks. We can use the poffer system and existing Recreation and Parks structures to initiate this important program. I hope you will use your influence and vote to help bring about this development. We do not need the protracted legal battles and conflict that often arises in cases such as this. I believe developers and preservationist can work together with local officials to achieve our goal of an excellent battlefield park program in Winchester and Frederick County. Thanks. (Since ly, J tJes A. Davis • • MIDE900 4085 Valley Pike • Winchester, VA 22601 Phone (703) 662-4872 March 30, 1990 George L. Romine 1277 Shockey Dr. Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Romine: I am writing concerning the April 4, 1990 council meeting on Caleb Heights Subdivision. I feel that David Holliday and Ron Schickle have been outstanding community leaders, and have always helped Frederick County. I feel that giving sixty acreas for a historical park, a proffering gift to the county, of land for schools, connecting roads and other concessions is enough. I do not like to get involved in any political arena. However, I will be at this council meeting supporting these two gentlemen. Si cere1F, C Joh C. Mil er Miller Honda JCM/swc March 30, 1990 George L. Romine 1277 Shockey Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Dear George, APR 1990 ECEIV ED a This letter is written supporting the rezoning request of David B. Holliday which is before the Frederick County Planning Commission and is scheduled for public hearing on April 4, 1990. I am surprised of the amount of resistance regarding the above mentioned request when considering the following: The subject land is designated as residential in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Public water and sewer is available to the subject property. Contiguous property (Regency Lakes) is currently zoned residential and is being developed by an out of town developer. There is a shortage of building lots for our local contractors. David Holliday has an excellent record with Frederick County and the ability to develop unimproved land. Adequate proffers have been offered to support the additional development and impact to the local community. These are a few of the reasons why I support Dave's request. Other than the historical factor, which I feel has been met with an acceptable compromise, I can't think of any reason why the request should not be approved. I realize there are many factors to be considered when making your decision. However, it appears that Dave has a reasonable request and I ask that you work with him and for the betterment of Frederick County. I appreciate the time and effort you devote to Frederick County and I realize the importance of making the right decisions. The future depends on these decisions which have an effect on future generations. Remember, no growth breeds stagnation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, cl � Earl W. Foreman • George L. Romine 1277 Shockey Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Dear George, HC-38 Box 323 Winchester, VA March 26, 1990 I am writing in regard to the Dave Holliday rezoning/development request currently before the Planning Commission. I urge you to approve this request. If you deny this request based upon the uncompromising stand of a historical group you will place all of Frederick County's future development in an uncompromising posture. If you deny this request you will encourage people not to work things out. Please send out a clear message that says "yes" to developers and special interest groups who make an effort to compromise with the community and "no" to special interest groups and developers that refuse to compromise. I know that you respond to the people of Frederick County. Keep our development future in your hands and out of the legal system. It is so important that we work things out for the best of our community. An approval encourages this process. A denial discourages this process. I have reviewed Holliday's request and I have reviewed the opposing demands from the historical group. 'Holliday's plan is full of compromises. I am excited about the opportunity to have a first class battlefield park located near Winchester. The opportunity is possible here and now with developer installation and County maintenance. I would be delighted to visit such a memorial. This area has up to now been the private relic hunting ground of a few. Your approval will set a precedent for future developers and create possibilities for additional parks. Please do not buy into a maybe, somehow, someday, impossible dream. I trust I have not taken too much of your time and that you will consider my opinions seriously. Feel free to contact me anytime concerning this matter. Sincerely, Richard C. Shickle, Sr. RCS/ls rt@,oJE�3 • ter` ��vtt k'f7 forget 9 � bhp tr' • "li'ha.t they/ did here" 9 `2e �qo,�tvich Civil cWat 9oancl gahle Mo-mich, Jim cyotk ij381 48 Randall Avenue August 28, 1989 i The Hon. Kenneth Stiles Chairman, Frederick County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Stiles: We are not constituents, but our RT does make frequent trips t6 Winchester and Northern Virginia as individuals and as a group, coming there, as do many other tourists, because of your Civil Wat heritage. We stay at your motels, eat at your restaurants and would like to be viewed as friends of Winchester. We come especially to pay homage to the 185 men of the 114th N. Y. Reg't. who were casualties at the Battle of Third Winchester, and to whose memory the State of New York, in 1898, erected a monument in the Winchester National Cemetery. The scene of their sacrifice remains preserved in the last remaining segment of that Battlefield that has not been designated for development, a 600 acre tract north of Rt. 7, west of County Road 651 and south of Red Bud Run. The developer is requesting that this area be rezoned for development. We respectfully request that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors deny this request in order to preserve this relatively small but vital part of Winchester's Civil War history. Sincerely, Herb S. Crumb, Corresponding Secretary • 205 South Royal Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 August 3, 1989 Mr. James Golladay Chairman, Frederick County Planning Commission 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Golladay: ' It has come to my attention that some 211 acres of the battlefied of Third Winchester (September 19, 1864) is shortly to be consideAed for rezoning as a housing development. As one who has studied that most tragic and important period of our American history, and one who has written extensively about that War, I would certainly hope that the Planning Commission realizes the cultural and historical value of that land. Value that cannot be judged in any monetary sense, but rather in its timeless lesson to all Americans. The land in question is a portion of the Winchester battlefield where thousands of soldiers clashed, and where hundreds fell. It contains the site of the Union 19th Corps attack on General Wharton's Confederate division, and a portion of the area where General Crook's Army of West Virginia came into action. This turned the tide of battle, just as Winchester was a battle that turned the tide of war in the Shenandoah Valley campaign. Eighteen men received the Congressional Medal of Honor for valor at Third Winchester. We would do them, and all the Northern and Southern soldiers who risked -- and often gave -- their lives for their beliefs a great injustice, were we to forever deprive Americans of that place. Truly, they sanctified that groudn with their blood. There must exist more appropriate areas of Frederick County where such a development could be located. I would be more than glad to send you historical documentation for the above, should u so desire it. Sincerely, Brian C. Poi4 a May 9, 1990 PROFFERS CALEB HEIGHTS REZONING APPLICATION 1. Preliminary matters. Pursuant to Section 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Virginia Code Annotated, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application Number 012-89 for the rezoning of 211 acres from the A-2 Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, ("the subject property"), development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the Frederick County Zoning and subdivision Ordinances, and in substantial conformity with the terms conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant, and such be approved by the County in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, or its legal successors and assigns. 2. Generalized Development Plan. The development of the subject property, and the submission of any Master Development Plans therefor, shall be in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development 0 0 01, Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Phasing of Development. In order that the County may be able reasonably to anticipate the pace of development on the subject property, a phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Phasing as shown on the said Master Plan shall be accomplished such that not more than fifteen per cent (15%) of the total permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single- or multi -family units, may be constructed in any one year; provided, however, that this figure shall be cumulative, and any number of such units not constructed in any given year, may be constructed in later years, plus in any year an additional five per cent (5%) of such units in years after December 31, 1991. 4. Transportation. A. The Applicant shall design and construct all roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these proffers. 91 B. (1). The Applicant proffers that it shall design and construct a two lane road from the southern edge of its property to a satisfactory connection to existing Regency Lakes Drive, generally at the location designated as "Interparcel Connector" on the Generalized Development Plan, for ultimate inclusion in the State System of Secondary Highways. It shall construct such road only provided that dedicated right-of-way for such extension has been made available by others. In the event that either the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, or the Virginia Department of Transportation, determines to exercise its powers of eminent domain to acquire right-of-way sufficient to the purposes hereof, however, the Applicant agrees to advance or reimburse to either agency the costs of the exercise of such power, including reasonable attorneys' fees and engineering costs, and the cost of the condemnation itself, in order to obtain the right-of-way necessary to construct the roadway agreed to under this proffer. (2). The Applicant further agrees that the said Interparcel Connector shall be the first section of the road network providing primary access to the subject property to be constructed, provided that the right-of-way necessary for the construction thereof shall have been made available in accordance with the terms of this proffer not later than January 1, 1991. 4 C. (1). In order to assist in the provision of an ultimate four lane undivided collector road from State Route 661 south to Route 7, as generally shown on the County's adopted thoroughfare plan, and in the area designated as "Major Collector 80' Right -of -Way" on the Generalized Development Plan, the Applicant shall dedicate the right- of-way necessary for two lanes of an ultimate four lane Major Collector Road between indicators B and C as shown on the said Plan. At such time as the Virginia Department of Transportation approves final design for any portion of such Collector Road, the Applicant shall contribute the reasonably estimated costs of construction of one lane of such Major Collector. The Applicant shall access such Major Collector by its Local Collector Road in the location generally shown on said Plan. (2). The Applicant shall further dedicate all of the necessary right-of-way for the aforesaid four lane undivided collector road between indicators C and D as shown on the Generalized Development Plan, where the right-of-way for such proposed collector runs entirely through the subject property. The Applicant agrees that it shall construct two lanes of the ultimate four lane right-of-way between those two points, to VDOT standards. (3). The phasing of dedication and construction of the roadway located between indicators C and D on the Generalized Development Plan shall be accomplished as part 5 of the consideration of a Master Development Plan for the subject property. (4). The Applicant shall construct a Local Collector Road in the location identified on the Generalized Development Plan, to provide temporary access to the property and to the Major Collector Roadway from State Route 661. It shall insure that all roads internal to the subject property will be designed to serve compatibly with the Major Collector Roadway. (5). The Applicant shall not be responsible for the construction of any other portion of the Major Collector, than is set out herein. (6). In order to avoid proliferation of entrances on State Route 661, when the aforesaid Major Collector Road has been constructed to State Route 661 and has been accepted into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant agrees that it shall initiate the necessary legal steps, in conjunction with the County and VDOT, to close any through traffic from the Local Collector directly onto State Route 661, and to redirect such traffic from within the property onto the Major Collector Road at a suitable access point. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit the Applicant from providing suitable and customary access from State Route 661 to the ten acre remainder parcel located adjacent to State Route 661, and shown on the Generalized Development Plan, provided that that access (except for emergency traffic) is 6 not permitted to the Local Collector once it has been closed to through traffic. 5. Environmental considerations. A. Existing live trees with a trunk diameter greater than six inches ,shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible, through restrictive covenants of record, consistently with the physical location of dwellings, and except as may be necessary to construct roads, or sewers, water lines or other utilities or required infrastructure. B. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ all reasonable Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. C. Despite its belief that construction on the subject property will have no detrimental effect on Redbud Run, the Applicant agrees that prior to initiation of any construction on the subject property, it shall obtain baseline data as to the existing water quality in the Run from a person, company, or agency, approved by the Director of Planning and Development for Frederick County, and shall thereafter monitor the water quality in the Run semi-annually, and report the findings of such monitoring to the County. In the event that the Director of Planning determines that development of the subject property has directly caused degradation in the water quality of the Run, below the baseline data acquired hereunder, the Applicant shall 0 0 7 immediately mitigate such degradation in accordance with engineering reports identifying the resolution thereof, and shall continue to do so for so long as the applicant is engaged in any development activity on "the subject property. D. The Applicant shall further comply with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the protection of the environment. 6. Maximum permitted density. The overall density of the development of the subject property shall not exceed three and three tenths (3.3) dwelling units per gross acre; and provided further that maximum density shall not exceed two and two tenths (2.2) dwelling units per gross acre in the area of the subject property identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Area A, and eight units per gross acre on the area of the subject property identified thereon as Area B. Only single family dwellings shall be constructed in Area A, and only townhouses shall be constructed in Area B. 7. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development on Schools. The Applicant shall pay to the County's General Fund the sum of $2,200, for each lot or parcel which is approved for development with a single family dwellings, and $1,200, for 0 0 : each lot or parcel which is approved for development with townhouses. Payment of such sums shall be made at the time of recordation of a final subdivision plat for any portion of the subject property, either in cash, or in the form of a non -interest bearing note, for the per -lot sums owing, payable to Frederick County, Virginia, and made payable in twelve months from the date of recordation of said final subdivision plat. The obligor shall have the right to prepay prior such note to the due date thereof. Such payment shall be made for the sole and express purpose of implementing the provisions of the currently adopted Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan with respect to school construction costs in the general vicinity of the subject property. In the event that the money proffered hereunder is not used for the purpose for which proffered within ten years from the date this rezoning is approved, it shall be refunded on demand to the Applicant, or such other entity or person as may have made any payment provided for herein, with interest accrued at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the first such payment is made. 8. Historic Preservation. A. The Applicant shall dedicate to the appropriate public or private agency or authority, in fee simple absolute, those areas identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Historic Preservation Areas, provided 0 • X that it shall retain the necessary rights -of -way, dedications, easements, and permissions required to construct roads, sewers, water lines and other necessary infrastructure within those preservation areas, as they may be required for the development of the subject property and approved in a Master Development Plan. B. All infrastructure other than roads shall be located underground, and any land area disturbed during construction shall be restored to its original condition after construction is finally completed. The Applicant shall provide suitable buffering and landscaping along any road which may be constructed, compatible with the historic preservation purposes of this proffer, and approved by the Director of Planning and Development as being in accord herewith and with the standards established in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. C. Historic signage of a kind similar to that used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to mark historic places shall be placed in locations satisfactory to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. D. Notwithstanding any other provision of these proffers, the Applicant agrees that it will not commence construction of any kind on the subject property prior to January 1, 1991. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the applicant from preparing and submitting plans for development 0 0 10 of the subject property prior to such date, nor shall it preclude review thereof by appropriate public agencies. E. The Applicant further agrees that at any time prior to January 1, 1991, it will enter into good faith negotiations for the purchase of the subject property with any ready, willing, and able party or parties whose bona fide purpose is to acquire the subject property for the creation of a park, open to the general public, to commemorate the Battle of Third Winchester. The subject property shall be offered at fair market value, as that value is determined by a qualified MAI certified real estate appraiser acceptable to both the Applicant and Frederick County. No such offer shall be accepted unless settlement is provided to occur within ninety days following receipt of a bona fide offer as provided herein, or such other time as the Applicant may agree to. F. The applicant agrees that it shall so phase the development of the subject property that the portion thereof located between what are known as the Huntsberry and Nash properties, and which is generally identified er on the Generalized Development Plan, shall be the last portion of the subject property to be developed. If, prior to the submission of subdivision plats for approval for that section of the subject property, any ready, willing, and able party or parties whose bona fide purpose is to acquire the subject 11 property for the creation of a park, open to the general public, to commemorate the Battle of Third Winchester, indicates that it desires to enter into good faith negotiations for the purchase of that portion of the subject property, it shall be offered to such party at fair market value, as that value is determined by a qualified MAI certified real estate appraiser acceptable to both the Applicant and to Frederick County. No such offer shall be accepted unless settlement is provided to occur within ninety days following receipt of a bona fide offer as provided herein, or such other time as the Applicant may agree to. G. The Applicant agrees that it shall dedicate to the public, or otherwise reserve and make available for public use, an eight foot (81) pathway along the frontage road bordering the Huntsberry property, in order to connect potential future park areas by an appropriate walking trail, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan. 9. Contributions to Fire and Rescue Services. A. The applicant agrees that it shall donate the sum of $100.00 for fire and rescue service purposes, for each dwelling unit constructed on site, such donation to be made at the time of recordation of a final subdivision plat for any portion of the subject property, either by cash or check. B. All of the aforesaid contribution shall be made to J 1 0 • 12 the Clearbrook Fire Hall, Stonewall District; provided, that in the event a fire and or rescue station is hereafter constructed which assumes the responsibility of providing service to the subject property, and further contributions are yet remaining to be made in accordance with this proffer, asuch contributions shall be made to that station. C. The Applicant further agrees that no later than August 1, 1990, it will provide the additional sum of $10,000 in cash to the Clearbrook Fire Hall, to be used for downpayment on a currently required rescue squad vehicle. The Applicant further agrees that it shall contribute the further sum of $5,000 in cash on each of August 1st of 1991, and 1992, for application to the purchase of the said rescue vehicle. 10. Limitation on submission of subdivision plats. The Applicant agrees that it shall not submit for approval any subdivision plat for the Subject Property, nor shall the County be obligated to review or approve any such plat, until such time as the Director of Planning certifies that there is access to the Property from Route 7 then existing or to be available within a reasonable period of time. r L] 13 TOP OF VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION STATE OF VIRGINIA to -wit: COUNTY OF I. a Notary Public in the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Dave Holliday, President of Top of Virginia Development Corporation, and who is authorized to act on behalf of said Corporation, whose name is signed to the foregoing, has personally acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand and seal this 9th day of May, 1990. My Commission Expires: tly Ccflji;,i Ofl Expires Gctcber 27, 1991 Nota y Pu lic JHF2:proffers.001 � t • 0 April 13, 1990 PROFFERS CALEB HEIGHTS REZONING APPLICATION 1. Preliminary matters. Pursuant to Section 15.1-491.1 et sea. of the Virginia Code Annotated, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application Number 012-89 for the rezoning of 211 acres from the A-2 Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, ("the subject property"), development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and in substantial conformity with the terms conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant, and such be approved by the County in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, or its legal successors and assigns. 2. Generalized Development Plan. The development of the subject property, and the submission of any Master Development Plans therefor, shall be in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development 2 Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Phasing of Development. In order that the County may be able reasonably to anticipate the pace of development on the subject property, a phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with 'the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Phasing as shown on the said Master Plan shall be accomplished such that not more than fifteen per cent (15%) of the total permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single- or multi -family units, may be constructed in any one year; provided, however, that this figure shall be cumulative, and any number of such units not constructed in any given year, may be constructed in later years, plus in any year an additional five per cent (5%) of such units in years after December 31, 1991. 4. Transportation. A. The Applicant shall design and construct all roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these proffers. 9 B. (1). The Applicant proffers that it shall design and construct a two lane road from the southern edge of its property to a satisfactory connection to existing Regency Lakes Drive, generally at the location designated as "Interparcel Connector" on the Generalized Development Plan, for ultimate inclusion in the State System of Secondary Highways. It shall construct such road only provided that dedicated right-of-way for such extension has been made available by others. In the event that either the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, or the Virginia Department of Transportation, determines to exercise its powers of eminent domain to acquire right-of-way sufficient to the purposes hereof, however, the Applicant agrees to advance or reimburse to either agency the costs of the exercise of such power, including reasonable attorneys' fees and engineering costs, and the cost of the condemnation itself, in order to obtain the right-of-way necessary to construct the roadway agreed to under this proffer. (2). The Applicant further agrees that the said Interparcel Connector shall be the first section of the road network providing primary access to the subject property to be constructed, provided that the right-of-way necessary for the construction thereof shall have been made available in accordance with the terms of this proffer not later than January 1, 1991. 4 C. (1). In order to assist in the provision of an ultimate four lane undivided collector road from State Route 661 south to Route 7, as generally shown on the County's adopted thoroughfare plan, and in the area designated as "Major Collector 80' Right -of -Way" on the Generalized Development Plan, the Applicant shall dedicate the right- of-way necessary for two lanes of an ultimate four lane Major Collector Road between indicators B and C as shown on the said Plan. At such time as the Virginia Department of Transportation approves final design for any portion of such Collector Road, the Applicant shall contribute the reasonably estimated costs of construction of one lane of such Major Collector. The Applicant shall access such Major Collector by its Local Collector Road in the location generally shown on said Plan. (2). The Applicant shall further dedicate all of the necessary right-of-way for the aforesaid four lane undivided collector road between indicators C and D as shown on the Generalized Development Plan, where the right-of-way for such proposed collector runs entirely through the subject property. The Applicant agrees that it shall construct two lanes of the ultimate four lane right-of-way between those two points, to VDOT standards. (3). The phasing of dedication and construction of the roadway located between indicators C and D on the Generalized Development Plan shall be accomplished as part 0 • 5 of the consideration of a Master Development Plan for the subject property. (4). The Applicant shall construct a Local Collector Road in the location identified on the Generalized Development Plan, to provide temporary access to the property and to the Major Collector Roadway from State Route 661. It shall insure that all roads internal to the subject property will be designed to serve compatibly with the Major Collector Roadway. (5). The Applicant shall not be responsible for the construction of any other portion of the Major Collector, than is set out herein. (6). In order to avoid proliferation of entrances on State Route 661, when the aforesaid Major Collector Road has been constructed to State Route 661 and has been accepted into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant agrees that it shall initiate the necessary legal steps, in conjunction with the County and VDOT, to close any through traffic from the Local Collector directly onto State Route 661, and to redirect such traffic from within the property onto the Major Collector Road at a suitable access point. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit the Applicant from providing suitable and customary access from State Route 661 to the ten acre remainder parcel located adjacent to State Route 661, and shown on the Generalized Development Plan, provided that that access (except for emergency traffic) is 6 not permitted to the Local Collector once it has been closed to through traffic. 5. Environmental considerations. A. Existing live trees with a trunk diameter greater than six inches shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible, through restrictive covenants of record, consistently with the physical location of dwellings, and except as may be necessary to construct roads, or sewers, water lines or other utilities or required infrastructure. B. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ all reasonable Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. C. Despite its belief that construction on the subject property will have no detrimental effect on Redbud Run, the Applicant agrees that prior to initiation of any construction on the subject property, it shall obtain baseline data as to the existing water quality in the Run from a person, company, or agency, approved by the Director of Planning and Development for Frederick County, and shall thereafter monitor the water quality in the Run semi-annually, and report the findings of such monitoring to the County, far net mere than five years frem the date ef appreval ef this in ne event aunt be—respensible fer sueh 7 testing fer Yflere than ten ears fellewing the date—ef In the event that the Director of Planning determines that development of the subject property has directly caused degradation in the water quality of the Run, below the baseline data acquired hereunder, the D. The Applicant shall further comply with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the protection of the environment. 6. Maximum permitted density. The overall density of the development of the subject property shall not exceed three and three tenths (3.3) dwelling units per gross acre; and provided further that maximum density shall not exceed two and two tenths (2.2) dwelling units per gross acre in the area of the subject .3 property identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Area A, and eight units per gross acre on the area of the subject property identified thereon as Area B. Only single family dwellings shall be constructed in Area A, and only townhouses shall be constructed in Area B. 7. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development on Schools. The Applicant shall pay to the County's General Fund the su :::>::>:.:.:.:::>::>::>::> ..:::<:>::;:;;;:<;;>;;;;; .;;:.;;::.:::;:;:: <:.... m of :.. ......... derP. elmenth...dwel l xng.!.... and....1, EEO, `arrk's Payment of such sums shall be made to the -Caunty ���.. •..l , vaa•... uZ+l..r .a.ivull 1. V1 16. •J 1GMu1 w1. ut.rVGa� • 8. Historic Preservation. A. The Applicant shall dedicate to the appropriate public or private agency or authority, in fee simple absolute, those areas identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Historic Preservation Areas, provided that it shall retain the necessary rights -of -way, dedications, easements, and permissions required to construct roads, sewers, water lines and other necessary infrastructure within those preservation areas, as they may be required for the development of the subject property and approved in a Master Development Plan. 10 B. All infrastructure other than roads shall be located underground, and any land area disturbed during construction shall be restored to its original condition after construction is finally completed. The Applicant shall provide suitable buffering and landscaping along any road which may be constructed, compatible with the historic preservation purposes of this proffer, and approved by the Director of Planning and Development as being in accord herewith and with the standards established in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. C. Historic signage of a kind similar to that used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to mark historic places shall be placed in locations satisfactory to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. D. Notwithstanding any other provision of these proffers, the Applicant agrees that it will not commence construction of any kind on the subject property prior to January 1, 1991. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the applicant from preparing and submitting plans for development of the subject property prior to such date, nor shall it preclude review thereof by appropriate public agencies. E. The Applicant further agrees that at any time prior to January 1, 1991, it will enter into good faith negotiations for the sale and purchase of the subject property with any ready, willing, and able party or parties whose bona fide purpose is to acquire the subject property 0 11 for the creation of a park, open to the general public, to commemorate the Battle of Third Winchester. The subject property shall be offered at fair market value, as that value is determined by a qualified MAI certified real estate appraiser. No such offer shall be accepted unless settlement is provided to occur within ninety days following receipt of a bona fide offer as provided herein. 9. Contributions to Fire and Rescue Services. A. The applicant agrees that it shall donate the sum of $100.00 for fire and rescue service purposes, for each B. All of the aforesaid contribution shall be made to the Clearbrook Fire Hall, Stonewall District; provided, that in the event a fire and or rescue station is hereafter constructed which assumes the responsibility of providing service to the subject property, and further contributions 12 are yet remaining to be made in accordance with this proffer, such contributions shall be made to that station. C. The Applicant further agrees that no later than August 1, 1990, it will provide the additional sum of $10,000 the Clearbrook Fire Hall, to be used for downpayment on a currently required rescue squad vehicle. The Applicant further agrees that it shall contribute the further sum of $5, 000 s:Yt>€on each of August 1st of 1991, and 1992, for application to the purchase of the said rescue vehicle. TOP OF VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BY: -,,vresideftt Notarization of Signatu JHF2:tovprof (�6TA42y - 5i E OF V196 Cokntii5'onJ _Xpt)265 oo� Cr,�rre�n%r April 4, 1990 PROFFERS CALEB HEIGHTS REZONING APPLICATION 1. Preliminary matters. Pursuant to Section 15.1-491.1 et sea. of the Virginia Code Annotated, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application Number 012-89 for the rezoning of 211 acres from the A-2 Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, ("the subject property"), development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and in substantial conformity with the terms conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant, and such be approved by the County in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, or its legal successors and assigns. 2. Generalized Development Plan. The development of the subject property, and the submission of any Master Development Plans therefor, shall be in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development 2 Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Phasing of Development. In order that the County may be able reasonably to anticipate the pace of development on the subject property, a phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Phasing as shown on the said Master Plan shall be accomplished such that not more than fifteen per cent (15%) of the total permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single- or multi -family units, may be constructed in any one year; provided, however, that this figure shall be cumulative, and any number of such units not constructed in any given year, may be constructed in later years, plus in any year an additional five per cent (5%) of such units in years after December 31, 1991. 4. Transportation. A. The Applicant shall design and construct all roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these proffers. • 3 ....................... B.'I'he Applicant proffers that it shall design .:...................... and construct a two lane road from the southern edge of its property to a satisfactory connection to existing Regency Lakes Drive, generally at the location designated as "Interparcel Connector" on the Generalized Development Plan, for ultimate inclusion in the State System of Secondary Highways. It shall construct such road only provided that dedicated right-of-way for such extension has been made available by others. In the event that either the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, or the Virginia Department of Transportation, determines to exercise its powers of eminent domain to acquire right-of-way sufficient to the purposes hereof, however, the Applicant agrees to advance or reimburse to either agency the costs of the exercise of such power, including reasonable attorneys' fees and engineering costs, and the cost of the condemnation itself, in order to obtain the right-of-way necessary to construct the roadway agreed twe lanes ef a majer feur lane eelleeter read as generally Generalized Develepment Plan, is identified anel whieh segment Eeileeter by— its Celleeter Read in leeatien —Leeal generally shewn en sa fer said feur lane undivided eelleeter read where the right subjeet in the between indieaters—Brand preperty, as shewn segment G en the Generalized Develepiftent in shall eenstruet Plan and whieh it the --a fe i d twelanes res a —e f the ultirflate Celleete-r Re -ad between indeaters Gener�'ZalizedDevel' A and l B as shown en the ••1- and shall, suet time as the fer any Gelleeter pertien ems- eueh Read, e-enrbute—the :::::::. ?: >:::::;::;an ; ;5hart ier;;:.;d c t. .;;:: :.�........ 0 (4). The Applicant shall construct a Local Collector Road in the location identified on the Generalized Development Plan, to provide temporary access to the property and to the Major Collector Roadway from State Route 661— It shall insure that all roads internal to the subject property will be designed to serve compatibly with the Major Collector Roadway. (5). The Applicant shall not be responsible for the construction of any other portion of the Major Collector, than is set out herein. (6). In order to avoid proliferation of entrances on State Route 661, when the aforesaid Major Collector Road has been constructed to State Route 661 and has been accepted into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant agrees that it shall initiate the necessary legal steps, in conjunction with the County and VDOT, to close any through traffic from the Local Collector directly onto State Route 661, and to redirect such traffic from within the property onto the Major Collector Road at a suitable access point. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit the Applicant from providing suitable and customary access from State Route 661 7 to the ten acre remainder parcel located adjacent to State Route 661, and shown on the Generalized Development Plan, provided that that access (except for emergency traffic) is not permitted to the Local Collector once it has been closed to through traffic. 5. Environmental considerations. A. Existing live trees with a trunk diameter greater than six inches shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible, through restrictive covenants of record, consistently with the physical location of dwellings, and except as may be necessary to construct roads, or sewers, water lines or other utilities or required infrastructure. B. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ all reasonable Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. C. Despite its belief that construction on the subject property will have no detrimental effect on Redbud Run, the Applicant agrees that prior to initiation of any construction on the subject property, it shall obtain baseline data as to the existing water quality in the Run from a person, company, or agency, approved by the Director of Planning and Development for Frederick County, and shall thereafter monitor the water quality in the Run semi-annually, and report the findings of such monitoring to the County, for not more than five years from the date of approval of this 8 rezoning, unless the Director of Planning reasonably determines that it is necessary to continue such testing. In no event shall the Applicant be responsible for such testing for more than ten years following the date of approval of this rezoning. In the event that the Director of Planning determines that development of the subject property has directly caused degradation in the water quality of the Run, below the baseline data acquired hereunder, the Applicant shall take reasonable steps to mitigate such degradation. To the extent that these responsibilities are to be performed after the Applicant has constructed homes on the subject property, the Applicant may assign any responsibilities assumed hereunder to an appropriate homeowners' association created in connection with the development of the subject property. D. The Applicant shall further comply with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the protection of the environment. 6. Maximum permitted density. The overall density of the development of the subject property shall not exceed three and three tenths (3.3) dwelling units per gross acre; and provided further that maximum density shall not exceed two and two tenths (2.2) dwelling units per gross acre in the area of the subject P property identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Area A, and eight units per gross acre on the area of the subject property identified thereon as Area B. Only single family dwellings shall be constructed in Area A, and only townhouses shall be constructed in Area B. 7. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development on Schools. The Applicant shall pay to the County's General Fund the sum of $ , for each lot or parcel which is approved for development, with payment to be made to the County at the time of issuance of building permits for the construction of dwelling units. In order to minimize the record -keeping requirements for public agencies of Frederick County, the applicant or its legal successors and assigns shall have the complete responsibility of insuring that notice of the requirement for such sums is specifically included on any building plans submitted in connection with application for building permits, and for the payment thereof in accordance with these proffers. Such payment shall be made for the sole and express purpose of implementing the provisions of the currently adopted Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan with respect to school construction costs in the general vicinity of the subject property. In the event that the money proffered hereunder is not used for the purpose for which proffered within ten years 9 0 10 from the date this rezoning is approved, it shall be refunded on demand to the Applicant, or such other entity or person as may have made any payment provided for herein, with interest accrued at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the first such payment is made. 8. Historic Preservation. A. The Applicant shall dedicate to the appropriate public or private agency or authority, in fee simple absolute, those areas identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Historic Preservation Areas, provided that it shall retain the necessary rights -of -way, dedications, easements, and permissions required to construct roads, sewers, water lines and other necessary infrastructure within those preservation areas, as they may be required for the development of the subject property and approved in a Master Development Plan. B. All infrastructure other than roads shall be located underground, and any land area disturbed during construction shall be restored to its original condition after construction is finally completed. The Applicant shall provide suitable buffering and landscaping along any road which may be constructed, compatible with the historic preservation purposes of this proffer, and approved by the Director of Planning and Development as being in accord 9 • 11 herewith and with the standards established in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. C. Historic signage of a kind similar to that used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to mark historic places shall be placed in locations satisfactory to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. D. Notwithstanding any other provision of these proffers, the Applicant agrees that it will not commence construction of any kind on the subject property prior to January 1, 1991. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the applicant from preparing and submitting plans for development of the subject property prior to such date, nor shall it preclude review thereof by appropriate public agencies. E. The Applicant further agrees that at any time prior to January 1, 1991, it will enter into good faith negotiations for the sale and purchase of the subject property with any ready, willing, and able party or parties whose bona fide purpose is to acquire the subject property for the creation of a park, open to the general public, to commemorate the Battle of Third Winchester. The subject property shall be offered at fair market value, as that value is determined by a qualified MAI certified real estate appraiser. No such offer shall be accepted unless settlement is provided to occur within ninety days following receipt of a bona fide offer as provided herein. 12 9. Contributions to Fire and Rescue Services. ................ i`<lThe applicant agrees that it shall donate the sum of $100.00 for fire and rescue service purposes, v.1...--I -- III -I ---,.-------- -.Y 1,.11E L11 GV 4V1 V1t Planning, and ane half to the -County -General Fund fie -be used ferfire service, for each dwelling unit constructed on site, such donation to be made at the time of issuance of building permits for such dwelling units; provided, that the applicant or its legal successors and assigns shall have the complete responsibility of insuring that notice of the requirement for such sums is specifically included on any building plans submitted in connection with application for building permits, and for the payment thereof in accordance with these proffers. :::::..:::::.::::.;:.;.;:;a aforaa:.:.:<ontTutc>n:.;:;hl :..:e.:. the:::;C<n bast down a mart on Y.......................... l.....:>::::::::::::. h ... pant. 13 bud;....:: ;::::..:<::?::.:::::::::.:: ..... ;:<: N. urcha�f the sd ���uh�i.;,;: TOP OF VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BY: President Notarization of Signature JHF2:tovprof hInY 09 190 12:19 SECURITY TRUST - COPP TRUST • U P.2 1601 PENNSYLVANIA AVE„ N.W, (9) ISec � ri ty Trust firt WASHINGTON, 0.0, 20013 �4.U1i 1 �ai7l 202-624-4494 Mr, David B. Holliday, President Top of Virginia Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Nash Trust Red Bud Farm Winchester, VA Dear Mr. Holliday: EDWARD T. DILLON VICE PRESIDENT AND TRUST OFFICER This is to acknowledge receipt of your recent letter in regard to road right-of-way problems you face in gaining approval of your rezoning application. Although, as Trustee owners of the Nash tract, we are not contemplating any immediate development, we have been following your progress with more than passive interest and have a reasonable understanding of activity in the area of Red Bud Farm. Because of our fiduciary position, we cannot act with dispatch on major issues affecting this holding and thus cannot make a definite committment to grant any right-of-way. However, with our familiarity of the situation, we would agree to meet with you for the purpose of discussing the possibility of a right-of-way on the basis that you would bear the full cost of road improvements and there would be no obligation or expense involved on the part of the Nash interests. We will be available to discuss this matter in more detail at a mutually convenient time and place. Kindly advise in the event your interest continues. Very truly yours, Edward T. Dillon Cl 11 Top of Virginia Development Corp. PO Box 3276 Winchester, Virginia 22601 David B. Holliday, President May 8, 1990 Mr. Roger Delauter President, Shenandoah Valley Civil War Foundation, Inc. Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Delauter, It was more than a pleasure meeting with you today. I feel much better that we have opened the conversation and reached a "middle ground". This has to be so much better for all concerned. I have advised my engineer, Mr. Chuck Maddox, to add an 8' strip along the single frontage road by "Huntsberry_" so that we may connect the 45 acre site with the other end of our property and over to the "Nash" property. We will phase our development such that the Northern Portion between Hun_tsberry and Nash will be the last section developed; thus giving your group more time to find a buyer for this area. If you find a purchaser before this portion becomes the only single family area we have left to develop, the price for a legitimate preservationist group will be fair market value as determined by a certified appraisor (appraisor agreed to by both parties), otherwise we will be able to proceed into this last phase for development. As we discussed, I feel you should find a group to take title to the historic areas we are giving up. This phasing plan; which will come up only at the Master Development plan process; should give more time for such a group to arise. Of course, we request your input during the MDP process also. Although we didn't discuss this today, I would further request input from your group as to names for the streets and other areas near the battle site in order to be in keeping with the Civil War aura. Once again, thanking you, I remain, Sincerely, / avid B. Ho.11iday C CC County of Frederick (file) TC -RN ER, �rl�.i•.,e,w�-4A+�i4�b'I4hA:'WII�pMp:+1MMMkxM 7 MAy 1990 Mr. ChuCk MaddOX G, w. Gifford & Apeaoiates 7.0o North Cameron Strcot P.Q. 13ox 2104 Winchestar, Virginia 22601 Res WYNCHESTUR 144M STTO x'-81/RT.7 semi- Mr. Madd©x, >Ad you know we Tara the contract owner on the 74 acre Winoheetor Mail, site at Y- 81 and Rt. 7. We are in p>r0000s of completing a rite plan for the development of thin sits as a major retail strip oenter and will submit this to the planning c-omniimoion in tha next two (2) months. The alignment of the now connootor road from Rt, 7 north to Rt. 11 through this Site h4a beeYi disauased with the Frodoriak CQunty Planning Department and 'V.D.C,T. t uhowed your prop000d alternative road layout to Development Corporation. of Arnorica (the prooent owner of Winchester Mall) and they agree with ua that this t.e not a viable nl,tgnmant as far ae our sit* is concernod. HowavQr, we would be happy to diecues the transportation "coda for this segment of the x-8l/Rt.7 intersection with the Board of Suparviaora and hope we can help n Toad system that works for this area. Yrltax4 pinCorQ�yl _ (.. Novi l l Turner 1), ee Wont 4c,tivr,,a1 Partner 107 S'I'Ftlai'I' P0,07,0(il PAX 0 WAYNE D. SEIPEL, M.D. 920 SHENANDOAH AVENUE FRONT ROYAL, VA. 22630 TELEPHONE (703) 635-3155 Dear 5-4-90 UROLOGY We have decided to take a stand against the rezoning of Caleb Heights. We feel the historical heritage of that tract is too important for it to be rezoned residential. At the same time, we strongly feel that the 3rd Battle of Winchester area should be developed for tourism. The tourism benefit to be derived would far outweigh the real estate taxation revenue and proffers offered by the rezoning requestor, when balanced against the support services needed by each. We look to you as our Board of Supervisors to initiate the appropriate commission charged with the responsibility to move toward that end. We are aware of several funding sources that are available to support a move in this direction. Even though Penny's birthday is May 9th, we plan to be present at the board meeting to further explain our position and answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Stephanie P. Seipel Wayne D. Seipel SPS/syc • Top of Virginia Development Corp. PO Box 3276 Winchester, Virginia 22601 David B. Holliday, President May 8, 1990 Mr. Roger Delauter President, Shenandoah Valley Civil War Foundation, Inc. Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Delauter, It was more than a pleasure meeting with you today. I feel much better that we have opened the conversation and reached a "middle ground". This has to be so much better for all concerned. I have advised my engineer, Mr. Chuck Maddox, to add an 8' strip along the single frontage road b& "Huntsberry" so that we may connect the 45 acre site with the other end of our property and over to the "Nash" property. We will phase our development such that the Northern Portion between Huntsberry and Nash will be the last section developed; thus giving your group more time to find a buyer for this area. If you find a purchaser before this portion becomes the only single family area we have left to develop, the price for a legitimate preservationist group will be fair market value as determined by a certified appraisor (appraisor agreed to by both parties), otherwise we will be able to proceed into this last phase for development. As we discussed, I feel you should find a group to take title to the historic areas we are giving up. This phasing plan; which will come up only at the Master Development plan process; should give more time for such a group to arise. Of course, we request your input during the MDP process also. Although we didn't discuss this today, input from your group as to names for, areas near the battle site in order to Civil War aura. Once again, thanking You, I remain, Sincerely, avid B. Holliday CC County of Frederick (file) I would further request the streets and other be in keeping with the PRESERVATION ALLIANCE OF VIRGINIA P. O. Box 295 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (804) 979-3899 May 4, 1990 Mr. Kenneth Stiles, Chairman Frederick County Board of Supervisors Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Stiles: At the request of several member organizations, the Preservation Alliance of Virginia has become aware of the proposal for rezoning a portion of the site of the Third Battle of Winchester. We are deeply concerned about the proposed rezoning and we urge the Board to turn down the request at this time. We take this position for two reasons. First, this property is unique. It is part of the site of one of the significant battles of the Civil War, and the number of those sites in Virginia is rapidly decreasing. As such, the Third Battle of Winchester site is a special component of our state and national heritage. Covering the property with houses would deny our past and show disrespect for the sacrifice made by the participants in the battle. Our second reason is based on the tourism potential of the property. Tourism is now the second largest industry in the state, bringing in over $7 billion to the state's economy last year. This income helps provide permanent economic strength for our economy. The construction jobs created by the development would have a fleeting economic impact. on the other hand, the income from visitors to a battlefield park would provide the county with an ongoing source of revenue with limited costs in terms of schools and other facilities. A gubernatorial study commission, which I chaired, found that visitors come to Virginia in large measure because of our history and quality of life. Preservation of the Third Battle of Winchester site can only help boost Frederick County -- and Virginia's -- tourism efforts. CHARTER MEMBERS: The Alexandria Association -A rcheological Society of Virginia • The Association for the Preservation of Virginia Autiquities Bedford Historical Society, Inc. • The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation • The Corporation forJefferson's Poplar Forest • Council of Virginia Archaeologists Danville historical Society • Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History • Fairfax County history Commission/Architectural Review Board • Fauquier Historical Society • Gloucester historical Society in Virginia • historic Alexandria Foundation, Inc. • Historic Fiucastle, Inc. • Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. - Historic Hilton Village, Inc. • Iiistoric Hopewell Foundation, Inc. •IIisloric Lexington Foundation - Historic Petersburg Foundation Historic Richmond Foundation, Inc. •Iiistoric Staunton Foundation • Kenmore Association, Inc. • Loudoun Restoration and Preservation Society • Lower James River Association • Lynchburg historical Foundation, Inc. • Manassas 1Nuseum/Manassas Historical Committee • Center for Historic Preservation — Mary Washington College • Merchant's hope Church Foundation, Inc. - Mount Vernon Ladies Association • The Museum of the Confederacy • Piedmont Enviro nmental Council • Preservation of historic Winchester, Inc. • Preservation Society o f Loudoun County, Inc. • Rappahannock League for Environmental Protection - Richmond -on -the James,Itic. • Shockoe Slip Foundation • Southampton County historical Society •ThomasJefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc. Valentine Museum • Virginia Society, The American Institute of Architects - Warrenton Improvement League • Washington County Preservation Foundation • Waterford Foundation, Inc. Mr. Kenneth Stiles May 4, 1990 Page 2 A community's quality of life can be defined as making the most of its attributes. Frederick County should make the most of this particular attribute and work with private and public groups for its preservation. We would suggest that a preservation plan be prepared for the property -- and with that in hand we would argue that the benefits of preservation would be clear when weighed against the value of houses that can be effectively located on different property. The Preservation Alliance of Virginia, as a consortium of over 135 organizations concerned about the Commonwealth's historic and natural resources, is concerned that this unique part of Virginia's past will be lost. We offer every assistance at our disposal to help you keep that which makes Frederick County the "Top of Virginia." Sincerely, f David J. Brown Executive Director b« P►4 LO ✓ I A 1Ak WASHINGTON OFFICE 1575 EYE STREET, N. W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 (202) 898-0010 LEESBURG OFFICE 116-G EDWARDS FERRY ROAD, N. E. P. 0. BOX 87 LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 (703) 777-6777 0�,1, �� /,z, h A LAW OFFICES ^� ! is < p� Y HazeMwias,Fdc `J k4 Weiner, Becftrn & lanes A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FAIRFAX OFFICE 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 P.O. BOX 12001 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 641-4200 TELECOPIER (703) 641-4340 March 7, 1990 Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell . ,� ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 P. 0. BOX 820 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (703) 836-8400 RICHMOND OFFICE 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 600 P. 0. BOX 3-K RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 (804) 344-3400 MARYLAND OFFICE EOUITABLE BANK CENTER, TOWER II 100 SOUTH CHARLES STREET, STH FLOOR BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 (301) 783-3500 Director of Preservation Programs ; Department of Historic Resources E`�='• 221 Governor Street D.� -- Richmond, Virginia 23219 1` Dear Bryan: II } I have recently seen a resolution of ederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board which states that on February 20th of this year the Department of Historic Resources determined that a property known as Caleb Heights met the criteria for listing on the State and National Registers. While I do not doubt that such a determination might well be made of the area comprising Third Winchester, I confess that I am surprised to learn of it by a chance mention in an. HRAB resolution. So far as I know, my client, the Top of Virginia Development Corporation, was entirely unaware that the Department had been asked to, was considering, or had done such a thing. Because of our previous long discussions of just such matters, I know you are aware of the concerns that landowners have in these things, and I know that you believe in an open process, and would not knowingly have kept us in the dark. I would greatly appreciate it if you could forward me any documentation which pertains to this determination, so that I ,ma— '-,now w at is afoot. Needless to say, if you need to communicate with Top of Virginia, you have only to call me. Sincerely yours, ZELAOI�AS, FISKE, WE BECKHORN, & HANES, P.C. John H . Foote H. Bryan Mitchell March 7, 1990 Page 2 cc: Hugh C. Miller David Holliday Chuck Maddox Sara Howard -O'Brien Kenneth Stiles Robert Watkins Kris Tierney Raymond Ewing JHF12:topva.005 LAW OFFICES Haze Awlas,Fiske, Weiner, Beckhom &Hanes A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION COMMONWEALTH of V1RQJN1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 April 2, 1990 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. C/O G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: WILLIAM H78-9 AN RESIDENT ENGINEER Ref: Caleb Heights (Private Subdivision) Route 661 Frederick County I am writing concerning the above referenced development's final subdivision plats which you recently submitted to this office for review and approval. Upon review in the field please find our comments as follows: 1. The existing entrance (to be used to access this property) on the adjoining J.J.J.A. & Associates Property does not meet our minimum standards and would require upgrading. 2. If you recall our previous comments on the rezoning of this property indicated minimum sight distances would be difficult to obtain from the original entrance location. Since this proposal shifts the entrance further west, minimum sight distances may be impossible to obtain without major reconstruction of the Route 661 roadway. Enclosed you will find the final plats as submitted. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, do not hesitate to call. RBC / rf Enclosures xc: Mr. R. L. Moore Mr. F. E. Wymer Mr. R. W. Watkins Sincerely, W. H. Bushman Resident Engineer ll By: Robert B.- it ess Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY -r o t (p 3 - a4 -?o C.W.CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, IW. 20 S.CAMERON ST. PO BOX 2104 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 703-667-2139 i TO: FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. Winchester, Va 22601 ► 1 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PRESENT DATE 19 March 1990 ATTENTION Susie RE: I-IPinhtc PP7nninn WE ARE SENDING YOU AT CHED � UNDER SEPARATE VIA ❑ HAND DELIVERED CH GE ORDER SAMPLES SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ PLANS COPY OF LETTER JOB NO. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SPECIFICATIONS OTHER COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 1 Additional Property Owners to above Rezoning ARE TRANSMITTED F7 APPROVED/SUBMITTED ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED AI FOR YOUR USE ❑ RETURN/CORRECTIONS ❑ AS 3EQUESTED ❑ FOR REVIEW or COMMENT ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 11 9 ❑ RESUBMIT.__ FOR APPROVAL ❑ SUBMITFOR DISTRIBUTION ❑ RETURNED___ CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ LOAN PRINT/RETURN RETURN/WITH SIGNATURES REMARKS Susie, Due to tabling,etc. of this Project for several months, additional Property Owners need to notified of the Public Hearing. Please add these owners to the previous list we submitted. 4 COPY TO: Thanks! SIGNED Tnm PrirA REV. 2.0 i I i Owners of the Property adjoining the land will be notified of the public hearing. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any prop- erty directly across the road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the 21-digit tax parcel identification number which may be ob- tained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. Name: Rob rt N, & Patricia L. Keister Address: 951 Winnepeg Place Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00300 Name: Samuel & Dorothy M. Mizerak Address: c/o Soverighn Homes 730 Wallaston Place Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00310 Name: Patricia W. & Bonnie L. Brandt Address: 424 Westside Station Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 55E00-001-0000-0002-00330 Name: Jeffrey L. Turner Address: 609 Lake Sever Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00340 Name: Soverighn Homes, Inc. Address: P.O. Box 1464 Front Royal, Va 22630 Property I.D.##: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00350 Name: Steven M. Goldizen Address: 613 Lake Sever Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00360 Name: Steven T. & June H. Kenyon Address: 615 Lake Sever Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00370 0 1 0 Name: Charles H. & Pauline B. Whirley Address: 617 Lake Sever Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00380 Name: Thomas I. & Dianne H. Weston, Jr. Address: 1953, Kathy Court Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 55EOp-001-0000-0002-00390 Name: SoveIighn homes, Inc. f Address: P.O.1Box 1464 Front Royal, Va 22630 Property I.D.##: 55EOO-001-0000-0001-00400 Name: Charles R. & katherine C. Trail Address: 439 great Pond View Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00410 0 • G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 L�VJ 703-667-2139 (`-- Fax: 703-665-0493 s' AR - 51990 April 4, 1990 Mr. Bob Watkins Frederick County Planning Director 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Caleb Rezone Dear Bob, Per our phone conversation this afternoon, owners and/or Partners of Red Bud Associates are as follows: Don Collins Delbert E. Siebert Richard Kern Russ Potts Though unintentional, we have learned from this application to list all owners in future applications to the County. If I can be of further service, please call anytime. Sincerely yours, JV-M Ati4 Tom Price G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. TP/klf '7i s/ rA Dor VW � ' APR 1990 V PROVIDED BY THE WINCH ESTER-FREDERICK COUNTY VISITOR CENTER I U.S. TRAVEL DATA PUTS TOTAL EXPENDITURES FROM TOURISTS IN WINCHESTER-FREDERICK CO. OVER $50 MILLION Newly released data from the U.S. Travel Data Center estimates the total travel expenditure of tourists visiting Winchester -Frederick County at over $50 million for calendar year 1988. The estimate was generated by the U.S. Travel Data Center's Travel Economic Import Model. According to the model, the payroll generated by the travel industry in the community was $10.5 million in 1988. During this year the travel industry generated over 1200 jobs in the community and provided the localities with approximately $900,000 in local tax receipts. This later figure includes sales tax receipts as well as tax receipts from meals and lodging taxes. GROUP TOUR MARKETING COUNCIL PLANS FAM TOUR A familiarization (FAM) tour for group tour operators is being planned by the Group Tour Marketing Council (GTMC) for April 19-22. Invitations are being sent to approximately 200 tour operators, many of whom have already expressed an interest in Winchester -Frederick County as a possible tour destination. Co - Chairing the Council's FAM Tour Committee are Larry Schrock and Chuck Phares. Committee members include Julie Stewart, Anna Thomson, Judy Bogner, Carolyn Edwards and Kathye Taylor. Since its inception two years ago, the Group Tour Marketing Council has been responsible for 62 tours to Winchester -Frederick County. The Council has commitments from an additional twelve tour operators. Chamber members interested in being a part of the Council activities should call Kathye Taylor at 6624118. TOURISM COMMITTEE ENDORSES PLAN TO INCLUDE LOCAL CIVIL WAR SITES IN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM The Chamber's Tourism Committee, under the Chairmanship of Mike Morrison, endorsed Senate bill 1770; the purpose of which is "to assess the suitability and feasibility of including certain Shenan- doah Valley Civil War sites in the national park system." Among the sites mentioned as being included in the park system if the bill is approved are sites of the battles of Winchester, Cedar Creek and Kernstown. The Senate bill is being co -sponsored by Virginia Senators Robb and Warner and Vermont Senator Leahy. A similar bill, H.R. 3513, has been introduced in the House of Representatives and has the endorsement of Congressman D. French Slaughter. The Tourism Committee plans to submit a resolution detailing its action to the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors with a recommendation that the Chamber go on record in support of the proposal. WILLARD ADMITS MISTAKE Noted weather analyst and television personality Willard Scott apologized to Kris Goff, Visitor Center Supervisor, and indirectly to Winchester, for mistakingly mentioning on the Today Show that nearby Martinsburg, West Virginia, was the birthplace of Patsy Cline. Willard said, "I will remember her birthplace the next time I mention her." He continued, "You can be justifiably proud of the Visitor Center, which offers such a variety of historical and cultural interest to the public." VISITOR CENTER SHOWS MODEST INCREASE Visitors to the Winchester -Frederick County Visitor Center were up 6% in January of 1990 in comparison to totals from January of the previous year. The January increase follows the first month of decline, December 1989, since the Center was opened almost 21/2 years ago. According to Visitor Center Supervisor Kris Goff, weather played the major role in both the December decrease and the January increase. A just completed statewide survey of regional visitor centers throughout the Commonwealth revealed that Winchester's 13% increase in 1989 was fourth among fifteen reporting centers. The extremes were Fredericksburg with a 22% increase in visitors and Prince William County with a 20% decrease. The nearby Virginia Welcome Center at Clearbrook reported no change in visitors from 1989 to 1990. WINFRED FOR HIRE The jolly red apple mascot of the Chamber, Winfred, is now available for hire according to Kathleen Porter, chairperson of the Mascot Committee. Those Chamber members desiring to rent Winfred for promotional activities in connection with their business can do so by requesting an appearance agreement from the office. According to Ms., Porter the cost of renting Winfred is $20 an hour plus 24 cents a mile. Details of the agreement appear on the appearance agreement. Winfred made its inaugural paid promo- tional appearance in support of the grand opening of the First American. Bank Stephens City Branch on Friday, February 9. Winfred and Susan and Sharon Combs, propri- etors of August and September, greet guests at the Chamber's An- nual Dinner. 0 PROVIDED BY THE WINCH ESTER-FREDERICK COUNTY VISITOR CENTER FAMILIARIZATION TOUR BEING PLANNED FOR GROUP TOUR OPERATORS As of the deadline for this newsletter, interest in the Group Tour Marketing Council's first familiarization (FAM) tour grows. To date, 10 group tour operators have committed to come to Winchester -Frederick County on April 19-22 to investigate the possibility of bringing group tours to the area. One interested tour operator is coming from San Francisco, California. The GTMC is marketing the area to those tour operators who already have plans to visit the nation's capital. The Councd's message is: "Come See How Winchester -Frederick County Will WOW Your D.C. Tours!!" The Group Tour Marketing Council's FAM tourchairman, Chuck Phares, believes Winchester -Frederick county is ideally situated to take advantage of group tours looking for a one to two day visit to Virginia's historic countryside while touring Washington, D.C. As a result of GTMC efforts, some 13 group tours have committed to coming to the area this year. For more information about the GTMC and the forthcoming FAM tour, members should call Kathye Taylor at the Chamber office. WARM WEATHER RESULTS IN A SIZEABLE INCREASE IN VISITORS TO THE AREA The Winchester -Frederick County Visitor Center recorded a 16% increase in the number of visitors at the facility during the month of February. Visitors in February totaled 1,336 versus 1,147 in February of 1989. Inquiries by phone, mail and in person increased by 18% during the month. Tourist inquiries increased dramatically for the month with 24% more inquiries being made than were recorded last year during the same period. Visitors in the month of February came from 26 different states and 6 foreign countries. The top five states aside from Virginia were Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and New Jersey. INCREASED RECOGNITION OF TOURISM There is increasing recognition and documentation that tourism is a major factor in economic development. The dollars spent by tourists create jobs, generate wages, salaries, and business profits, and are the source of a variety of tax revenues. At the end of 1985, an article on state -sponsored tourism development programs in Public Administration Review (PAR) reported that, "tourism was important to state economies long before government accepted a role in its development." The PAR article reports the findings of a 1984 survey of state and territorial tourism offices and says that, "What emerges is a startling picture of massive state competition and activity generating important and growing state revenues." It goes on to say, "Tourism's impact on state government administration and per- sonnel has been significant and is likely to increase. Tourism development is one of the few areas of expanded state employment since 1982." Citing recent growth in state tourism programs, it finds that, "Tourism development is increasingly seen in terms of economic diversification, not as a "frill." While the most rapid growth is in programs begun since 1960, even in state with long established tourism programs, it is a recognized fact that new initiatives will be necessary to maintain a share of the trade and to expand to new markets, particularly overseas." The article concludes that, "Tourism, though neglected as a policy sector, is ironically likely to have a major impact on revenues, employment and quality of life in the United States into the middle of the 21st century," and that, "The public sector has a vital role to play in seeing that tourism's potential is realized." PUT WINFRED TO WORK FOR YOU! Call 662-4118 to schedule Winfred's appearance and to learn how you can put the Chamber mascot to work in promoting your business. WET. WINCHESTER SURGICAL CLIMC You are cordially invited to attend a Chamber of Commerce Mixer at the Winchester Surgical Clinic 20 S. Stewart Street on April 3, 1990 at 5:30 p.m. • Meet new WSC physicians ' Participate in screenings " Displays of surgical • Give-aways techniques Door prizes PRAISE FOR VISITOR CENTER The following letter was published in The Winchester Star on Monday, March 5, 1990. I've passed through your city many times, but never stopped until recently. Your Visitors Center is an excellent introduction to the city. I really enjoyed the film on the sights to see, and the people there were very helpful. I wonder how many of your residents have gone there. They should. They'd find out things about their city that they never knew. Bob Williams 416 Lola St. Camden, NC 0 • THE CASH VALUE OF CIVIL WAR NOSTALGIA —a statistical overview of the Fredericksburg Park he Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park can be view- ed at two extremes. One is that it is a national jewel, handed down from each succeeding genera- tion to the next, and to which no monetary value can be assigned. The 5,400 acres of the park in and around Fredericksburg were the scene of four major Civil War battles (Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania Courthouse, Wilderness, and Chancellorsvzlle), during the course of which 100,000 men were casualties. Twenty thousand of them died in battle —a full ten per- cent of Civil War battle deaths. So much history, sadness, and nostalgia are bound up in the four battlefields and three historic building that over a million people were impelled to visit the park in 1981. How much is it worth to preserve the trenches at Bloody Angle, so that Joe Doakes from Knoxville can show his eleven -year - old son where his great-grandfather was cut down by a Springfield .58 rifled musket on that wet, miser- able, absolutely unbelievable morn- ing on May 12, 1864? A dollar value can no more be assigned to that question than the value of your mothers Bible. And yet, at the other extreme, the park can be viewed simply as a con- tinuing stream of cash. The acreage out of circulation as a park costs something in lost taxes and lost regional gross product. Conversely, it also contributes something to the economy of Fredericksburg and the counties of Orange, Caroline, Staf- ford, and Spotsylvania. The park can be examined as mercilessly and mercenarily as Disneyland. Indeed, one observer of things historical, in pleading for a more subdued ap- proach to some question about Jef- ferson's Monticello, coined the phrase "the nostal,LJa racket." To look at the park with the reverence due Stonewall Jackson's dying words does not alter the fact that the park is also motels, pizzas, paychecks and gasoline. henever any level of government takes land out of general use for a particular purpose, be it a highway or Civil War bat- tlefield, the first objection raised is that this will lose real estate taxes for the city or county. Figuring this loss is a fairly straightforward calculation compared to, say, the number of gallons of gas sold in Fredericksburg as a result of the presence of the park. Here's the simple-minded math involved: Since most (82 percent) of the park is in Spotsylvania County, subtract from the total acreage of the county (263,000) the total acreage not taxed (11,000), and the result (252,000), divided into the total assessed value of the county ($775 million), gives an average assessed market value of $3,000 per acre. Multiplying this by the 1981 tax rate of .85 per $100 assessed valuation gives us an average tax bill of $255 per acre. The park, then, costs local jurisdic- tions about $1,377,000 in lost taxes (5,400 acres times $255). To these lost taxes should be add- ed the economic contribution the park's 5.400 acres would make to the regional economy if they were put to their highest and best uses. This calculation would go something like this: assume the park is mostly farmland. Virginia's 10 million acres of farms generated S807 million dollars of income in 1980, an average of $81 an acre. Multiplied by the size of the park gives S 137,400 of farm income that the park, if an average farm, would generate. Remember, this is an average. If it were planted in tobac- co, an acre would bring $1,000; corn, $300; a couple of cows, next to nothing nowadays. Also keep in mind that the park costs the local jurisdictions prac- tically nothing in actual cash ap- propriated. No schools, roads, welfare, sewers, police, or building inspectors are required for the park. How much is this saving? By one form of logic, since it is an in- disputable fact that county govern- ment always spends slightly more than it takes in, then the amount sav- ed would be slightly greater than the lost taxes on the park land! Adding lost taxes to lost regional economic product gives us a total of $1,814,000, which roughly represents what the political jurisdictions and their citizens are losing by virtue of the park's having been put there in 1927. If you think these calculations are rough, hang on for more bad road statistics -vise, but that's the name of the game in such economic analysis, as David Stockman can assure you. f the park "costs" the area $1,814,000, what does it gain the area? To get that number, we must build up to it, and we do this by piling increasingly squishy numbers on top of very solid num- bers. The number finally arrived at could then be described as semi- solid or semi -squishy, depending on whether you think the bottle is half full or half empty. Some consolation may be afforded you by relating Dr. Johnson's comment about the talk- ing dog: the wonder is not that it isn't done well, but that he can do it at all. So the solidest number of park benefits is the undisputed fact that the park's fifty employees generate an annual payroll of $800,000. Another three solid numbers can be added to this: $133.000 for local pur- 4. Vir.4inia C, :,m.tn- chases of materials, supplies, and equipment; $25,000 to maintain the twelve homes owned by the park for use by on -site personnel, and $50,000 for the renovation and im- provement of existing historical buildings and sites —such as the Lacy House near the intersection of Routes 3 and 20. The total of these four numbers—$1,008,000—is the very definition of solid in that it can be derived by adding up invoices and timecards of money actually spent for specific purposes. Such will not be the case when we turn to an even larger category of park benefits, the r'r "ors Irought in by the park visitors. Here we get into knotty problems such as who visits the park for how long and spends how much overnight. The first thing to do is count the cars in the park with those little rub- ber hoses you've seen lying across the road. These counters show 375.000 cars at almost three bodies per car, giving an estimated 1.1 million visits to the park in 1980. But these people came for all kinds of reasons: to throw frisbees, hike, use the restrooms, bike, stroke the can- nons, jog, picnic, wax their cars, birdwatch, sunbathe or worship the ground Stonewall Jackson died on. The number of people who came to the park for historical purposes as opposed to recreational purposes is 280,000 as counted entering the park buildings and exhibits. However, a random sampling, of license plates allows a computation of the double -counting problem (same car, but more than one site visit), so that the 280,000 figure must be reduced by 30 percent to get rid of this double -counting. Thus we arrive at 200,000 as the number of people who visit the seven park sites in a year for historical pur- poses. his single figure, 200,000, in and of itself, provides useful insight when com- bined with a Department of Commerce finding that just 24 vis- itors a day to a park community is the equivalent of a $160,000 annual industrial payroll. If so, the park is comparable to a company with a $3,680,000 payroll, «ith the added advantage that the park visitor does not diminish the va'.t:^ ` the Dark. whereas many industries consume resources such as timber or minerals. The next necessary computation is the number of overnight visitors out of this 200,000. The Roanoke Augur: 45 r� LJ architect -engineer -planner firm hired by the National Park Service back in 1978 to compute the economic impact of the park made three assumptions, with which you can quarrel if you want to, but you'll be hard put to improve upon. They are: • Visitors arriving before 10 a.m. or departing after 5 p.m. are over- nighters; • This number must be reduced by 30 percent to eliminate double - counting; and third, • Virginia license plate owners who visit two or more of the seven sites are considered overnighters. Two of every three visitors are out-of-state, of whom the survey in- dicates 23 percent stay overnight. If this number is combined on a weighted basis with the five percent of the Virginia visitors estimated to stay overnight, the contractor con- cludes that 18 percent of the �risitors are expect to stay overnight. So 200,000 visitors times the over- night factor of 18 percent gives 36,000 people who, according to standard figures put out by the Virginia Department of Highways, spend an average (adjusted for infla- tion to 1980 dollars) of $37.20, or a total of $1,340,000 annually in the area. But what about the day visitors? Surely they spend something. If one assumes that only day visitors who visit two or more sites spend any money, then our trusty rubber hoses will, in conjunction with license plates entered into a computer, tell us that 25 percent of the day visitors fit this category. The cost factor for day visitors is S11.00, which we multiply by the double -site -day - visitors (206,000 less 36,000 over- nighters = 164,000 times 25 percent = 41,000) and the answer is (pass the sealed envelope, please) $450,000. Day spenders plus night spenders thus total $1,790,000, compared to the direct park salary and contract dollars of 51,008,000. On the benefit side of the park, then, the score reads so far a total of 2,798,000 bucks, and we ain't done yet. And now, class, we must calculate the third major benefit of the park, and that is what economists call the multiplier effect. All this means is that when our beloved visitor spends a buck for gas or a motel room, the fellow who gets that buck spends a part of it in the local economy for rent or washing the sheets in the motel. Here you are called upon for an act of faith, because there is only an educated economic guess that the multiplier effect is 2.0. Not to shake your confidence, but merely to put the exercise of extrapolation into perspective before leaping off the deep end, let us recall Mark Twain's tongue-in-cheek speculation that if the Mississippi River continued to shorten itself by rounding out riverbends at the rate of 150 miles in 30 years, by the year 2010 the river would have eroded down to a length of four and a half miles. You now should be in the proper frame of mind to consider what we do with the notion there are two indirect jobs created for each direct job. Park Service employment, as we have seen, is 50 per year. The big question is, how many people work- ing in the park area can be attributed to the park. Well, Virginia travel surveys, conducted on a zillion cars, determine that such and such percentages of travelers are travel- ing for reasons which can reasonably be ascribed to the Bat- tlefield Park, such as answer #8, "Visiting Historical Places in Virginia," or 1i9, "Visiting Scenic Places in Virginia." aking some assump- tions that can surely be defended as being ac- curate within plus or minus 200 percent, the contractor for NPS concludes that seven per- cent of all the visitors coming into the Fredericksburg area annually are coming to see the park. Apply- ing this percentage to the total tourism employment of 4,360 yields 305 folks, parts of folks, or the equivalent thereof, whose liveli- hoods can be tenuously connected with the battlefields. This 305 is then doubled to 610 to account for the multiplier effect, which is what we were talking about in the first place if you remember. This conjectural number is then multiplied by a solid number (an average wage of $8,640 for this kind of labor) and the resulting dollar tag of supportive, indirect services is 35.3 million. (It seems a propos to remind you of the old accounting ax- om, which says the sum of a column )f figures is no more accurate than :he least accurate figure in the col- imn. 4.1 plus 1.896349 equals 6.0, lot 5.996349.) And so it is with our analysis of the :osts and benefits of the rcdericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. It's inavoidably a conglomeration of a ,wirl of numbers, some of which are accurate to a gnat's eyebrow, and others little more than wild guesses. But that isn't to say the exercise is useless or without meaning. It just means that we live in an imperfect world, that we don't have unlimited money to devote to the answer to every conceivable question, and that some questions may not even be answerable (how many inches did all the trees on your lot grow last year?). This is inexactly the way the developer of the Spotsylvania Mall had to approach his decision as to whether or not the thing would pay off for him better than sticking his money in an S and L. If you knew how those numbers were computed that you see in the paper about the size of the national debt in '82, '83, and '84, you will ac- cept as gospel to the penny the following recapitulation of our calculations on what the Battlefield Park costs the Fredericksburg area in lost income and what it brings an- nually into the area as cash benefits: LOSSES Lost Taxes $1,377,000 Lost Farm Income 437,400 _Multiplier Effect 1,537.000' Total 3,351,400 GAINS Salaries/Purchases $1,008,000 Tourist Dollars 1,790,000 Multiplier Effect 5,270,000 Total 8,068,000 '5,400 park acres _ 162 A. on average Va. farm = 34 farms x 3 employees/farm = 102 people x 2 for the multiplier effect = 204 x average farm wage of $7,535/year _ $1,537,000, in case you're in- terested. With an accuracy that can be aptly but unoriginally described as close enough for government work, we come to the conclusion that the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park "costs" the five local jurisdictions about $4 million, but brings in about $8 million in 1980 dollars. For 55 years, since 1927,the park has nourished the regional economy around Fredericksburg, and if the $4 million ,ate of "profit" holds up for the next 55 years, almost a quarter -billion dollars will pass through the local banks and cash registers. Think about that the next time you gaze down at the stone marker at the Lacy House, near the intersec- tion of state routes 3 and 20, under which lies Stonewall Jackson's left arm. • • 4 • NORTH N'ALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL •APRIL 1990 Editorial Don't Destroy the Tourist Attractions Tourism is big industry for the North Valley. Tourists spend a great deal of money in our area every year; the 1990 take should be in the $135 million range, assuming a 5 percent increase in each of the last two years. Triple this number for the multiplier effect of the money passing hands in the community, and you get $500 million added to the local economy. Tourism provides jobs and tax revenue without putting pressure on government services. In addition, some tourists just might be executives who, if favorably impressed by the quality of life here, could eventually relocate their companies or build a plant in this area. The North Valley is well positioned for today's sightseer. It is strategically located within a four hour or less drive of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Richmond and D. C., which makes it ideally situated to cater to the type of day tripper and long weekend mini -vacationer who are jamming the highways today. The local chambers of commerce and visitor centers are busy dreaming up new services and programs for tourists. Of particular interest is the new quick reservation program in Winchester and the train and trolley rides in Front Royal. Shenandoah County and Front Royal are picking up on Winchester's video tape shown to tourists at its visitor center and are considering developing their own. Often a picture is worth a thousand words. Although many people are drawn to the North Valley area for specific events such as the Apple Blossom Festival in Winchester, the Mushroom Festival in Front Royal or Court Days in Woodstock, others are drawn by the area's history and scenery. The former are often day trippers, while the lattertourists are the ones spending freely, staying in overnight ac- comodations, eating three meals a day, buying a tank or two of gasoline and indulging in the purchase of souvenirs. To maintain this steady flow of tourists, the North Valley needs to preserve its scenery and heritage. This means restoring rather than tearing down old houses, keeping Civil War monuments and battlefields intact and using creative zoning to maintain the scenery of the countryside. Once gone, they can't be resurrected. Politicians and builders need to -compromise so that certain lands are designated as growth areas and others are restricted to development. Growth is inevitable in the North Valley. But with proper planning, it doesn't have to occur in the path of the tourist, a main contributor to the area's economic well-being. In the long run, businesses in the North Valley area will be better served. MOTMT ITA T T Ta V RT 1CTXT' CC T(V TDXT A T COS Co. �Gvt�t�L CAPITAL EMPROVEMENT COSTS After analysis of pupil generation from new subdivisions (in its 1989 triennial census), Loudoun County now counts .70 school members/eastern single family house, and .67 members/other single family house. It counts .40/eastern townhouse and .44 members/other townhouse. Frederick County's population averages 15% more school members/person than Loudoun, so our factors should be .77-.805 members/single family house and .46-.506 members/townhouse. Frederick now spends $12,489/space for school capacity, which with a little additional spending should last 40 years. Since members spend 13 years in the system, the capital cost is $3206-$335 1 /single family house and $1915-$2104/townhouse. If the rest of Frederick County's governmental costs are proportionate to our school costs (63% of our budget), county capital costs are about $5088-$5319 /new single family house and $3039-$3343/new townhouse. Developing 600 single family houses at Caleb Heights, for example, would bring Frederick County $3-3.2 million in capital costs. 400 single family + 200 townhouses there would cost us $2.6-2.8 million (not including operating costs, sewer subsidies or increased levels of services due to an increased urban fraction of our population). note: Our new 1200 member high school (budgeted at $16.7 million) costs $15.463/member-space at 90% average operating capacity. Our next 635 member elef►ientary'school (budgeted at $6.4 million) costs $11,167/member-space at 90% average operating capacity. 4C5�0�� . �� 12 34a�, A OR 1990 0 THE IZAAK °,NALTON LEAGUE OF AMERIC oe/rrrdert of Sod, Apr, Weed1. Wdors and Wddbh RIA/ VIP " �ozs�g�t1 The Wincoester Izaac Walton League of America, and the Frederick County Save Our Streams program, would like to express our sincere concerns regarding th6 current rezoning application for the Caleb Heights subdivision. After careful study of the rezoning application, and the environmental impact statements, we hope :hat those involved in considering this issue will also carefully consider the environmental PI-Ub1eiTlt� we 3r�r dlbbVLi%:ieu' wi th iII. ;.3-> de'v+e1cpirient. We feei that these issues have added importance since the Red Bud Run, anQ the Ash Hollow Run watersheds deserve special consideration for several reasons. These include: - 1. Red Bud Run is one of the few remaining streams in Frederick County that is environmentally unique in water clarity, temperature, nutrient composition and in its abundance of un- usual animal and plant species. Evidence of this is Red Bud Run's ability to support reproducing trout populations and a specialized wetland area. 2. The Red Bud Run and Ash Hollow Run serve as major clean water diluting sources for the Opequon Creek.. This is especially valuable to maintain the Opequon's water quality below the Opequon waste water treatment plant. 3. That natural areas like this provide a wide range of environ- mental and aesthetic benefits to our community that preserve the quality of -all our water, soil, air and wildlife resources. Therefore, for these reasons, we would like to express the foi !owing env I rormen+.al `once;-n,:i 1. That short and long term detriments to this specifically fragile type of ecosystem cannot be repaired or replaced if destroyed. 2. That the complex set of water and soil environments associated with Red Bud Run cannot be maintained or preserved with concen- trated, heavy development of this type. 3. That monotoring of this watershed to maintain its present qual- ity goes far beyond wimple water testing. t 4. That monotoring enforcement and regulation of non -point water and environment pollution sources have not been successful in protecting our Natural Resources. 5. That non -point pollution sources from concentrated development in the farm of waste water, surface runoff , 1 awn fert i 1 i zees and other chemicals, petroleum runoff from surfaces, road salts, trash, and non-specific pollutants have serious and irreversible consequences. 6. That waste water disposal from this. development through the present system at Regency Lakes will greatly compound existing sewage disposal problems in that area. 7. That road construction adversely effects the quality of water resources due to erosion sediment, stream water volume changes, stream bed composition, stream flow rate changes, and the build- up other runoff contaminates. 8. High density development increases automobile and other air pol- lution sources in a concentrated area. Also, noise pollution associated with high traffic areas will greatly increase. 9. That National, State, and Local environmental organizations and services are not used to their full advantage to provide neces- sary information and expertise that affect our Natural_Resour - ces. 10. That additional and environmental studies need to be conducted to identify rare and endangered species. Also, research to establish wetland designation :and protection under the Federal Identification and De,lination of Wetlands program and specific and specialized water resource studies need to be conducted. 11. That development of this type detracts from the rural nature of Frederick County and decreases the recreational, historical and aesthetic value of our community. i2..That rezoning considerations should not be based on short term. economic proffers and considerations. That the long term costs to taxpayers, and the environmental problems we already face should take presidenLe, in the decision making process. 13... That the long term needs and desires of the public should not be sacrificed 'or overlooked in exchange for the short term profits of a few individuals. The above listed concerns express our dedication to the preserva- tion of all our Natural Resources to maintain the Quality of Life that Frederick County and its residents deserve. We greatly appreciate your time .and consideration of these matters. Sincerely, j Monty R. Loving Vice President Winchester Izaac Walton League of America 0 Opinions and Sources of background information and expertise for the above concerns were obtained from the following sources: Board of Directors -- Winchester Izaac Walton League Virginia Natural Heritage Program =contact Katie Perry (804) 786-7951. Water Control Board -- Joe Hassell -Wetlands Division (804) 367-6319 Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department --"Bud" Watson, Executive Director The "Federal Manual for Identifying and Del.inating Jurisdictional Wetlands" - Copy available Marine Resource Commission. - -Chuck Roadl - Ergi veer U.S. Army Corp of Engineers "Code of Federal Regulations" -General Policies (33CFR Chapter II) Izaac Walton League - Wetland Division =Linda Winter, Director (703) 528-1818 Dr. Dan Downey, Professor of Chemistry - Madison University "Trout Unlimited" - (703) 568-6635 "Save Our Streams Program" - Izaac Walton League of America -Karen Firehock, Coordinator (703) 528-1818 "Landowners Guide to Managing Strams in the Eastern United States" -Virginia Cooperative Extension -.Service - Pub. 420-141 Controlling.Non-paint Pollution Sources Pollution by Mike Arnold • • HAZEL, 'THOMAS, FISKE) BECKHORN AND HANES TZLLCO$Y COVER LETTER Please deliver the Following pages TO: NAME: agye- FIRM: d , LOCATION: e TELECOPY PHONE NUMBER: 70 7 OFFICE PHONE NUMBER: 703 7 FROM: NAME: Sara Howard -O'Brien FIRM: HAZEL, THOMA$, FISKE, BECKHORN AND iiANES LOCATION: Leesburg Office - 116-0 Edwards Ferry Road, Leesburg, vA 22078 TELECOPY PRONE NUMBER: (703) 470-8003 MICE PHONE NUMBER: (703) 777-6777 or 478-1992 Number of Pages including cover lettert DATE: 3 2. 5 0 TIME: CLIENT/MATTER CODE I_G7La --��--#—ii•----�--ice,----------------- Gperator IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAozs, PLMWZ CALL (703) 478-1992 Ye d 1104 7' '✓� 1,74- MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Holliday John Foote FROM: Sara Howard -O'Brien DATE: March 22, 1990 ------------ Since our last telephone conversation I rechecked my figures and found a "hole" in my theory. The County`s estimated formula for taxes (A) and the "actuaP projected taxes on a yearly basis is just about the same (1.28 vs 1.20 million respectively). Therefore, I have abandoned the idea of challenging their formula on an annual tax revenue basis. I still believe that if one were to project this scenario over a 20 year period, it could be demonstrated that more than adequate tax revenue would be generated to cover the subject costs, Nonetheless, I have revised the analysis to coincide with your thoughts, Dave, and believe we soundly demonstrate that $1..2 million is a reasonable contribution. please review this in detail and double cheep the figures. If you want additional changes, let me know. I deleted the list of "other factors to take into account" (ie., longevity of school facility, etc.) in case Bob Watkins wishes to duplicate the analysis for distribution. I don't think we want to get into all the other parameters but rather move forward. SHOW4OLLMAYN= • • • SCHOOL Y1 eACT ANALYSIS: TOP OF VIRGNWCALEB HEIGHTS STUDENT POPULATION: rr�rs�' Single Family .308/117 .1507 .203177 Townhoun 1210/67 .080/26 .095/30 ...:...:. ..... TOT Rotutdbtj of Al = ama a ow tutu (373 v1 $74) di femwe betweos the wd xudau popdadat and the brrawom by uric in Khad SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT: The Background Report has estimated the typical single family residence to have a gross impact of $5,621 on planned County schools. The net cost impact, adjusted for tax revenue and vacant zoned land, is projected at .41 of the gross impact or .41 x $5,621 = $2,304 per dwelling unit. Caleb Heights proposes 380 single family detached units: 380 x $2,304 •+ $875,520,00. Utilizing the Background Deport figures, a townhouse residence is estimated to have a gross impact of $3,355 and a net cost impact of $1,376 per dwelling unit. Caleb Heights proposes 320 townhouse units: 320 x $1,376 - $440,320.00. The total estimated net cost impact to planned County schools from the Caleb Heights development is 1,32 million dollars. • 0 Par 2 ............ SG'WOL JWACT ANALP=r TOP OF VRGff"CetLD XRI+O= . , .... March 22, I M The Background Report states that "to determine actual b"cts, past and future revenues provided by the land in question should be considered". Further, the Report provides that "specific information can be provided to determine the tax revenues generated by the site to be used for facilities". The following data outlines the projected tax revenue for the Caleb Heights development and provides a summary of other ftetors which should be taken into account in determining appropriate contributions. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY REVENUES: {a ...VAIL DWEL AV...::...:..:.. . Single Famfly 380 $170,00046.i,120 Townhouses 320 $ 90,000 5207,3b0 :.:.::A : .: .... .....:... Bared on it n W p vp*v rice Pao of $d"per $100 of aid ware PERSONAL PROPERTY CONTRIBUTIONS: Estimated 1120 motor vehicles ('at 1.6 vehicles per dwelling unit) owned by Caleb Heights residents with an average value of $8,000. Based on a personal property tax rate of $4.25 per $100 assessed value, the annual tax yield is projected at $380,8W. OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY CONTRIBUTIONS: Estimated at $5,000 per unit, other personal property would generate $3,500,000 in value and with an assessment at $4.25J$100 would generate an annual tax yield of $148,750. 9 0 pq@ 3 ............ SCff00LWACTANALYSIS: Top OF MGMUXALES jWGIM ...... Mann 2,2, IM GROSS BUSINESS RECEIPTS TAXI ... ........ .. .. . ....... .. ............ — s. .. ........ .. .. .... ...... .... ........ . Townhouse 320 $20o000 $6,400,000 10M ale rRfni1v 380 $40tO00 S15=,000 TOTAL 521,600,000 OTHER PROFFER CONTRIBUTIONS: 9 0 hsw I ............ SCHOOL WACT ANALYSIS: r`!it d8 WROIMAJCat.88 JMtG TS ...... March 22, IM SUMMARY The annual tax revenue for residential and personal property generated by the Caleb Heights development will be approximately $1.2 n0lon. In addition, one time business receipt taxes will generate $184,000. Proffers for regional road improvements historic park dedication, fire and rescue contributions and undergrounding utilities are estimated at $3.2 million. Taking these factors into consideration, a .35 net impact formula for assessing school impacts is appropriate. This formula results in an approximate $1.1 million impact. As a part of the Caleb Heights proffers, the following contributions will be offered to mitigate school impacts; iao+"aMAX4 WASHINGTON OFFICE 1575 EYE STREET, N. W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 (202) 898-0010 LEESBURG OFFICE 116-G EDWARDS FERRY ROAD, N. E. P. 0. BOX 87 LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 (703) 777-6777 LAW OFFICES Hazel,Thomas,Fiske, Weiner, BeIn&Hanes A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FAIRFAX OFFICE 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 P.O. BOX 12001 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 641-4200 TELECOPIER (703) 641-4340 ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 P. 0. BOX 820 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (703) 836-8400 RICHMOND OFFICE 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 600 P. 0. BOX 3-K RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 (804) 344-3400 MARYLAND OFFICE April 10, 1990 EOUITABLE BANK CENTER, TOWER II 100 SOUTH CHARLES STREET, STH FLOOR BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 (301) 783-3500 Robert W. Watkins — �- C r Planning Director � Frederick County I i( 9 Court Square, P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Ar:\ 1 2199Un Dear Bob: To bring you up to speed, I wanted you to know that Sara Howard -O'Brien is doing a survey of how cash proffers are collected in several Northern Virginia jurisdictions. While this may not be dispositive of how you would wish to see the matter done in Frederick County, or how Dave Holliday feels he can accommodate you, I think the information would be useful to us both, if we had it in a discrete form. As soon as Sara has pulled this together, we will provide it to you. It could serve as the basis for a revised proffer. Sincerely yours, HAZEL, HOMAS, FISKE, WEI ER, BECKHORN & HANES, P.C. John H. Foote JHF:jw cc: Sara Howard -O'Brien Dave Holliday Chuck Maddox Owners of the Property adjoining the land will be notified of the public hearing. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any prop- erty directly across the road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the 21-digit tax parcel identification number which may be ob- tained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. i Name: Rob rt N; & Patricia L. Keister ll Address: 951 Winnepeg Place Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00300 Name: Samuel & Dorothy M. Mizerak Address: c/o Soverighn Homes 730 Wallaston Place Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00310 Name: Patricia W. & Bonnie L. Brandt Address: 424 Westside Station Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55E00-001-0000-0002-00330 Name: Jeffrey L. Turner Address: 609 Lake Sever Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00340 i Name: Soverighn Homes, Inc. Address: P.O. Box 1464 Front Royal, Va 22630 Property I.D.#: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00350 / Name: Steven M. Goldizen Address: 613 Lake Sever Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00360 Name: Steven T. & June H. Kenyon Address: 615 Lake Sever Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00370 Name: Charles H. & Pauline B. Whirley Address: 617 Lake Sever Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00380 Name: Thous I. & Dianne H. Weston, Jr. Address: 1953: Kathy Court Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55EOO-001-0000-0002-00390 Name: Sovefxighn homes, Inc. I Address: P.O.jBox 1464 Front Royal, Va 22630 Property I.D.#: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00400 Name: ChaA es R. & katherine C. Trail Address: 439 great Pond View Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55E00-001-0000-0001-00410 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 March 21, 1990 TO THE APPLICANTS) and/or ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application Of: Top of Virginia / Caleb Heights Rezoning Application #012-89 To: Rezone 211.04 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). This property is located two miles northeast of Winchester, just north of Route 7, south and adjacent to Route 661 and east and adjacent to I-81, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This rezoning request will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of April 4, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wish to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on March 21, 1990 fr•the Department of Planning and• velopment, Frederick „County, Virginia: TOP OF VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION• INC. P.O. BOX 3276 f WINCHESTER9 VA 22601 G.W. Cliffford & Associates Attn: Mr. Tom Price P.O. Box 2104 Wincheter, Va. 22601 DEVELOPMENT CO. OF AMERICA P.O. BOX 520 WESTMINISTERt MD. 21157 HUNTSBERRYr CHARLES WILLIAM 611 HANDLEY AVE. WINCHESTER• VA* 22601 HERRING• LOUIS R. C VERA J. RT. 8 BOX 455 WINCHESTER• VA. 22601 SEIPEL# WAYNE D. C STEPHANIE P. RT, 8 BOX 408 WINCHESTERs VA. 22b01 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK NASH• ROBERT A. C/O AMERICAN SECURITY BANK 730 15TH ST.• N.W. WB1/479 WASHINGTON9 O.C. 20005 Roger L. & Ruth B. McBride Rt. 8, Box 508 Winchester, Va. 22601 MCBRIDE. ROGER L. E RUTH B. RT, 8 BOX 501 WINCHESTER• VA. 22601 JJJA ASSOCIATES 8700 ASHWOOD OR. CAPITOL HEIGHTS• M0. 20743 � ROBINSON9 GUY B. C JEANNE 0. RT. 8 BOX 496 WINCHESTER• VA. 22601 GLATOWSKI9 ALVIN L. C JANICE MARIE KIRBY RT. 8 BOX 493 % WINCHESTERP VA, 22601 Robert W. 19atkins, Director Frederick County Dept. of Planning I, Renee' S. Arlotta , a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Robert W. Watkins, Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated March 21, 1990 , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this 21st day of March 1990. My commission expires on March 23, 1991 TARY PUBLIC 0 Pg. 2 Top of Va.- MCCANN• HARRY L. 315 JEFFERSON STREET WINCHESTER, VA. Mr. Delbert E. Sibert 530 Whitacre St. Winchester, Va. 22601 22601 Robert N. & Patricia L. Keister 951 Winnepeg Place Winchester, Va. 22601 Flo Samuel & Dorothy M. Mizerak c/o Soverighn Homes 730 Wallaston Place , Winchester, Va. 22601 Patricia W. & Bonnie L. Brandt 424 Westside Station Dr. Winchester, Va. 22601 Jeffrey L. Turner 609 Lake Sever Dr. Winchester, Va. 22601 Soverighn Homes, Inc. r P.O. Box 1464 J Front Royal, Va. 22630 Steven M. Goldizen 613 Lake Sever Dr. Winchester, Va. 22601 Steven T. & June Kenyon % 615 Lake Sever Dr. •`r/ Winchester, Va. 22601 Charles H. & Pauline B. Whirley �.. 617 Lake Sever Dr. / Winchester, Va. 22601 Thomas I. & Dianne H. Weston, Jr. 1953 Kathy Court Winchester, Va. 22601 Charles R. & Katherine C. Trail 439 Great Pond View ,V/ Winchester, Va. 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 April 25, 1990 TO THE APPLICANTS) and/or ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application Of: Top of Virginia / Caleb Heights Rezoning Application #012-89 To: Rezone 211.04 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). This property is located two miles northeast of Winchester, just north of Route 7, south and adjacent to Route 661 and east and adjacent to I-81, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This rezoning request will be considered by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of May 9, 1990 at 7:15 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wish to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 � F l This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on April 25, 1990 fthe Department of Planning an velopment, Frederick County, Virginia: TOP OF VIRGIN.IA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONi INC. paO. BOX 3276 WINCHESTERV VA 22601 HUINTSBERRYv CHARLES `rl.ILLIAM 611. HANDLEY AVE. WINCHESTE_R• VA, 2260.1 SEIPEL9 WAYNE D. & STEPHANIE P. WINCHESTERt VA,, GLATOWSKI9 ALVIN L. & JANICE MARIE KIRBY RT. B BOX 493 iWINCHESTERs VA. }000i.t}f}f}C)C)C:+C7 h'i:f.:ta.i;f:f11< , :iini••�l.Jfia... SOVN:RTC:}h! aual•�r::::a, :I:r�lc. LON...1...,^iS'1"i: N Y.)ft;:l V Ei: li::C}(}f}C)::.C>�}C)t)C}{)t)ti.Uq;iS SC> LOT IN ::l•dl:i:fi TF::R, Vt.: 22601.... :'9;`:;l::t?0001.C)C}Ut)0001.C}U:: ;:';C) £3(:1VI::RTCC N 1••I0i"{Ci:S :I:t1lc F'Pit:7N T' RC)"r'i-I)i , VA. 22601 ::.>.s.>.t}.... 61.::> 1...AKC:: Si:::V1!::R DR., 22601 WTIlls:,{••;r:;:>'r{:::{., Vnr 1:::0olo 01.00t C/O 1Y11.51. Lda:{�hJf::a'lii:i: da;h1[ {••1lii::i3'Y'lii:1's, V(" STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I Renee' S. Arlotta Robert W. Watkins, Director Frederick County Dept. of Planning , a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Robert W. Watkins, Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated April 25, 1990 , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this 25th day of April My commission expires on March 23, 1991 1990 � tx&� ), 6ddk&,4-1 NOTARY PUBL• C K 1::: HY OP -I , 1:�'Y' E:: V E!1`4 T 41. 1 (t.. N 1::: 1.-1 61'. 1 PIKE:: JJJA Assoc. WT NC" R, V(-'� 8700 AshWood Dr. Capitol Heights, MD L"(1-1VEY, 1:KS 11' Gi)v & Jeanne Robinson, <I1RI V 1. 7 1 (.)I<I::: <:-1'I:::VI:::R Rt. 8Boy, 496 Llj:l:ll\l(:11..Ii:i:14:3,T,I:;:Iti , v (.11 , Winchester, VA 22601 1:::0 () 00 J. 0000000 1. R C1104 .1. 0 (-. T,I_ C' , '11R)A1:::,:) R Harry L. McCann It:'(:)Nf1) V:1:1:::w 315 Jefferson St. Winchester, VA 22601 G.W. Clifford & Assoc. Delbert E. Sibert ATTN* TOM PRICE 530 Whitacre St. PO Box 2104 Winchester, VA 22601. Winchester, VA 22601 Dev. Co. of America PO Box 520 Westminster, MD 21157 Louis & Vera Herring Rt. 8, Box 455 Winchester, VA 22601 Robert A. Nash c/o American Security Bank 730 15th St., NW WB1/479 Washington, DC 20005 Robert & Ruth McBride Rt. 8, Box 508 Winchester, VA 22601 20743 Patricia & Bonnie Brandt 424 Westside Station Dr. Winchester, VA 22601 Thomas & Dianne TA7pSton 1953 Kathy Court Winchester, VA 22601 VZ Robert & Ruth McBride Rt. 8, Box 503. Winchester, VA 22601 w Roger L. Thomas 4957 Halifax Avenue Stephens City. VA 22655 Dear Mr. Thomas, HC-38 Box 323 Winchester, VA March 26, 1990 I am writing in regard to the Dave Holliday rezoning/development request currently before the Planning Commission. I urge you to approve this request. If you deny this request based upon the uncompromising stand of a historical group you will place all of Frederick County's future development in an uncompromising posture. If you deny this request you will encourage people not to work things out. Please send out a clear message that says "yes" to developers and special interest groups who make an effort to compromise with the community and "no" to special interest groups and developers that refuse to compromise. I know that you respond to the people of Frederick County. Keep our development future in your hands and out of the legal system. It is so .important that we work things out for the best of our community. An approval encourages this process. A denial discourages this process. I have reviewed Holliday's request and I have reviewed the opposing demands from the historical group. Holliday's plan is full of compromises. I am excited about the opportunity to have a first class battlefield park located near Winchester. The opportunity is possible here and now with developer installation and County maintenance. I would be delighted to visit such a memorial. This area has up to now been the private relic hunting ground of a few. Your approval will set a precedent for future developers and create possibilities for additional parks. Please do not buy into a maybe, somehow, someday, impossible dream. I trust I have not taken too much of your time and that you will consider my opinions seriously. Feel free to contact me anytime concerning this matter. Sincerely, Richard C. Shickle, Sr. RCS/ls 0 March 27, 1.990 Mr. Roger L. Thomas 4957 Halifax Ave. Stephens City, VA 22655 Dear Roger, As you know, the rezoning of Caleb Heights Subdivision, owned by Dave Holliday, will be considered on April 4, 1990. As a citizen of Frederick County, I am very concerned about the precedence that might be set by this hearing. As a builder and developer, I am very concerned about the impact on the future of the construction industry in this area set by this hearing. It is both ridiculous and stupid to deny a rezoning because at one time a battle was fought on the land. I am all for historic preservation, but a great deal of land in this area was a Civil War battlefield. We can't preserve all of it. To use this as a reason, after a person buys a piece of land is unfair to that person and to an industry that plays an important part in the economy of Frederick County. It is my understanding that Mr. Holliday has been more than fair in setting aside land for a nice memorial and park. I realize that you have a difficult job, but I hope your decision on rezoning will be based on the comprehension plan and on the future benefit of Frederick County. Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Very ruly yours, 'Thomas C. Baker TCB:ss Dear Fiends have followed with interest the controversy over the development of the battlefield property at the site of the Third Battle of Winchester. Being a historian and an advocate of preservation of important historical sites in our community, I believe the creation of a battlefield park on a limited portion of the property which could be maintained in our park system is an essential consideration. I urge you to accept a compromise between the interests of landowners who wish to develop the property and advocates of preservation that desire the creation of a battlefield park. I believe it is reasonable for land owners to be expected to donate or set aside property under existing zoning provisions for the creation of the park. I also believe that proper historical identification of additional land that would help establish the park should be so designated in historical easements or districts. Future developers would know that essential areas to complete the park would be expected to be set aside and included in the park. It is essential for the county to accept the land in the park system and develop a maintenance and interpretation program. In order for the Third Battle of Winchester Park to be significant, at least 100 acres will be needed with access to proper roads and utilities. Also, the Red Bud Run should be protected in everyway possible as the area is developed. In fact, land should be set aside on both sides of the Run for the proposed park. In the future, I hope that a major interpretation facility can be built at the Kernstown site and other smaller battlefield areas at Stephenson, 2nd Battle of Winchester, Cedar Creek, and etc. can be similarly donated and accepted into a system. The inclusion of Winchester and Frederick County in the Battlefield Park program in the Shenandoah Valley is essential for historical preservation and also for quality economic development. We cannot wait for the Federal government to purchase the land and create the needed parks. We can use the poffer system and existing Recreation and Parks structures to initiate this important program. I hope you will use your influence and vote to help bring about this development. We do not need the protracted legal battles and conflict that often arises in cases such as this. I believe developers and preservationist can work together with local officials to achieve our goal of an excellent battlefield park program in Winchester and Frederick County. Thanks. M Jades A. tavis March 30, 1990 Roger L. Thomas 4957 Halifax Ave X Stephens City, VA 22655 Dear Mr. Thomas: I am writing concerning the April 4, 1990 council meeting on Caleb Heights Subdivision. I feel that David Holliday and Ron Schickle have been outstanding community leaders, and have always helped Frederick County. I feel that giving sixty acreas for a historical park, a proffering gift to the county, of land for schools, connecting roads and other concessions is enough. I do not like to get involved in any political arena. However, I will be at this council meeting supporting these two gentlemen. Sincerely, J n C. Miller Miller Honda JCM/swc March 30, 1990 Roger L. Thomas 4957 Halifax Avenue Stephens City, VA 22655 Dear Mr. Thomas, This letter is written supporting the rezoning request of David B. Holliday which is before the Frederick County Planning Commission and is scheduled for public hearing on April 4, 1990. I am surprised of the amount of resistance regarding the above mentioned request when considering the following: The subject land is designated as residential in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Public water and sewer is available to the subject property. Contiguous property (Regency Lakes) is currently zoned residential and is being developed by an out of town developer. There is a shortage of building lots for our local contractors. David Holliday has an excellent record with Frederick County and the ability to develop unimproved land. Adequate proffers have been offered to support the additional development and impact to the local community. These are a few of the reasons why I support Dave's request. Other than the historical factor, which I feel has been met with an acceptable compromise, I can't think of any reason why the request should not be approved. I realize there are many factors to be considered when malting your decision. However, it appears that Dave has a reasonable request and I ask that you work with him and for the betterment of Frederick County. I appreciate the time and effort you devote to Frederick County and I realize the importance of malting the right decisions. The future depends on these decisions which have an effect on future generations. Remember, no growth breeds stagnation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Earl W. Foreman LAW OFFICES Hazel,Thomas, Fiske, Weiner, BecWd om &Hanes A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WASHINGTON OFFICE FAIRFAX OFFICE ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 1575 EYE STREET, N. W. 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 SUITE 600 P. 0. BOX 820 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 P.O. BOX 12001 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (202) 898-0010 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 836-8400 LEESBURG OFFICE (703) 641-4200 RICHMOND OFFICE 116-G EDWARDS FERRY ROAD, N. E. TELECOPIER (703) 641-4340 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 600 P. 0. BOX 87 P. 0. BOX 3-K LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 (703)777-6777 (804)344-3400 MARYLAND OFFICE March 21, 1990 EQUITABLE BANK CENTER, TOWER II 100 SOUTH CHARLES STREET, STH FLOOR BALTI MORE. MARYLAND 21201 Mr. Brandon Beck - -_ (301) 783-3500 Shenandoah Valley _C ----- Civil War Foundation, Inc. 719 National Avenue 2 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Beck: Through a series of chance events, I have learned today that you most kindly applied to the State Board of Historic Resources for a determination that the area known as Third Winchester meets the criteria for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. I am aware, of course, that the rules permit any person evincing an interest in an historic spot to make such a request, and my friend Bryan Mitchell reminds me that the process of considering such requests is still quite informal, and lacking mandatory notification procedures. Still, it seems to me passing strange that neither I nor anyone else associated with Top of Virginia Development Corporation was ever advised that a request had been made, or that the State Board had been scheduled to consider the area's eligibility, prior to it all having happened. I am aware, of course, that I am a minor, and anonymous, figure in the events concerning Caleb Heights, and cannot expect to be on everyone's mind or mailing list, but I should have thought it difficult to conclude that Top of Virginia, or David Holliday, lacked an interest in such a proceeding, and would have appreciated a copy of any proposal, or a phone call. Alas, none was received, or, I suspect, offered, and Top of Virginia's property has now been determined eligible. I find this stranger still because, so far as I know, no one has ever inquired whether Top of Virginia would have supported or opposed such a determination, given the fact that it has no legal effect on the rights of landownership, and that the Corporation has never denied that significant events took place on a portion of its ground. Perhaps I should look at the bright side, though, and be happy that someone else has done work on my client's behalf. In any event, I am just sure that L] 0 Mr. Brandon Beck March 21, 1990 Page 2 LAW OFFICES Hazel Thomas, Fiske, Weiner, Beckhorn &Hanes A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION none of this has been done with an intention of keeping my people in the dark, but was, rather, a mere oversight. In the future, of course, I would greatly appreciate it if you would honor me by adding my name to your list of folks to contact, in the event that you wish to advance your proposals further. Sincerely yours, HAZEL cc: David Holliday Chuck Maddox Sara Howard -O'Brien Kenneth Stiles James Golladay Robert Watkins Bryan Mitchell JHF18:topva.009 AS, FISKE, BECKHORN, & HANES, P.C. INTRODUCTION In 1 d comprehensive policy plan was last adopted for Frederick County, -vf growth and development were at an all time low. At that time, the County was experiencing the effects of a national recession which was as severe as any since the Great Depression. The plan adopted was conservative, reflecting the times. Since 1982, development rates in Frederick County have increased steadily to all-time record levels in 1987. With the acceleration of growth in the middle 1980's, the County quickly outgrew its 1982 Plan. The challenge that faces the County now is to institute a planning process which will deal with the growth that is occurring but which does not just reflect current conditions. A continuous, ongoing planning process must be established which is reasonable in its assumptions and which will quickly adapt to changing conditions. According to the Virginia Code, all local governments in Virginia are required to adopt comprehensive plans which plan for the physical development of the community. This document contains the policies which constitute the comprehensive plan for Frederick County. This plan supersedes all previous plans adopted for Frederick County. According to the Virginia Code, the purpose of the plan is to bring about coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development. The comprehensive plan describes general policies for growth and development in the County based on careful studies of existing conditions, growth trends, and probable future requirements. The overriding goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment in the County. The plan itself does not contain a full range of detailed information on Frederick County and its development trends. In-depth studies have been conducted and continue to be conducted. Background reports are available describing the current results of such studies. The Plan does describe policies for the future of Frederick County. However, it should not be considered to be a prediction of what will happen. Instead, the Plan is a statement of reasonable expectations and a statement of direction for development policy. In general, the plan tends to be relatively short-range in its policies, with particular concern for the next five to ten years. It is the intention of this plan to establish a continuous and ongoing planning process. This planning process involves the identification of issues, the establishment of goals, policies, and strategies, and the adoption of implementation methods. Policies established are intended to be attainable through the methods described. 1 • 0 Economic life was centered around Winchester and other local towns including Stephens City, Middletown, Kernstown, and Gainesboro. There were a large number and diversity of craftsmen and merchants in these towns. The strongest influence on the local economy was the Great Wagon Road, which later became Route 11 south and which carried settlers and travelers from Philadelphia south through the Valley and to the west. Activity associated with this road made Winchester one of the largest towns in western Virginia. Frederick County played a significant part in the Civil War. The northern Shenandoah Valley supplied food, livestock, horses, and soldiers to the southern cause. The Valley was also important because of its strategic location in relation to Washington D.C. The town of Winchester changed hands in the war about 70 times, an average of once every three weeks for four years. Major local battles included the First Battle of Kernstown in March of 1862, during which General Stonewall Jackson suffered his only tactical defeat during the Valley Campaign but did succeed in keeping Union troops in the Valley from leaving to reinforce McClellan on the peninsula. In May of 1862, Jackson's army defeated the Union troops at the First Battle of Winchester. In the Second Battle of Winchester in 1863, confederate troops successfully attacked and defeated Union troops occupying forts on the western side of Winchester. Union troops were again defeated at the second battle of Kernstown in 1864. At the Third Battle of Winchester General Philip Sheridan's Union troops successfully attacked confederate troops at Winchester. With the high numbers of losses on both sides, a new war of attrition was to begin in the Valley from whicf the southern forces would never recover. For three weeks in 1864, Sheridan's troops undertook the infamous "Burning" to end Confederate strength in the Valley. Union troops burned 2,000 barns, 120 mills, and a half a million bushels of grain and confiscated 50,000 head of livestock :in the Valley. Virginia's richest valley was left desolate. In October of 1864, Jubal Early's Confederate troops were entrenched south of Cedar Creek. The Union troops were encamped just north of Cedar Creek. A surprise attack by the Confederates drove the Union troops to the north. General Sheridan rallied his troops and attacked, driving the Confederates back across Cedar Creek. This victory helped boost Union morale and helped President Lincoln win reelection. After the war, old economic activities resumed and new activities began. New businesses included a tannery, dairying, farm machinery, and shipping. A variety of agricultural activities continued. Fruit growing and processing became particularly important early in the twentieth century. Economic activities continued to diversify in the twentieth century to include a number of manufacturing activities including plastics, automotive products, containers and other products. Activities continued to be based on the accessibility of the area and on north -south travel along the route that was once the Great Wagon Road and is now Route 11 and Interstate 81. 7 0 • Historic Preservation There are a number of historic sites in Frederick County. The following sites are listed on both the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register: Belle Grove Hopewell Friends Meeting House Monte Vista Springdale House and Mill Complex Willa Cather House (birthplace) St. Thomas Episcopal Church (Middletown) There are a number of other historic sites in the County. There are also several Civil War battlefield sites that played an important role in that conflict. The Civil War Sites include the following: Battlefields• First and Second Battles of Winchester Third Battle of Winchester First and Second Battles of Kernstown Cedar Creek Fortifications: Star Fort Collier Redoubt Parkins Mill Battery Entrenchments• Nineteenth Corps Line 1864 - 1865 Winter Line There is a need to clearly locate, recognize, and designate all significant historic sites in the County. As the County develops, there is a need to find methods to protect the most significant sites. The Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society is undertaking an inventory of local historic resources. This project will permanently record the location of all sites. Such sites could be recognized by the County through the awarding of historic resource plaques to property owners using an individual application process. The County would review such applications annually using specific criteria. In addition, the extensive structures and land related to the Civil War should be recognized through appropriate documentation and signs. In addition, a Historic Resources Advisory Committee could be established which would provide detailed information on historic resources to the Planning / Commission and Board of Supervisors. Zoning or other regulatory methods could ✓' be used to help protect the most important resources. In addition, the County should consider any tax incentives allowed by law for the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse or restoration of historic structures. Care should be taken in the design and provision of streets and utilities in historic areas to maintain the historical integrity and character of historic areas. The protection of historic areas should be carefully considered in establishing new roads. Land use patterns should be planned that are harmonious with the historic environment. Historic preservation can play an important role in economic development. Tourism is an important local industry. The possibility of improving the v attractiveness of the area to tourists should be considered in a systematic G� manner. The protection of historic resources will play an important role in this effort. Historic Preservation Policy A number of historic preservation issues have been identified, including the following: The need to identify and designate historic sites The economic importance of historic'resources The need to develop methods to protect historic resources. The following are policies for historic preservation. Goal - Protect the historic resources in Frederick County. Strategy 1 - Inventory and designate historic sites in the County. Strategy 2 - Study and adopt methods to preserve historic resources. Strategy 3 - Incorporate historic resources in efforts to promote tourism. Strategy 4 - Carefully consider the impacts of land use, development and facility decisions on historic resources. Implementation Methods: 1. Undertake a complete investigation, documentation, evaluation, registration, and recognition of historic sites. Recognize sites with a process of plaques and signs. 4 2. Establish a Historic Resources Advisory Committee to assist the County with information and recommendations on historic resources. 3. Study possible methods for protecting historic resources including the designations of historic districts, zoning methods, tax incentives, and impact analysis. Voluntary methods and methods involving incentives are preferred. Carefully consider the impacts of decisions concerning land use, roads, utilities, and facilities. Develop design standards for historic areas and locations. Strong support should be given to private initiatives. 4. Include concerns for historic preservation and tourism in economic development strategies. 10 4. Review ordinances to insure that appropriate business and industrial sites are provided, to insure compatibility with surrounding areas, and to insure that sufficient standards are available to insure quality development. 5. Continue to provide staff support and other forms of support to the Frederick County - Winchester Economic Development Commission. GOAL - Provide support to agriculture as a major industry in the County. Strategy 1 - Promote Frederick County as a location for agricultural activities and include agriculture in economic development strategies. Strategy 2 - Allow and encourage businesses and activities that support agriculture. Strategy 3 - Promote the participation of youth in the agricultural community and support agricultural education. Implementation Methods 1. Work with local farmers, agricultural organizations, and agricultural- ly related businesses to develop economic development strategies in relation to agriculture. 2. Evaluate the uses allowed in the agricultural zoning districts and other districts to insure that a full range of agricultural activities are provided. GOAL - Provide support to travel and tourist related activities. Strategy 1 - Promote activities which will encourage tourism, including the preservation of historic sites and scenic vistas. Implementation Methods 1. Review ordinances and policies to promote the preservation of historic sites and scenic vistas and to promote activities that will encourage tourism. 2. Review ordinances to provide appropriate sites for travel and tourist related businesses. 99 • 0 LAND USE r This plan describes qeneral land use concepts for the future development of Frederick County. It escribes the general development patterns that are occurring and those planned for Frederick County. As planning continues each year, more specific concepts will be developed for interchange areas, corridors, rural community centers, and other areas. Such plans will combine planning for land use with planning for roads and facilities. The primary land use co, a_er pt in the plan divides the County into rural and urban areas. A major concept. is the Urban Development Area: The Urban Development Area defines -5 e general area in which sewer and water services will be provided and in which more intensive forms of development will occur. In ener , areas to be planned for urban development or for other forms of development can be determined based on the location of existing facilities and uses and on the physical characteristics of the land. By carefully evaluating these and other factors, a land use plan can be adopted which is reasonable and sustainable against challenge. Urban Development Area There is a need to appropriately designate the general location of planned urban development. This designation should include the areas that will contain more intensive development and that will need to be provided with utilities, improved roads, and other urban facilities. By designating the urban development area and confining urban development to that area, the County can determine where to direct special and intensive efforts at providing facilities and services. To determine the shape, location, and size of the urban development area, the existing patterns of land use, the suitability of land for development, and the existing and planned sewage facilities must be considered. The drainage areas in the eastern half of the County, including all that might reasonably be provided with sewer and water service, have been evaluated. Each such drainage area has been evaluated according to existing development and zoning, the location of existing sewer and water facilities, the potential for future development, and the availability of land suitable for development. These evaluations have been used to group drainage areas and portions of drainage areas into a reasonable proposal for an urban development area. It is particularly important that the urban development area contain enough land to accommodate the development that can be realistically expected during the next five to ten years. There is a need to provide for a diversity of types of locations for a wide range of development types. Sufficient land needs to be included in the urban development area to provide a competitive 37 ACTION PROGRAM r Comprehensive Policy Goals The following is a summary of the comprehensive planning goals set forth for Frederick County: Protect the historic resources in Frederick County. Plan for order ly growth and development. Provide for a balanced d istr ibut ion of popu la t ion growth. Provide for a variety of housing types and locations. Reduce the cost of providing housing and pub 1 is facilities. Encourage energy efficient housing and housing patterns. Support a business climate conducive to economic activity. Provide support to agriculture as a major industry in the County. Provide support to travel and tourist related activities. Protect the Natural environment from damage due to development activity. Provide for development according to the carrying capacity of the environment. Identify and protect important natural resources. Develop land in accordance with standards that provide for appropriate quality. Confine urban forms of land development to the urban development area. Provide sufficient land in the urban development area. Carefully locate and 1 imit business and industrial areas. Let identified rural community centers serve as service centers. Have separate policies for each rural community center. Maintain the rural character of areas outside of the urban development area. Protect the rural environment. 97 Provide a safe and efficient road system throughout the County. Coordinate land use planning and dec is ions with transportation planning. Provide for adequate and safe pedestrian and bicycle travel. Encourage the provision of a full range of transportation options. Provide services and fact l sties to serve planned land uses and development. Contribute to the needs of the community with parks and recreation. Continue to develop the County' s regional parks. Insure that appropriate recreational facilities are provided. Provide recreational programs and activities. Proposed Actions The following describes actions or projects that need to be undertaken to achieve the goals described above. The projects are listed in order of importance. It is not necessarily the intention that these tasks be completed in this order. Instead the list is intended to set general priorities and assist in developing annual work programs.. 1. Develop a Thoroughfare Plan for the area with Winchester and the Virginia Department of Highways. Use the plan to identify and designate important existing and planned travel routes. Develop a process for reserving rights of way for planned routes and for making needed improvements. 2. Undertake an effort to establish appropriate rural and urban residential densities based on the carrying capacity of the environment, roads, and facilities. Develop information to estimate carrying capacity. Establish density standards which provide a balanced distribution of population growth. 3. Review all zoning regulations related to rural development and address the following: Density based on carrying capacity, not exceeding current densities Residential patterns for efficient use of land Development and performance standards Providing an adequate subdivision process Supporting and providing for a full range of agricultural activities Protecting the rural environment and character Providing for appropriate commercial development Providing adequateroads and facilities 0 COMMENTS TO HRAB CONCERNING HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT IN FREDERIC'K COUNTY AND WINCHESTER APRIL 1.7, 1990 THIS IS TO FOLLOW UP ON MY COMMENTS AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONCERNING OUR HISTORIC RESOURCES IN FREDERICK COUNTY. I BELIEVE THAT THE TIME HAS COME TO FORM A JOINT HISTORIC COMMITTEE, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THIS GROUP, TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITIES OF BEGINNING A HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE IN THIS AREA. THIS COMMITTEE WOULD CONSIST OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE HRAB, HISTORICAL SOCIETY, PHW, CIVIL WAR PEOPLE (BOTH RE -ENACTORS AND HISTORY BUFFS), THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR PEOPLE AND OTHERS TO FORMULATE A HISTORIC WEEKEND IN FREDERICK COUNTY AND WINCHESTER. I WOULD ALSO PROPOSE THAT THE PROFITS OF ANY FUND- RAISING ACTIVITIES GO TOWARD, FIRST, THE PAYMENT OF THE CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD SITE NEXT TO BELLE GROVE. AFTER THAT, THE FUNDS COULD BE SPENT AS SEEN FIT BY THE COMMITTEE. PROPERLY HANDLED AND ADVERTISED, I BELIEVE THAT THIS EFFORT WOULD ATTRACT PEOPLE ALL ALONG THE EASTERN SEABOARD TO SPEND A WEEKEND, OR LONGER, IN OUR AREA TO SEE THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OI' 1INCHESTER AND FREDERICK COUNTY. FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE REVOLUTIONARY AND CIVIL WAR, A CAMPGROUND COULD BE ESTABLISHED TO SHOW HOW LIFE WAS LIKE DURING THAT PERIOD AND A CIVIL WAR REENACTMENT TpULD BE SCHEDULED IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT INTEREST. FOR HOSE NOT INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE, A TOUR COULD BE ESTABLISHED AROUND WHAT THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY IS DOING ON CATALOGUIivG THE HISTORICAL SITES IN THE COUNTY, OR A WALKING TOUR OF THE CITY'S HISTORICAL SITES COULD BE HELD. AND THE LIST GOES ON. IF THIS COULD BE PROPERLY SCHEDULED, A LARGE FARMERS MARKET COULD BE HELD DURING THE WEEKEND TO GIVE THOSE ATTENDING ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE ON THE VARIED ECONOMIC DIVERSITY WE HAVE AND WOULD ALSO GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO TAKE HOME TO REMEMBER US BY.. I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS BOARD WOULD ACT AS THE LIGHTNING ROD IN THE FORMATION OF SUCH A 'COMMITTEE WITH A. POSSIBLE TARGET DATE OF SCHEDULING A WEEKEND SUCH AS I HAVE DESCRIBED SOMETIME IN 1991. THANK YOU. JAMES W. GOLLADAY JR. CHAIRMAN 1 S i March 19, 1990 PROFFERS CALEB HEIGHTS REZONING APPLICATION 1. Preliminary matters. Pursuant to Section 15.1-491.1 et seg. of the Virginia Code Annotated, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application Number 012-89 for the rezoning of 211 acres from the A-2 Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, ("the subject property"), development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and in substantial conformity with the terms conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant, and such be approved by the County in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, or its legal successors and assigns. 2. Generalized Development Plan. The development of the subject property, and the submission of any Master Development Plans therefor, shall be in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development. 2 Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Phasing of Development. In order that the County may be able reasonably to anticipate the pace of development on the subject property, a phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Phasing as shown on the said Master Plan shall be accomplished such that not more than fifteen per cent (15%) of the total permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single- or multi -family units, may be constructed in any one year; provided, however, that this figure shall be cumulative, and any number of such units not constructed in any given year, may be constructed in later plus in an year an additional five Years P Y Y per cent (50) of such units in years after December 31, 1991. 4. Transportation. A. The Applicant shall design and construct all roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these proffers. 3 B. The Applicant proffers that it shall design and construct a two lane road from the southern edge of its property to a satisfactory connection to existing Regency Lakes Drive, generally at the location designated as "Interparcel Connector" on the Generalized Development Plan, for ultimate inclusion in the State System of Secondary Highways. It shall construct such road only provided that dedicated right-of-way for such extension has been made available by others. In the event that either the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, or the Virginia Department of Transportation, determines to exercise its powers of eminent domain to acquire right-of-way sufficient to the purposes hereof, however, the Applicant agrees to advance or reimburse to either agency the costs of the exercise of such power, including reasonable attorneys' fees and engineering costs, and the cost of the condemnation itself, in order to obtain the right-of-way necessary to construct the roadway agreed to under this proffer. C. (1). The Applicant agrees that it shall construct two lanes of a major four lane collector road as generally shown on the County's adopted thoroughfare plan, where such collector passes through the subject property in the area designated as "Major Collector 80' Right -of -Way" on the Generalized Development Plan, and which segment is identified as the portion of such roadway between indicators B and C on said Plan. The Applicant shall access such Major Collector 9 0 4 by its Local Collector Road in the location generally shown on said Plan. (2) . In order to provide for an ultimate four lane undivided collector road from State Route 661 south to Route 71 the Applicant shall dedicate the necessary right-of-way for said four lane undivided collector road where the right- of-way for such proposed collector runs entirely through the subject property, in the segment between indicators B and C as shown on the Generalized Development Plan and in which it shall construct the aforesaid two lanes of the ultimate right-of-way. (3). The Applicant shall dedicate the right-of- way necessary for two lanes of the ultimate four lane Major Collector Road between indicators A and B as shown on the Generalized Development Plan, and shall, at such time as the Virginia Department of Transportation approves final design for any portion of such Collector Road, contribute the reasonably estimated costs of construction of one lane thereof. (4). The Applicant shall construct a Local Collector Road in the location identified on the Generalized Development Plan, to provide temporary access to the property and to the Major Collector Roadway from State Route 661. It shall insure that all roads internal to the subject property will be designed to serve compatibly with the Major Collector Roadway. r� L 5 (5). The Applicant shall not be responsible for the construction of any other portion of the Major Collector, than is set out herein. (6). In order to avoid proliferation of entrances on State Route 661, when the aforesaid Major Collector Road has been constructed to State Route 661 and has been accepted into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant agrees that it shall initiate the necessary legal steps, in conjunction with the County and VDOT, to close any through traffic from the Local Collector directly onto State Route 661, and to redirect such traffic from within the property onto the Major Collector Road at a suitable access point. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit the Applicant from providing suitable and customary access from State Route 661 to the ten acre remainder parcel located adjacent to State Route 661, and shown on the Generalized Development Plan, provided that that access (except for emergency traffic) is not permitted to the Local Collector once it has been closed to through traffic. 5. Environmental considerations. A. Existing live trees with a trunk diameter greater than six inches shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible, through restrictive covenants of record, consistently with the physical location of dwellings, and • n except as may be necessary to construct roads, or sewers, water lines or other utilities or required infrastructure. B. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ all reasonable Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. C. Despite its belief that construction on the subject property will have no detrimental effect on Redbud Run, the Applicant agrees that prior to initiation of any construction on the subject property, it shall obtain baseline data as to the existing water quality in the Run from a person, company, or agency, approved by the Director of Planning and Development for Frederick County, and shall thereafter monitor the water quality in the Run semi-annually, and report the findings of such monitoring to the County, for not more than five years from the date of approval of this rezoning, unless the Director of Planning reasonably determines that it is necessary to continue such testing. In no event shall the Applicant be responsible for such testing for more than ten years following ,the date of approval of this rezoning. In the event that the Director of Planning determines that development of the subject property has directly caused degradation in the water quality of the Run, below the baseline data acquired hereunder, the Applicant shall take reasonable steps to mitigate such degradation. 7 To the extent that these responsibilities are to be performed after the Applicant has constructed homes on the subject property, the Applicant may assign any responsibilities assumed hereunder to an appropriate homeowners' association created in connection with the development of the subject property. D. The Applicant shall further comply with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the protection of the environment. 6. Maximum permitted density. The overall density of the development of the subject property shall not exceed three and three tenths (3.3) dwelling units per gross acre; and provided further that maximum density shall not exceed two and two tenths (2.2) dwelling units per gross acre in the area of the subject property identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Area A, and eight units per gross acre on the area of the subject property identified thereon as Area B. Only single family dwellings shall be constructed in Area A, and only townhouses shall be constructed in Area B. 7. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development on Schools. The Applicant shall pay to the County's General Fund the sum of $ K. /��� for each lot or parcel which is ,xi �� ` / 8 approved for development, with payment to be made to the County at the time of issuance of building permits for the construction of dwelling units. In order to minimize the record -keeping requirements for public agencies of Frederick County, the applicant or its legal successors and assigns shall have the complete responsibility of insuring that notice of the requirement for such sums is specifically included on any building plans submitted in connection with application for building permits, and for the payment thereof in accordance with these proffers. Such payment shall be made f�r the sole and express purpose of implementing the provisions of the currently adopted Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan with respect to school construction costs in the general vicinity of the subject property. In the event that the money proffered hereunder is not used for the purpose for which proffered within ten years from the date this rezoning is approved, it shall be refunded on demand to the Applicant, or such other entity or person as may have made any payment provided for herein, with interest accrued at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the first such payment is made. 8. Historic Preservation. A. The Applicant shall dedicate to the appropriate public or private agency or authority, in fee simple absolute, those areas identified on the Generalized 0 Development Plan as Historic Preservation Areas, provided that it shall retain the necessary rights -of -way, dedications, easements, and permissions required to construct roads, sewers, water lines and other necessary infrastructure within those preservation areas, as they may be required for the development of the subject property and approved in a Master Development Plan. B. All infrastructure other than roads shall be located underground, and any land area disturbed during construction shall be restored to its original condition after construction is finally completed. The Applicant shall provide suitable buffering and landscaping along any road which may be constructed, compatible with the historic preservation purposes of this proffer, and approved by the Director of Planning and Development as being in accord herewith and with the standards established in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. C. Historic signage of a kind similar to that used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to mark historic places shall be placed in locations satisfactory to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. D. Notwithstanding any other provision of these proffers, the Applicant agrees that it will riot commence construction of any kind on the subject property prior -to January 1, 1991. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the applicant from preparing and submitting plans for development 0 10 of the subject property prior to such date, nor shall it preclude review thereof by appropriate public agencies. E. The Applicant further agrees that at any time prior to January 1, 1991, it will enter into good faith negotiations for the sale and purchase of the subject property with any ready, willing, and able party or parties whose bona fide purpose is to acquire the subject property for the creation of a park, open to the general public, to commemorate the Battle of Third Winchester. The subject property shall be offered at fair market value, as that value is determined by a qualified MAI certified real estate appraiser. No such offer shall be accepted unless settlement is provided to occur within ninety days following receipt of a bona fide offer as provided herein. 9. Contributions to Fire and Rescue Services. The applicant agrees that it shall donate the sum of $100.00 for fire and rescue service purposes, one-half of such sum to go to a Winchester or Frederick County Volunteer Rescue Squad, as may be instructed by the Director of Planning, and one-half to the County General Fund to be used for fire service, for each dwelling unit constructed on site, such donation to be made at the time of issuance of building permits for such dwelling units; provided that the applicant or its legal successors and assigns shall have the complete responsibility of insuring that notice of the requirement for 11 such sums is specifically included on any building plans submitted in connection with application for building permits, and for the payment thereof in accordance with these proffers. TOP OF VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Notarization of Signature JHF2:tovprof LAW OFFICES HazeIjh mas,%ke, Weiner, Bed&m Hanes A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WASHINGTON OFFICE FAIRFAX OFFICE 1575 EYE STREET, N. W. 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 P.O. BOX 12001 (202) 898-0010 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 LEESBURG OFFICE (703) 641-4200 116-G EDWARDS FERRY ROAD, N. E. TELECOPIER (703) 641-4340 P. 0. BOX 87 LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 (703) 77 7-67 77 March 7, 1990 Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell Director of Preservation Programs Department of Historic Resources 221 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 P. 0. BOX 820 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (703) 836-8400 RICHMOND OFFICE 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 600 P. 0. BOX 3-K RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 (804) 344-3400 MARYLAND OFFICE EOUITABLE BANK CENTER, TOWER II 100 SOUTH CHARLES STREET, 5TH FLOOR BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 (3UQ 783-3500 8 1990 Dear Bryan: I have recently seen a resolution of the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board which states that on February 20th of this year the Department of Historic Resources determined that a property known as Caleb Heights met the criteria for listing on the State and National Registers. While I do not doubt that such a determination might well be made of the area comprising Third Winchester, I confess that I am surprised to learn of it by a chance mention in an. HRAB resolution. So far as I know, my client, the Top of Virginia Development Corporation, was entirely unaware that the Department had been asked to, was considering, or had done such a thing. Because of our previous long discussions of just such matters, I know you are aware of the concerns that landowners have in these things, and I know that you believe in an open process, and would not knowingly have kept us in the dark. I would greatly appreciate it if you could forward me any documentation which pertains to this determination, so that I may know what is afoot. Needless to say, if you need to communicate with Top of Virginia, you have only to call me. Sincerely yours, ELja0;rS, FISKE, WE BECKHORN, & HANES, P.C. JoNn H. Foote 0 0 • H. Bryan Mitchell March 7, 1990 Page 2 cc: Hugh C. Miller David Holliday Chuck Maddox Sara Howard -O'Brien Kenneth Stiles Robert Watkins Kris Tierney Raymond Ewing JHF12:topva.005 LAW OFFICES HaM,Thomas, Fiske, Weiner, Bedk m &Hanes A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION C� • caF4 A�44 J, MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: RCT, Deputy Director DATE: February 21, 1990 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 RE: HRAB action on the Caleb Rezoning Application At their regular meeting of February 20, 1990, the members of the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory formulated a recommendation opposing the rezoning application of the Top of Virginia Development Corporation for the Caleb Heights Development. The recommendation was stated as follows: " The HRAB feels that the entire Caleb Heights parcel and surrounding area, comprising the undeveloped portion of the Third Battle of Winchester, are of such historical significance that the dedication of any portion of the Caleb Heights tract for a memorial park, would not adequately compensate for the residential development of another portion." The HRAB has scheduled a meeting for March 7, 1990 to finalize a more detailed statement of the rational supporting their motion. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 �i� /�10V COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 703/665-5666 f - AX: 703 / 667-0370 February 9, 1990 F ' The Honorable John W. Warner 0 V United States Senate Senate Russell Building, Suite 421 Washington, D.C. 20510 FEB 219T WA L��Dear Sir: Please let me take this opportunity to thank you for meeting with our delegation on February 8, 1990 with reference to Civil.War:battlefield site preservation. As discussed in the meeting, it would be our desire to see the progress of the study bill expedited, a companion bill to appropriate the necessary funds and a committment to immediately study the "Third Battle of Winchester Site" after the previously mentioned enabling legislation has been passed. It would be deeply appreciated if you could acknow- ledge whether this time table is acceptable. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. With kindest regards, I am Si cerely, Jo n R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator JRR/tjp cc: Board of Supervisors bcc: Bob Watkins_i1 Steve Owen 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - %V1111chcstcr, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 703/665-5666 FAX: 703/667-0370 February 9, 1990 The Honorable Charles S. Robb United States Senate Senate Hart Building, Suite 517 Washington, D.C. 20.510 Dear Sir: Please let me take..this opportunity to thank you for meeting with our delegation on February 8, 1990 with reference to Civil War.,"battlefield site preservation. .As discussed in the meeting, it would be our desire to see the progress of the study bill expedited, a companion bill to appropriate the-necessary.funds and a committment to immediately study the,:"Third Battle of Winchester Site" after the previously mentioned enabling legislation has been passed. It would be deeply appreciated if you could acknow- ledge whether this time table is acceptable. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. With kindest regards, I am Si e ly, John"R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator JRR/tjp cc: Board of Supervisors bcc: Bob Watkinsc/ Steve Owen r 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 703/665-5666 FAX: 703/667-0370 February 9, 1990 The Honorable D. French Slaughter, Jr. United States Congress 319 Cannon Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Sir: Please let me take this opportunity to thank you for meeting with our delegation on February 8, 1990 with reference to Civil War battlefield site preservation. .As discussed in the meeting, it -would be our desire to see the progress of the study bill expedited, a companion bill to appropriate the necessary funds and a committment to immediately study the "Third Battle of Winchester Site" after the previously mentioned enabling legislation has been passed. It would be deeply appreciated if you could acknow- ledge whether this time table is acceptable. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely, John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator JRR/tjp cc: Board of Supervisors bcc: Bob Watkins/ Steve Owen 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 703/665-5666 FAX: 703/667-0370 February 9, 1990 The Honorable Jim Olin House of Representatives 1314 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Sir: Please let me take this opportunity to thank you for meeting with our delegation on February 8, 1990 with reference to Civil War battlefield site preservation. .As discussed in the meeting, it would .be our desire to see the progress of the study bill expedited, a companion' bill.to appropriate the necessary.:funds.'and a committment to immediately study the "Third Battle.of.Winchester Site" after the previously mentioned enabling legislation has, been passed. It would be deeply appreciated.if you could acknow- ledge whether this time table is acceptable. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely, John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator JRR/tjp cc: Board of Supervisors bcc: Bob Watkins' Steve.zQwen,:�,- 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 6 LAW OFFICES 0 HAZEL, THOMAS, FISKE, BECKHORN & HANES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WASHINGTON OFFICE FAIRFAX OFFICE ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 1575 EYE STREET, N. W. 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 SUITE 600 P. 0. BOX 820 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 P.O. BOX 12001 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (202) 888-0010 ` FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 836-8400 LEESBURG 0►FICE (703) 641-4200 RICHMOND OFFICE FERRY ROAD, N. E.l TELECOPIER (703) 641-4340 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 600 r16-GEDWARDS P. 0. BOX 87 J P. 0. BOX 3-K ESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 January2 1990 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 (703) 777-6777 / 1804) 344-3400 Mr. Dave Holliday Top of Virginia Development Post Office Box 3276 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Dave: Corp. JAN 1 2 1990 - 1 I have met with David McCloud, Senator Robb's Chief of Staff, with respect to the fate of S.1770. I can report that this Bill is not high on anyone's list of legislative priorities, and will follow some distance behind amendments to the Clean Air Act, consideration of Panama, overides of the Chinese veto, and one or two other items of far greater legislative significance. Thus, I consider it altogether possible that S.1170 won't even be considered by the Senate for months yet to come. Mr. McCloud is going to see to it that we are briefed as to the progress of the legislation, and we can, consequently, keep Frederick County informed. Perhaps this will turn out to be more aggravation than anything else. I doubt whether there will be action by the Congress before the expiration of the one year period for consideration of your rezoning application. I should also point out that Mr. McCloud did not seem particularly disturbed by development activity in this area, but rather pointed out that the purpose of the legislation is simply to permit an advance study of sites worthy of possible preservation, by whatever future means. It is not intended to halt progress! Sincerely yours, HAZEL—�H�MAS, FISKE, BEC r & HANES, P.C. Joh H. Foote r v JHF/jw cc: Chuck Maddox Sara Howard O'Brien LAW OFFICES HAZEL, THOMAS, FISKE, BECKHORN & HANES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WASHINGTON OFFICE FAIRFAX OFFICE ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 1575 EYE STREET, N. W. 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 SUITE 600 P. O. BOX 820 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 P.O. BOX 12001 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGIN IA 22313 (202) 898-0010 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 836-8400 LEESBURG OFFICE (703) 641-4200 RICHMOND OFFICE 116-G EDWARDS FERRY ROAD, N. E. TELECOPIER (703) 641-4340 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 600 P. O. BOX 87 P. 0. BOX 3-K LEESBURG. VIRGINIA 22075 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 1703) 777-6777 (804) 344-3400 December 20, 1989 Mr. Robert Watkins Mr. Kris Tierney P. O. Box 601 2 11989 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Bob and Kris: i Following up on a recent conversation with Kris, I am forwarding for your reading pleasure a revised draft of the proffers for Caleb Heights, this time including (a) a revised phasing proffer, and (b) a revision to the dedication of historic areas. Mr. Stiles has indicated that the Board of Supervisors would be interested in having Parks and Recreation assume responsibility for these areas, and so that is the direction we have taken. I would love to have a talk with you both about the proffers at your convenience. Sincerely yours, HAZEL,OMAS, FISKE, 11 ,BEC RN & HANES, P.C. H. Foote cc: Dave Holliday Chuck Maddox Sara Howard -O'Brien JHF2:tov.290 0 0 December 20, 1989 PROFFERS CALEB HEIGHTS REZONING APPLICATION 1. Preliminary matters. Pursuant to Section 15.1-491.1 et sea. of the Virginia Code Annotated, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application Number 012-89 for the rezoning of 211 acres from the A-2 Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, ("the subject property"), development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and in substantial conformity with the terms conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant, and such be approved by the County in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. 2. Generalized Development Plan. The development of the subject property, and the submission of any Master Development Plans therefor, shall be in substantial conformity with the Generalized • 2 Development Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Phasing of Development. A- -sha-II--be--strlgm���ec�-e1id-r3feq--t4h-- M&a ter He�e�apmerr�-P�ari-}��eeess;--i-n--�it-h- t-i�-H�ec�er�c� Hatrirty-Fraini-rx -c3 terraFree-- The Applicant agrees that it shall construct no more than 60 single family dwellings, and no more than 60 townhouse units, in any twelve month period following the date of approval of this rezoning application. The number of units authorized to be constructed annually hereby shall be cumulative for the duration of the period of buildout in accordance with the approved Master Development Plan for the prof ect . 4. Transportation. A. The Applicant shall design and construct all roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation. B. The Applicant proffers that it shall design and construct a road from the southern edge of its property to existing Regency Lakes Drive, generally at the location designated as "Interparcel Connector" on the Generalized 3 Development Plan, for ultimate inclusion in the State System of Secondary Highways. It shall construct such road only provided that dedicated right-of-way for such extension has been made available by others. In the event that either the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, or the Virginia Department of Transportation, determines to exercise its powers of eminent domain to acquire right-of- way sufficient to the purposes hereof, however, the Applicant agrees to advance or reimburse to either agency the costs of the exercise of such power, including reasonable attorneys' fees and engineering costs, and the cost of the condemnation itself, in order to obtain the right-of-way necessary to construct the roadway agreed to under this proffer. C. 1. The Applicant agrees that it shall construct a two lane segment of a major collector road through the subject property, in the area designated as "Major Collector 80' Right -of -Way" on the Generalized Development Plan, and to which segment it shall access the roadway identified on the Plan as the Local Collector. 2. In order to provide for an ultimate four lane undivided collector road from State Route 661 south to Route 7, the Applicant shall also dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the four lane undivided collector road, where the right-of-way for such proposed collector runs entirely through the subject property, as shown on the 4 Generalized Development Plan, and shall construct the two lane segment provided for in Paragraph C. 1., above, through said right-of-way. 3. The Applicant shall construct a Local Collector Road as identified on the Generalized Development Plan, to provide temporary access to the property from State Route 661. It shall insure that all roads internal to the subject property will be designed to serve compatibly with the Major Collector Roadway. 4. The Applicant shall not be responsible for the construction of any other portion of the Major Collector, than is set out herein. 5. In order to avoid proliferation of entrances on State Route 661 carrying significant traffic volumes, when the aforesaid Major Collector Road has been constructed to State Route 661 and has been accepted into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant agrees that it shall initiate the necessary legal steps, in conjunction with the County and VDOT, to close any through traffic from the Local Collector directly onto State Route 661, and to redirect such traffic from within the property onto the Major Collector Road at a suitable access point. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit the Applicant from providing suitable and customary access from State Route 661 to the ten acre remainder parcel located adjacent to State Route 661, provided that that access (except for 5 emergency traffic) is not permitted to the Local Collector once it has been closed to through traffic. 5. Environmental. A. Existing trees with a trunk diameter greater than six inches shall be catalogued and preserved to the maximum extent possible, consistently with the physical location of dwellings, or necessary to construct roads, or sewers, water lines or other utilities or required infrastructure, and the lawful requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance. B. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. C. Despite its belief that construction on the subject property will have no detrimental effect on Redbud Run, the Applicant agrees that prior to initiation of any construction on the subject property, it shall obtain baseline data as to the existing water quality in the Run, and shall thereafter monitor the water quality in the Run semi-annually, and report the findings of such monitoring to the County, for not more than five years from the date of approval of this rezoning, unless the Director of Planning for Frederick County reasonably determines that it is necessary to continue such testing. In no event shall the Applicant be responsible for such testing for more than ten years following the date of approval of this rezoning. C: In the event that the Director of Planning determines that development of the subject property has directly caused degradation in the water quality of the Run, below the baseline data acquired hereunder, the Applicant shall take reasonable steps to mitigate such degradation. To the extent that these responsibilities are to be performed after the Applicant has constructed homes on the subject property, the Applicant may assign any responsibilities assumed hereunder to an appropriate homeowners' association created in connection with the development of the subject property. 6. Maximum permitted density. The overall density of the development of the subject property shall not exceed three units per gross acre, and provided further that maximum density shall not exceed two units per gross acre in the area of the subject property identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Area A, and seven units per gross acre on the area of the subject property identified thereon as Area B. Only single family dwellings shall be constructed in Area A. and only townhouses shall be constructed in Area B. 7. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development on Schools. 7 The Applicant shall pay to the County's General Fund the sum of $200.00 for each lot or parcel which is approved for development, with payment to be made to the County at the time a subdivision plat for such lots is recorded in the land records of Frederick County. Such payment shall be made for the sole and express purpose of implementing the provisions of the currently adopted Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan with respect to school construction costs in the general vicinity of the subject property. In the event that the money proffered hereunder is not used for the purpose for which proffered within ten years from the date this rezoning is approved, it shall be refunded on demand to the Applicant, or such other entity or person as may have made any payment provided for herein, with interest accrued at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the first such payment is made. 8. Historic Preservation. The Applicant shall dedicate to the apprerxe-trl��e ar-r�ae-acertc�-ar-atrl°rar�,--Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, in fee simple absolute, those areas identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Historic Preservation Areas, provided that it shall retain the necessary rights -of -way, dedications, easements, and permissions required to construct roads, sewers, water - . 14104.. 0 0 8 lines and other necessary infrastructure within those preservation areas, as they may be required for the development of the subject property and approved in a Master Development Plan. All infrastructure other than roads shall be located underground, and any land area disturbed during construction shall be restored to its original condition after construction is finally completed. The Applicant shall provide suitable buffering and landscaping along any road which may be constructed, compatible with the historic preservation purposes of this proffer, and approved by the Director of Planning and Development as being in accord herewith and with the standards established in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Historic signage of a kind similar to that used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to mark historic places shall be placed in locations satisfactory to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. signatures JHF2:proffers.tov HAZEL, WASHINGTON OFFICE 1575 EYE STREET, N. W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 (202) 898-0010 LEESBURG OFFICE 116-G EDWARDS FERRY ROAD, N. E. P. 0. BOX 87 LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 2207S (703) 777-6777 i i LAW OFFICES THOMAS, FISKE, BECKHORN & MANES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FAIRFAX OFFICE ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 P.O. BOX820 P.O. BOX 12DD1 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (703) 836-8400 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 641-4200 RICHMOND OFFICE TELECOPIER (703) 64I 4340 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 600 P. 0. BOX 3-K RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 (804)344-3400 December 13, 1989 Mr. Kris Tierney Deputy Director of Planning Frederick County P. O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Kris: Enclosed you will find a copy of the proposed proffers which have been prepared in connection with the Caleb Heights rezoning proposal. I apologize that these have not been provided you earlier, but we are still trying to word several portions satisfactorily. Needless to say, we anticipate discussing these with you and Bob in some detail, beyond the concerns which have been expressed for historic preservation matters. I am also enclosing a copy of the proposed Generalized Development Plan, which must be understood in conjunction with the proffers. I would appreciate it if you could distribute these materials to the members of the HRAB prior to its meeting, so that they may have a better knowlege of the proposal. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss historic preservation issues with the Board, both generally, and with specific respect to the Caleb Heights site. I believe that we may have some useful thoughts on these matters, and we look forward to the Board's consideration and comments on them. If you need anything further, please let me or Sara Howard -O'Brien know. ' • • HAZEL,THOMAS, FISKE, BECKHORN & HANES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mr. Kris Tierney December 13, 1989 Page 2 Sincerely yours, HAZEL, TMAS, FISKE, BEC & HANES, P.C. H. Foote cc: Dave Holliday Chuck Maddox Sara Howard -O'Brien JHF5:topva.557 • • PROFFERS December 13, 1989 CALEB HEIGHTS REZONING APPLICATION 1. Preliminary matters. Pursuant to Section 15.1-491.1 et sea. of the Virginia Code Annotated, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application Number 012-89 for the rezoning of 211 acres from the A-2 Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, ("the subject property"), development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and in substantial conformity with the terms conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant, and such be approved by the County in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. 2. Generalized Development Plan. The development of the subject property, and the submission of any Master Development Plans therefor, shall be in substantial conformity with the Generalized 2 Development Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Phasing of Development. A phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. 4. Transportation. A. The Applicant shall design and construct all roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation. B. The Applicant proffers that it shall design and construct a road from the southern edge of its property to existing Regency Lakes Drive, generally at the location designated as "Interparcel Connector" on the Generalized Development Plan, for ultimate inclusion in the State System of Secondary Highways. It shall construct such road only provided that dedicated right-of-way for such extension has been made available by others. In the event that either the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, or the Virginia Department of Transportation, determines to exercise its powers of eminent domain to acquire right-of- way sufficient to the purposes hereof, however, the a' • • 3 Applicant agrees to advance or reimburse to either agency the costs of the exercise of such power, including reasonable attorneys' fees and engineering costs, and the cost of the condemnation itself, in order to obtain the right-of-way necessary to construct the roadway agreed to under this proffer. C. 1. The Applicant agrees that it shall construct a two lane segment of a major collector road through the subject property, in the area designated as "Major Collector 80' Right -of -Way" on the Generalized Development Plan, and to which segment it shall access the roadway identified on the Plan as the Local Collector. 2. In order to provide for an ultimate four lane undivided collector road from State Route 661 south to Route 7, the Applicant shall also dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the four lane undivided collector road, where the right-of-way for such proposed collector runs entirely through the subject property, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan, and shall construct the two lane segment provided for in Paragraph C. 1., above, through said right-of-way. 3. The Applicant shall construct a Local Collector Road as identified on the Generalized Development Plan, to provide temporary access to the property from State Route 661. It shall insure that all roads internal to the • 4 subject property will be designed to serve compatibly with the Major Collector Roadway. 4. The Applicant shall not be responsible for the construction of any other portion of the Major Collector, than is set out herein. 5. In order to avoid proliferation of entrances on State Route 661 carrying significant traffic volumes, when the aforesaid Major Collector Road has been constructed to State Route 661 and has been accepted into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant agrees that it shall initiate the necessary legal steps, in conjunction with the County and VDOT, to close any through traffic from the Local Collector directly onto State Route 661, and to redirect such traffic from within the property onto the Major Collector Road at a suitable access point. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit the Applicant from providing suitable and customary access from State Route 661 to the ten acre remainder parcel located adjacent to State Route 661, provided that that access (except for emergency traffic) is not permitted to the Local Collector once it has been closed to through traffic. 5. Environmental. A. Existing trees with a trunk diameter greater than six inches shall be catalogued and preserved to the maximum extent possible, consistently with the physical location of 5 dwellings, or necessary to construct roads, or sewers, water lines or other utilities or required infrastructure, and the lawful requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance. B. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. C. Despite its belief that construction on the subject property will have no detrimental effect on Redbud Run, the Applicant agrees that prior to initiation of any construction on the subject property, it shall obtain baseline data as to the existing water quality in the Run, and shall thereafter monitor the water quality in the Run semi-annually, and report the findings of such monitoring to the County, for not more than five years from the date of approval of this rezoning, unless the Director of Planning for Frederick County reasonably determines that it is necessary to continue such testing. In no event shall the Applicant be responsible for such testing for more than ten years following the date of approval of this rezoning. In the event that the Director of Planning determines that development of the subject property has directly caused degradation in the water quality of the Run, below the baseline data acquired hereunder, the Applicant shall take reasonable steps to mitigate such degradation. To the extent that these responsibilities are to be performed after the Applicant has constructed homes on the R subject property, the Applicant may assign any responsibilities assumed hereunder to an appropriate homeowners' association created in connection with the development of the subject property. 6. Maximum permitted density. The overall density of the development of the subject property shall not exceed three units per gross acre, and provided further that maximum density shall not exceed two units per gross acre in the area of the subject property identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Area A, and seven units per gross acre on the area of the subject property identified thereon as Area B. Only single family dwellings shall be constructed in Area A, and only townhouses shall be constructed in Area B. 7. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development on Schools. The Applicant shall pay to the County's General Fund the sum of $200.00 for each lot or parcel which is approved for development, with payment to be made to the County at the time a subdivision plat for such lots is recorded in the land records of Frederick County. Such payment shall be made for the sole and express purpose of implementing the provisions of the currently adopted Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan with respect to school fi construction costs in the general vicinity of the subject property. In the event that the money proffered hereunder is not used for the purpose for which proffered within ten years from the date this rezoning is approved, it shall be refunded on demand to the Applicant, or such other entity or person as may have made any payment provided for herein, with interest accrued at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the first such payment is made. 8. Historic Preservation. The Applicant shall dedicate to the appropriate public or private agency or authority, in fee simple absolute, those areas identified on the Generalized Development Plan as Historic Preservation Areas, provided that it shall retain the necessary rights -of -way, dedications, easements, and permissions required to construct roads, sewers, water lines and other necessary infrastructure within those preservation areas, as they may be required for the development of the subject property and approved in a Master Development Plan. All infrastructure other than roads shall be located underground, and any land area disturbed during construction shall be restored to its original condition after construction is finally completed. The Applicant shall provide suitable buffering and landscaping along any 8 road which may be constructed, compatible with the historic preservation purposes of this proffer, and approved by the Director of Planning and Development as being in accord herewith and with the standards established in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Historic signage of a kind similar to that used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to mark historic places shall be placed in locations satisfactory to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. Signatures JHF2:proffers.tov November 9, 1989 DRAFT PROFFERS CALEB HEIGHTS REZONING APPLICATION 1. Preliminary matters. Pursuant to Section 15.1-491.1 et sea. of the Virginia Code Annotated, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application Number 012-89 for the rezoning of 211 acres from the A-2 Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, ("the subject property"), development of the subject property shall be done in substantial conformity with the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and with the terms conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant, and such be approved by the County in accordance with Virginia law: 2. Generalized Development Plan. The development of the subject property, and the submission of Master Development Plans therefor, shall be in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Phasing of Development. 2 The development of this project shall be accomplished in not fewer than three phases, to be accomplished in not fewer than three years, with an approximately equal number of dwelling units to be constructed in each phase. The phasing plan shall be set forth in the Master Development Plan hereafter to be submitted in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. 4. Transportation. The Applicant shall design and construct all roads on the subject property consistently with the conceptual plans set forth in the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 5. Environmental. Existing trees with a trunk diameter greater than six inches shall be catalogued and preserved to the maximum extent possible, consistently with the physical location of dwellings, or necessary to construct roads, or sewers, water lines or other utilities or required infrastructure, and the lawful requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance. 6. Maximum permitted density. The overall density of the development of the subject property shall not exceed two units per gross acre, 3 regardless of the mix of permitted dwelling units which shall be approved therefor in any final Master Development Plan, and in conformity with the Generalized Development Plan. 7. Contribution to offset impact of development. The Applicant shall pay to the County's General Fund the sum of $ , for each lot or parcel which is approved for development, with payment to be made to the County at the time a subdivision plat for such lots is recorded in the land records of Frederick County. 8. Historic Preservation. The Applicant shall dedicate to the appropriate public or private agency or authority, in fee simple absolute, those areas identified on the Generalized Development Plan, for historic preservation purposes, provided that it shall retain the necessary rights and permissions required to construct roads, sewers, water lines and other required infrastructure within those dedicated areas, as they may be required for the development of the subject property and approved in a Master Development Plan. All infrastructure other than roads shall be located underground, and any land area disturbed during construction shall be restored to its original condition r 4 after construction is finally completed. The Applicant shall provide suitable buffering and landscaping along any road which may be constructed, compatible with the historic preservation purposes of this proffer, and approved by the Director of Planning and Development as being in accord herewith and with the standards established in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. signatures JHF2:tovprof LAW OFF1CltS HAZEL, THOMAS, FISKE, BECKMORN S, HANKS A ,,pRATlpk ALvAMrRiA orF1Ct FAIRFAX QFFlCR sic Kike rTRIIT, SVITC Be* w""INGTON OFFICE Is76 EYE 6T#LIT, N. W. 3110 r'AIRVIEW PARK ORIV6, !><UIT[ 14Ci0 0. 0. "It S10 AISKAylRalklA 1:ala •uiTt No w11.5NIWON, M C. 20005 P.O. SOX 12001 VIR*INIA 22042 (7031 SaH+oo 10i1 (tom w-0o FALLS CHURCH, (703) 641.4200 IInCkK or rrlcc oil aw r"kKUk STRICT, Sult ow 1ttfru 0# OFFiCt Iki4 gzwkmPS FCRRT ROAD, k. c. TiL[COPiC11 (703) 941.4240 P.O. 11" i-K RICNMOkp, VIRDIk1A 13106 P, 0. sox $7 �pryRO, VIR61141A 1101i (S"I 3"4400 47031 7174777 ' DATE: TO: TELECOPY NUMBER TIME: LW— o"I OFFICE NUMBER* Jai 14'7 74M CLIENT/MATTER��b0 j FROM: PHONE NUMBER: � �kl � 0 NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE) 'e r r I , Jr I MESSAGE: , SHOULD ANY PAGES SE MISSING, PLEASE CALL OUR TELECOPY OPERATOR AT (703) 641-4598. (OUR TELECOPIER IS A XEROX 7010) ll����,l���ilr���lw.���!l���l��rlr��!l.,�r.•�.��!l,r�irl��s l��ilr�i!! *OPERATOR ONLY* ,,OPEWOR: TIME SENT: AUTHOR CODE$ 15 0 0 r���48a��urs T0: Dave Holliday FROM: John H. Foote DATE: October 25, 1989 RE: Draft Proffers vo Ear. 5�1�'��"� a Pursuant to Section 15.1=491.1 it sea. of the Virginia Code Annotated, the undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application Number 012-89 for the rezoning of 211 acres from the A-2 Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, development of the subject property shall be done in substantial conformity with the terms conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant, and such revisions or amendments be approved by the County in accordance with Virginia law: 1. The development of the subject property, and the submission of Master Development Plans therefor, shall be in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. • 0 2 2. The development of this project shall be accomplished in not fewer than phases, which phases shall be set forth in the Master Development Plan to be submitted in accordance with th6`rederick County Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Applicant shall design and construct all roads on the subject property consistently with the conceptual plans set forth in the County$s adapted thoroughfare plan for the area. 4. Existing trees with a trunk diameter greater than six inches shall be catalogued and preserved to the maximum extent possible, consistently with the physical location of dwellings, or necessary to construct roads, or sewers, water linen or other utilities or required infrastructure, and the lawful requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance. S. The overall density of the development of the subject property shall not exceed units per p gross acre, regardless of the mix of ` Permitted dwelling units which shall be approved therefor in any final Master Davalopm&nt Plan. 6. The Applicant shall pay to they County's General Fund the sum of $ � for each lot or parcel which is approved for development, such payment to be made at the time a subdivision plat for those lots is recorded in the land records of Frederick county. 7. The Applicant shall dedicate to the appropriate public agency or authority, in fee simple absolute, those areas identified on the Generalized Development Plan, for historic preservation purposes, provided that it shall retain the necessary rights and permissions required to construct roads, sewers, water lines and other required infrastructure within those dedicated areas, as they may be required for the development of the subject property. All infrastructure other than roads shall be located underground, and any land area disturbed during construction shall be restored to its original condition after construction is finally completed. The Applicant shall provide suitable buffering and landscaping along any road which may be constructed, which is compatible with the historic preservation purposes of this proffer, and which is approved by the Director of Planning and Development as being in accord herewith and with the standards established in the Frederick County Zoning ordinance. JHF2:tovprof DriggsAssociates, Inc.` October 24, 1989 Mr. C. EMaddox, G. W. Clifford is 20 South Cameron P.O. sox 2104 Jr. Associates street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Eastern Frederick County Transportation Plan Dear Chuck: I enjoyed our meeting on Friday, October 20, and I believe that we are making good progress toward recommending a road network that is workable and that will serve the interests of Frederick County as well as those of the affected property owners. We are excited about working with you, Mr. Holiday, and the County in achieving that objective. As you know from our last meeting, there still exist some significant differences between our plan alignments, and other substantive iRsues. I want to be sure that both you and Mr. Holiday understand that we consider these differences to be significant, but not insurmountable. I would propose that we meet again on Friday, October 27 to continue our discussions relating to this issue. sincerely, DR ASSOCIATES, INC. 'bony 1 al`�o Via resident TDB:ab cc: Mr. Ken stiles Mr. John Riley Mr. Bob Watkins 4061 Powder Mill Road Suite 400 Calvarton, Maryland 20705 13011 696-4444 Fox 13011 596•5950 f,f'T—,?4—R':� TIIF 1 1 ' 4A dr i -a a ftsaea. i nt.. P. 011 • LAW OFFICES HAZEL, THOMAS, RSKE, BECKHORN & HANE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION J P. O BOX 547 FAIRFAX,VIRGINIA 22030 1575 EYE STREET, N. W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 (202) 898-0010 116-G EDWARDS FERRY ROAD, N. E. P. 0. BOX 87 LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 (703) 777-6777 DELIVERIES AND VISITORS TO: SUITE 1400 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 641-4200 TELECOPIER (703) 641-4340 October 19, 1989 Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director 9 Court Square Post Office Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Watkins: 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 P. O. BOX 820 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (703) 836-8400 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET P. O. BOX 3-K RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 (804) 344-3400 This firm now represents David Holliday, Ron Shickel, and Top of Virginia Development Corporation, with respect to the Caleb Heights rezoning application pending before the County. Our clients have consulted us in the wake of their difficulties before the Frederick County Planning Commission, and have asked us to work with them in seeking County approval for their proposal. I am sure you are aware that they are committed to working amicably with the County, to resolve reasonable and legitimate public concerns, through legitimate means. They have asked us to participate because of our experience both in land use matters generally, and historical preservation issues specifically. In order to understand fully the course of events prior to our association with this case, and before the upcoming Board of Supervisors hearing on it, we feel that it is important to obtain some basic information from your office with respect to the applicable ordinances and regulations. I would greatly appreciate it, therefore, if you could provide me with current copies of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and of the Comprehensive Plan. I am particularly interested in whether there are any local ordinances which address historic preservation, such as an historic overlay district, or other such legal device. Because I am advised that the decision to recommend denial of the Caleb Heights application over the request of the applicant that it be deferred was an extraordinary event in County practice, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide me with copies of the minutes or other records of any Planning Commission meetings at which the application HAZEL, THOMAS, FISKE, BECKHORN & HANES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Robert W. Watkins October 19, 1989 Page 2 was discussed, or action was taken. We will, of course, pay the costs which are associated with this request. I look forward to meeting you. I will be in Frederick County on Tuesday, October 25th, and would like to drop by after lunch to see you, and to obtain these materials. Because of the short time before the Board meeting, I feel some urgency in getting these documents. Please let me know if this is inconvenient for you. Sincerely yours, HAZEL,/HOMAS, FISKE, BE,CKVOWN & HANES, P.C. Joh`h—H . ' Foote cc: David Holliday Ron Shickel Sara Howard -O'Brien JHF:H1:topva COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members .FROM: KCT, Deputy Director DATE: August 16, 1989 RE: Caleb Rezoning; Historic Resources Board Recommendation At there meeting of August 15, 1989 the Historic Resources Board considered the Caleb rezoning application which was referred to them by the Planning Commission. Following a lengthy discussion it was the consensus of the Board that their recommendation to the Planning Commission would be as follows. The Historic Resources Board recommends denial of the Caleb rezoning based on the national and local historical significance of the site. The remaining core area of the Third Winchester B ttlefield s on this s t pa ticularly between_ two woode areas and a prominent iZ��i. The results of the battle had a significant influence on the re-election of president Lincoln, and led to the loss of the Shenandoah Valley by the Confederacy and the early termination of the war. On this hallowed ground there were 500 confederate casualties and 2000 Union, 18 medal of honor recipients fought here. The Board also wished the attached information on the Third Battle to be forwarded to the Planning Commission along with their recommendation. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 SEGMENT FROM "CIVIL WAR SITES INVENTORY FOR FREDERICK COUNTY AND WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA" BY ALLEN TISCHLER On that day of September 19th, 1864, the Confederate and Union armies covered an area in combat, measuring six miles long (from Stephenson Depot to Carper's Valley Golf Club) by four miles wide (from Star Fort to County Road 656). Cavalry movements by the Union army began miles away at the crossings of the Opequon on the Leetown Road and at the Berryville Pike crossing. Even allowing deviation in map comparisons with the 1873 Battlefield Map drawn under the supervision of Bvt. Lt. Col. G. L. Gillespie, it can be stated that an area of four square miles was where the two armies fought from 5:00 a.m. to nightfall, about 6:30 p.m. Computed at 640 acres in one square mile, this equals 2,560 acres. Best tabulations of the respective armies give the affective field strength of Maj. Gen. P. H. Sheridan's Army of the Shenandoah at 40,000 men and Lt. Gen. Jubal Early's Army of the Valley District at 12,500 to 14,000 men. On the Battlefield east of the city, all of the Union infantry, about 30,000 men, engaged the Confederate lines of infantry of near 7,000 men. Notable scenes of combat between brigade -sized units from the armies took place in the famous First and Second Woods. All of the field and timber land between the woods was especially witness of sustained and vigorous attacks, retreats, and counter-attacks. Over 2,000 Union men fell in the attacks through the First and Second Woods and to Hackwood and matched to about 500 Confederate losses in the same area. President A. Lincoln sent to Sheridan this wire: "Have just heard of your great victory. God bless you all, officers and men. Strongly inclined to come up and see you." Other duties kept the Chief Executive in Washington. The successful conclusion of the battle was a first in that finally, the Union army had control of the Lower Valley, which was in the midst of cultivation and putting away for the upcoming winter. President Lincoln was running for re-election to be decided on November 8th, 1864 and had been boosted in the minds of the voting public in the northern states with the occupation of Atlanta on September 2, 1864 by Maj. Gen. William Sherman. Around Richmond and Petersburg, the main Union army with Lt. Gen. U. S. Grant in command and the main Confederate army with General R. E. Lee in command, had come to a military stalemate. Lincoln needed a victory to sustain the early September ray of hope seen from Georgia and the conclusive battle outside of and partially inside of Winchester gave the presidential bid for re-election a vigorous boost. DRAFT SCHOOL •IMVACT ANALYSISt TOP OF VikGINIA/CALEB HEIGHTS STUDENT POPU;j&TION # Units Eatio Students Single Family .fig- �$''0 .660 -t- Townhouse -2.84� 3-?0 .386--148- TOTAL -629 1-;OO .535 -33-2- 3 r7Y Elementary Middle High Ratio/Students Ratio/Students Ratio/Students Single Family Townhouse TOTAL 30 .308/rII3 //7 .150/Tr .080/xz- 7-3--,K3 .203/-d- % % .095/-2T- 3 d The background report has estimated the typical sin le family residence to have a gross cost imp of $5,621 on planned y Schools. -f�29- du x $5, 621. 00 = million) The net cost impact (adjusting for tax revenue a d vacant zoned land) is projected at ,x $5, 621.00 or *a-U-&4 per dwelling unit. +b�-� du x S23fl4-=million) ''/ ��� /9G�~ _ _ .:3s_ 4 33,21, RESIDENTIAL PRO RTY 371 may. Annual Tax Unit Market Value Contributions Single family '�-38"� �O�ds �(GS /ZU Townhouses TOTAL p �j 2,,2, / lelfif * Based on a real property tax rate of r $100 of assessed value. ) Y0o ore e 72,P : ado da �t'�/moo - S, r-. ��u �oa� 6 SENT BY: PERSONAL PROPERTY R ONS �rao Caleb Heights Estimated � } otor vehicles owned ed Based on a personal residents with an average value of property tax rate of $4•25 Per $100 as essed value, the annual tax yield is projected at 0 /j E, THER N Estimated value 000,000.00 Regional Transportation Improvements $1$1,860�000.00 Historic Park Dedication (62 acres at $30,000/ac) $000.00 Fire and ROSCue Contributions .?0 ($100 unit x du) �Fsa'� ve TOTAL q� C/ OTHER FACTORS TO TAKE 714TQ ACCOUNT - Longevity of School Facility State and Federal School Funds In prior to Proffer Legislation Potential Tourism Revenue from Historic Park , Overall Balancing of Capital Facilities against total proffer package, low density character of development and elements of proposal that are difficult to Plty ace locationa value of such as undarg�rounding utilities, m i interior road. o en sp�����„�nd sin le f��in on ge � ts� � , K-i �f 2 ch capface itieere of Recent/rezoning actions w i to proffer legislation as considered. These were in prior P is Caleb Heights. (Is this an arbitrary action to single out this cage?) / fi /( � .! DK: TOP OF VA A: IMPACT . ANA 1 7/y Ge�� /✓9 C--- F/-7r �, W r REZONING APPLICATION #012-89 Top of Virginia Development Corporation CALEB HEIGHTS Rezone211.04 Acres from RA. (Ru-ra-1 Xrea-s ) to RP (Residential Performance) LOCATI0 Two miles northeast of Winchester, just north of VA. Route 7 Two south and adjacent to VA. Route 661 and east and adjacent to U.S. Interstate 81. MAGISTEI4IAL DISTRICT: Stonewall ADJACENTiLAND USE AND ZONING: Agricultural, vacant, and resident al uses zoned RA, Rural Areas PROPOSED USE AND IMPROVEMENTS: residences. REVIEW (EVALUATIONS: Single-family and multi -family Virginia Dept. of Transportation - No objections to rezoning. Before development, VDOT will require a complete set of construction plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data for review. An entrance will have to be constructed to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. It appears existing fences and vegetation will have to be removed from the adjoining properties to obtain adequate sight distances. SanCtation Authority - See attached documents. I Health Department - No objection as long as the project is served by central water and sewer service. Winchester Regional Airport - The Frederick County Airport. Zoning District requirements for obstructions must be strictly adhered to. Questions concerning the requirements and restrictions imposed by this zoning may be addressed to the airport manager. Page 2 Top of VA. De el pment Rezong 0 Frederick County Fire Marshal - Review for hydrant lochtion, fire protection, etc. will be done on site plan and construction drawings. At present, there are no water mains to site to calculate water flow. Inspections Department - This request for rezoning shall comply to Use Group R (Residential), Section 309.0 of the BOCA National Building Code, 1987. Plannin and Zoning - The following issues should be c nsidered: Location: Most of the site is located in the Urban Development Area as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Eastern portions of the site may be beyond the Urban Development Area. The site is adjacent to Regency Lakes Estates, zoned MH-1, Mobile Home Community and RP. No land with frontage on Route 661 is currently zoned RP. Site Suitability: The site is physically suitable for development. Small areas of steep slopes and floodplain are located on the site along Red Bud Run. Large areas of woodlands are located in the southern portions of the site. The Sanitation Authority tells us that gravity sewer can be provided to an 8" line 400 feet away in Regency Lakes. It can also be provided by force main to a 10" line 500 feet away on the other side of Interstate 81. Water lines are loc�ted several thousand feet away in Regency Lakes and across I-81. The applicant proposes to serve one-half of the site with sewer using a utility easement available to Regency Lakes. More information on how sewer and water will be provided.is needed. Potential Impacts: The applicant has provided an impact analysis. The analysis suggests that the development of theI211 acres of land will result in 570 homes (at 2.7 homes per acre) and traffic generation of 4,000 average daily trips ends. However, the application describes the potential use of the property as single family and multi family. Therefore, it is the opinion of the staff that the density -of development on the property could be greater. The staff would suggest that the traffic increase resulting from the rezoning could be as great as 5,000 average daily trips. Information from the VDOT 1989 Statewide Highway Plan suggests that the daily acceptable traffic volume for the existing Route 661 roadway is 4,555 average daily trips. The most recent traffic counts on Route 661 are over 2,000 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed rezoning could have potential adverse impacts on travel on Route 661. Page 3 Top of VA .. Deel � el ment Rezng 16 'he applicant projects that the project would resul addition school children. The staff does not agree the applicants statement that the project would have impacts on the Parks and Recreation budget. The development would not necessarily have to provide in 570 with no t recreational facilities. It is the opinion of the staff that this developmen'i would result in some increase in the use of facilities at Clearbrook and other County recreational facilities and programs. The applicant projects the need for additional routine police patrols resulting from the rezoning with a cost of $5,200 per year. The staff would add that there will be additional costs associated with service by the fire and rescue company. Additional costs resulting from the development would be associated with the additional solid waste generated by the development. Conclusions: The site is located in the Urban Development Area. However, the Comprehensive Plan states that new urban development should only be approved in the Urban Development Area when utilities and roads of sufficient capacity have been provided. It is the opinion of the staff that Route 661'does not have sufficient capacity to support development on this property and adjoining properties. No plans have been made for improvement of Route 661. Concern should also be expressed for impacts on schools, emergency service, parks and recreation, and solid waste services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Denial PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 8/2/89: Tabled to 8/16/89 by unanimous vote. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 8/16/89:.Denial, by the following vote: YES (TO DENY): Marker, Copenhaver, Golladay, DeHaven, Wilson, Rinker, Thomas NO: Sherwood, Romine (Note: Mr. McDonald was not present.) 60 e �.�nn 0 1989' REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS 7W S' Frederick County Sanitation Authority ATTN: Wellington Jones, Engineer/Director P.O. Box 618, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5690 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on the second floor of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: - 661 and Past & Adjacent Interstate 81, Sanitation Authority Comments: See attached. Sanit. Signature & Date: (161w / d'� (NOTICE TO SANITATION EASE RETURN THIS FORM TO GENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map, and all other pertinent information. (0-q-99 -f 4 0 0 A. The submitted drawing shows a bend in the power line on parcel 90+90A. From this bend: 1. Water is available at the intersection of SR 661 and US 11. It is a 10" diameter line and is approximately 6,300 feet away. 2. Water is available in the Battleview subdivision. It is an 8" line and is approximately 2,200 feet away. 3. Water is available in Regency Lakes. It is an 8" line and approximately 3,700 feet away. 4. There is a force main sewer on the other side of I-81. It is a 10" line and is approximately 500 feet away. The capacity of the existing pumping system will have to be studied to see if an upgrade in the pumps and/or line is needed. 5. Gravity sewer is available in Regency Lakes. It is an 8" line and is approximately 400 feet away. Refer to the attached drawings. B. There is water and sewer capacity available at this time. - F ;5A oca i 37.,� ` J powER P } �� ♦ M \, EL ..ClaIt -, /t . � � ' ,fit,. - �= � �✓ • •� iJJ Pill re Trar<<r u L �- �- .�• .. � • ;? I i .. � Path wOGo " rG � -o � ,= _ S5` - �� tXQ• �l' � ,` . , 1 ,I t J • ter_ K���^� ♦' As►�• ;) 74," . ...... , `l� ` �� •w�i� f'e11Ci f/'� 1 �� :� •,�-ti /,.cle,t,. �`� � '� �{Plj{Zit`�('manw,n,d �/ ,: r 1kbbi Sig , •I �• W •• I t]M 077./ h yry�i IN.rtr�-7 4 o1 •� �,, f). I� u � •�• ��/�: � .. _ fir, �1 •. ` V I N'CF: r NM bd / / �d v� / •� (�f ' �J �� 1 �l I Jvv ��� zr es1Fj _ f61 eeS l -� 'i Pit v Q -� � !•'1 - - ; � � .� •� 1• � - �� --� j Ate, � "J `.. fig kill 01 ,to� er PL A{L .,lay Cb crz N'ER E: 7 !r�•... .. :.1-p1. N �K' : �� �r � � . � t , •'. 669• , -�1 �"�1j `'�� /�• tin, Hit, . � t0•�'S�E �. AS 16 r J ' � • � !��•• �R>•� Q: •~�� • . r SQ�. - '� Oar—J•��� +x• •1 _� 1� �,-_. �i� � \ J ^ k r! e.t.• a`. � y.� '� NE�1y{hL � � •Cre�Pyrawd 1•'i �)�t - City of inchestzz Virginia ATTN: Tim You ans, Planning Director Rouss City Hall 15 N. Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-1815 The City of Winchester offices are located in Rouss City Hall at 15 North Cameron Street in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: Location:2 miles Northeast of Winchesterx just north of Va.Rte 7. Located south & adjacent to Va Rte. 661 and East & Adjacent to U.S. Interstate 81. City of/ Winchester Co ents :/ // / o, +�S � ,5 ,; /J✓6l, sl,,,,,e•�✓ 71/e 7 �a+c�k-I �rccNSs 5 / / /M �4LTrr��g5 for L<wer e�rch SG�(✓icPS61 Tom �cle� rJPirS+�`/ c!2✓Q v�n�rr7 "P�+, re/2�<i� �✓ l �vv/�� c!'eJ,-' I'+v��i�nrrl C12Jc'1r j SiYvl�Y�C/ yw<�frls o �O // / K��e O �'t / �1 5JJ 5•rC 4 L, r �Ize �r P �� �fvb/� ,5. Gt/Gy no re;?04L MO re- �� / Oo/�i�•�S /+5 /�' ee is ,p / /5_ re�orr,yrP.,cl l�'Z�n,,, • owr 'icC ✓7 /'C� �LCr✓�ss� / � �'� � / c< ? /o 4,-Cnc>r�� 6� tb+s rive City Signature and Date:` t^A Cl/ CJP 12 & 7 (NOTICE TO CITY - PLEASE RET RN T IS FORM . / THE AGENT NOTICE TO APPLICANT v It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please also attach a copy of you application form, location map, and all other pretinent information. REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Doug Kiracofe, Frederick County Fire Marshall P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5651 The Frederick County Fire Marshall is located at 21 Court Square in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: i-ocation:2 miles, Northeast of Winchester. �ust north of Va.Rte 7. to-U—S— Interstate S Fire /Marshall Comments: 7,D Fire Marshall Signature & Date:(_ (NOTICE TO FIRE MARSHALL - PLEASE R5TURN T S F OM TO AGENT. ALSO, PLEASE NOTE IF FIRE COMPANY HAS BEEN CONTACTED.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map, and all other pertinent information. 1�1 Winchester Regional Airport ATTN: Kenneth F. Wiegand, Executive Director Route 1, Box 208-A, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 662-2422 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of Route 522- South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: Location:2 miles Nort�east of Winchester, just north of Va.Rte 7. ' Located south & adjacent to Va Rte- 661 and East & Adjacent to U-S. Interstate 81. Winchester Regional Airport Comments: The Frederick County Airport Zoning District requirements for obstructions must be strictly adhered to. Questions concerning the requirements and restrictions imposed by this zoning may be addressed to the undersigned. Airport Signature & Date: Kenneth F. Wle and, Airport Manager 15 June 1989 (NOTICE TO AIRPORT - PLEASE URN THIS FORM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map, and all other pertinent information. co -?-0 0 CI Frederick -Winchester Health Department ATTN: Herbert L. Sluder, Sanitation Engineer P.O. Box 2056, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-9747 The Frederick -Winchester Health Department is located at the intersection of Smithfield Avenue and Brick Kiln Road, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: mil-milps Northeast of Winchester. just north 11-2- InterstAte 81, Health Department Comments: Health Signature and Date: .��._� n. Y-, t — 1 -- � ) (NOTICE TO HEALTH DEPT. - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map and all other pertinent information. REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department ATTN: James Doran, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5678 The Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square, Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: 2 miles Northeast of h- - north of - 7. Located south & adjacent to Va Rte. 661 and East & Adjacent to U.S. Interstate 81. Parks & Recreation Department Comments: Park f-ignature and Date: LEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map and all other pertinent information. 0 10 BMB : fmcl 6258 05-23-88 �1 UN ' a,.�+ ko in co Ln. N C V' U) C O,­4 a) :3 'L,.- 1 to o C `I, .o 0 a b a o a a> G]U [] 17 a H a.1 c c� N F1'• �,, 8K683PGItl THIS DEED made and dated this 24th day of May, 1988, by and between DANIEL K. MACKLIN, Sole Acting 'Trustee, party of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantor, and REDBUD ASSOCIATES, a Virginia Partnership, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSE,rU: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant and convey with Special Warranty of title unto the Grantee, in fee simple, as specific partnership property, pursuant to Title 50, Cr�(le of Virginia, as amended, all of that certain tract or parcel of land, toyether with the improvementn, thoreon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate along the South side of Virginia Route 661, in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 180 Acres, more or less, together with a 60 ft. appurtenant right of way for ingress and egress; and being the remainder portion of the same land conveyed to Daniel K. Macklin and Victor E. Hansen, Trustees, either of whom may act, by Deed dated July 10, 1972, from James V. L. Kiser, et ux, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 393 at Page 608; the said Victor E. Hansen, Trustee, died on the 27th day of May, 1985. This conveyance is made subject to all rights of way and restrictions of record affecting the subject property. WITNESS the following signature and seal: , (SEAL) DAN1EL. K. MAC:KL IN Sole Acting 'Trustee • 5K663 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF WINCHESTE/R), TO -WIT: I, `,.tlur.' 0-4 [A . 0(Ni./eltJ , a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesaid, do Hereby certify that DANIEL K. MACKLIN, Sole Acting Trustee, whose name is signed to the foregoing Deed, dated the 24th day of M,iy, 1988, has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my i State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this /0''_'� day of 1988. My commission expires L7C• Ioho ') i OTARY PUBLIti- VIRGINIA: FRLDERICK COUNTY, SCT. This idstrument of uniting was produced to me on the day of_�i�•,e-- • 19 F�. at_31t2.e=�� . and with certificate of acknowledgment the.rto r,nncAF!d was admitted to record. Tax imposed bf St,c. 58-54.1 of and 58-54 have been paid , if asscss:lble CLERK - 2 - • G.W.CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 S.CAMERON ST. PO BOX 2104 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 703-667-2139 TO Winchester. Va 22601 1 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PRESENT DATE JOB NO. 22 March 1990 ATTENTION Bob Watkins RE: (alPh HPinhtc WE ARE SENDING YOU n ATTACHED F7 UNDER SEPARATE VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAND DELIVERED ❑ CHANGE ORDER SAMPLES SPECIFICATIONS SHOP DRAWINGS I —XI PRINTS ❑ PLANS ❑ OTHER COPY OF LETTER COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 20 Proposed Rezoning Plan XX ARE TRANSMITTED F] APPROVED/SUBMITTED X❑ FOR APPROVAL APPROVED/AS NOTED ❑ FOR YOUR USE El RETURN/CORRECTIONS ❑ AS REQUESTED ❑ FOR REVIEW or COMMENT ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ------------ 19 REMARKS RESUBMIT_ FOR APPROVAL SUBMITFOR DISTRIBUTION ❑ RETURNED_ CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ LOAN PRINT/RETURN RETURN/WITH SIGNATURES `�rct;� �C Mn 2 21090 COPY TO: David B. Holliday SIGNED Toni Price John Foote REV. 2.0 Environmental & Planning Impacts for Top of Virginia Development Corporation. June 1989 JUN 3 0 1989 'u The firm of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. has been commissioned to evaluate the above referenced project in light of several major planning issues, as outlined and required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This document is prepared in support of and in preparation to rezone the property from present Agricultural, General District(A-2) to Residential Performance (RP). Mj ffni 1 • The 211 acres of land, zoned residential performance, will yield approximately 570 homes (at 2.7 dwelling units per acre density). At 7 trip ends per day per dwelling unit, approximately 4000 trips per day will be generated. Distribute this generated traffic equally between east bound to Route 7 and west bound to Route 11 at 181. The addition of 2000 trips per day to Route 661 will create the need to move improvement of this road to a higher priority in County planning. Gates may be required at the railroad crossing and signalization of US Route 11. •�.•- •1 •.1 •.1ro11.1 If - Sewage service to this site can be provided in several ways; all involving pumping of sewage. It is recommended that a single pump station on Red Bud Run be considered for all uses however this plan needs to be coordinated with the FCSA planning and the planning of adjacent development interests. Access to the existing Regency Lakes sewerage system is provided by a utility easement connection at the southeast corner of the site. This connection can handle water and sewer linkage for a portion, perhaps 1/2 of the project. Other linkage points and for downstream improvements will be required to service the remainder of the project which ultimately connects to the Abrams Creek interceptor system and transfers waste flow to the Opequon Regional WWTP. Flows generated from the total development are estimated by the State Health Department at 228,000 (400gpd/home) gallons per day with an instantaneous peak flow of 395 gallons per minute. 9 All sewage conveyance systems involved should have full capability of handling this additional flow as does the plant have the capability of treating and discharging this flow in satisfactory manor. An engineering evaluation of the impact on the existing sewage systems should be made coincident with the Preliminary Master Development Plan Phase. This project would connect to the existing water supply system located in the Regency Lakes Development. For the same reasons as with sewage, a study of appropriate offsite improvements needs to be prepared at the preliminary Master Development Plan stage coordinated through the FCSA. The estimated water use is the same as sewage flow (228,000 gpd). This project will generate one school age children per household. The County would have to provide facilities for approximately 570 children. This project would result in no impact on Parks and Recreation budget. 6. Drainage Facility Impacts: The development of single family in lieu of agricultural will increase run off in small. amounts over that which would be created in farming use. It is recommended that either suitable green space be allowed to reduce run off amounts or that the increased run off from the development be reduced prior to discharge from the site. In lieu of the above, additional storm water detention calculations should be presented with final design which would show no adverse impacts created by the imposition of this increase storm water. Sheriff protection will be required by this facility. Routine patrols of the area should suffice for the majority of time and materials necessary to cover this facility also. Special patrols and activities may include a total of 2 hours per week. Special coverage at $50.00 per hour would involve approximately $5200.00 per year. There should be no other impacts on emergency services. Costs to the County would be normal for this type of development. No special waste removal needs are planned. Waste removal by house to house collection is available by private contractor. 9. Environmental Imp: There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity including run off, sediment, noise and traffic movements. These are to be minimized by proper compliance with local and state laws for environmental protection. A minor increase in run off quantity and a decrease in quality is probable from this development. The effects on the downstream impoundment and stream are minimal and in accordance with local and state regulations. There is no known loss of irretrievable resources involved with this project. There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be effected by this project. Ground water and air quality should be unaffected. A minor impact of a negative nature is associated with lighting for security and business use.. These should be closely controlled during planning stage to minimize the adverse impacts on adjacent residential structures and impacts on the traveling public. 10. Other Fiscal Impacts: No other impacts were noted. 11. Historic Imp: This project will be evaluated for sites of historic significance and such sites cataloged and shown on the Preliminary Master Development Plan. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineer C EM/ckd T P of vz���v T �E� f��av�NG•�- iz - 89 « Iv` f I • f j X � K 43 Pik ap k`m AP wcl t' $:G jj Rr , Gir Of `�' N^••4c � • „F' NSF-� N , .`�. WOOCESTER '�!' 'nU N ,• 11' ' _'-=rrn l •t,� v1/' I--`'��# W 2 ;' `_1 'per • © i ItA rliy - P i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: KCT, Deputy Director DATE: August 16, 1989 RE: Caleb Rezoning; Historic Resources Board Recommendation At there meeting of August 15, 1989 the Historic Resources Board considered the Caleb rezoning application which was referred to them by the Planning Commission. Following a lengthy discussion it was the consensus of the Board that their recommendation to the Planning Commission would be as follows. The Historic Resources Board recommends denial of the Caleb rezoning based on the national and local historical significance of the site. The remaining core area of the Third Winchester B ttlefield s on this s,7- t: particularly between two woode areas ands a prominent niTi. The results of the battle had a significant influence on the re-election of president Lincoln, and led to the loss of the Shenandoah Valley by the Confederacy and the early termination of the war. On this hallowed ground there were 500 confederate casualties and 2000 Union, 18 medal of honor recipients fought here. The Board also wished the attached information on the Third Battle to be forwarded to the Planning Commission along with their recommendation. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 l-* 0 0 SEGMENT FROM "CIVIL WAR SITES INVENTORY FOR FREDERICK COUNTY AND WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA" BY ALLEN TISCHLER On that day of September 19th, 1864, the Confederate and Union armies covered an area in combat, measuring six miles long (from Stephenson Depot to Carper's Valley Golf Club) by four miles wide (from Star Fort to County Road 656). Cavalry movements by the Union army began miles away at the crossings of the Opequon on the Leetown Road and at the Berryville Pike crossing. Even allowing deviation in map comparisons with the 1873 Battlefield Map drawn under the supervision of Bvt. Lt. Col. G. L. Gillespie, it can be stated that an area of four square miles was where the two armies fought from 5:00 a.m. to nightfall, about 6:30 p.m. Computed at 640 acres in one square mile, this equals 2,560 acres. Best tabulations of the respective armies give the affective field strength of Maj. Gen. P. H. Sheridan's Army of the Shenandoah at 40,000 men and Lt. Gen. Jubal Early's Army of the Valley District at 12,500 to 14,000 men. On the Battlefield east of the city, all of the Union infantry, about 30,000 men, engaged the Confederate lines of infantry of near 7,000 men. Notable scenes of combat between brigade -sized units from the armies took place in the famous First and Second Woods. All of the field and timber land between the woods was especially witness of sustained and vigorous attacks, retreats, and counter-attacks. Over 2,000 Union men fell in the attacks through the First and Second Woods and to Hackwood and matched to about 500 Confederate losses in the same area. President A. Lincoln sent to Sheridan this wire: "Have just heard of your great victory. God bless you all, officers and men. Strongly inclined to come up and see you." Other duties kept the Chief Executive in Washington. The successful conclusion of the battle was a first in that finally, the Union army had control of the Lower Valley, which was in the midst of cultivation and putting away for the upcoming winter. President Lincoln was running for re-election to be decided on November 8th, 1864 and had been boosted in the minds of the voting public in the northern states with the occupation of Atlanta on September 2, 1864 by Maj. Gen. William Sherman. Around Richmond and Petersburg, the main Union army with Lt. Gen. U. S. Grant in command and the main Confederate army with General R. E. Lee in command, had come to a military stalemate. Lincoln needed a victory to sustain the early September ray of hope seen from Georgia and the conclusive battle outside of and partially inside of Winchester gave the presidential bid for re-election a vigorous boost. v.4. • • 1_ • • • • ��_ Virginia Department of Transportation ATTN: William H. Bushman, Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278, Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (703) 984-4133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 Commerce Street, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: I-ocation:2 miles Northeast of Winch(-stt-r. just north nf Va.Rte 7- Interntate 81, Transportation Department Comments: No objection to rezoning of this property. Before, ve ment, VDOT will require a complete set of construction p � nage calculations and traffic flow data for review. A ent��n; will have to be constucted to allow for safe egr s and 1r�,a,. of the property. It appears existing fences an geto�;.ion'-,"- will have to be removed from the adjoining pro es to obtain.;,, adequate sight distances., I VDOT Signature and Date: G J . ty'. �e�-.� %Z �9✓ ,� (NOTICE TO VDOT - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map, and all other pertinent information. 1 L--q-V • D [E6MadIE Fr\�i 0 • REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Frederick County Inspections Department ATTN: Kenneth L. Coffelt, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5651 The Frederick County Inspections Department is located at 9 Court Square in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: 11-1;- Interstate 81, Inspections Department Comments: �l 7- 7 3 r is -Q- -S 16 -T/o Y- j-' 3 o 117 . ,� y �n��/�r 0 7 Inspect. Signature & Date :�z �--4- 3�' (NOTICE TO INSPECTIONS - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map, and all other pertinent information. (o-r7-V s REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Doug Kiracofe, Frederick County Fire Marshall P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5651 The Frederick County Fire Marshall is located at 21 Court Square in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:-Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: miles. -.Winchester, 7. - Interstate Fire Marshall Comments: Z.'/LG%'�' 7o Siit 7d ��%GGlll6%>f �--y Fire Marshall Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO FIRE MARSHALL - PLEAS TURN T1,qS FROM TO AGENT. ALSO, PLEASE NOTE IF FIRE COMPANY HAS BEEN CONTACTED.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your. responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map, and all other pertinent information. 111 C` Winchester Regional Airport ATTN: Kenneth F. Wiegand, Executive Director Route 1, Box 208-A, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 662-2422 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of Route 522- South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: • • mil-milos Nort•east of Winchester, lust north of Located south & adlacent to Va Rte. 661 and East & Adlacelt—tu-=ILLE1:7 Interstate 81. Winchester Regional Airport Comments: The Frederick County Airport Zoning District requirements for obstructions must be strictly adhered to. Questions concerning the requirements and restrictions imposed by this zoning may be addressed to the undersigned. Airport Signature & Date: Kenneth F. W�egand, Airport Manager 15 June 1989 (NOTICE TO AIRPORT - PLEASE RhATURN THIS FORM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map, and all other pertinent information. co--7-99 0 0 Frederick -Winchester Health Department ATTN: Herbert L. Sluder, Sanitation Engineer P.O. Box 2056, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-9747 The Frederick -Winchester Health Department is located at the intersection of Smithfield Avenue and Brick Kiln Road, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agentm G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: Health Department Comments: Health Signature and Date:PjAA���-'r, L — 1— (NOTICE TO HEALTH DEPT. - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO AGENT 1. NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map and all other pertinent information. f REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department ATTN: James Doran, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5678 The Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square, Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: • -tion:2 miles Northeast nf Winchester. - .. -. Parks & %Recreation Department Comments: l/ Parks ignature and Date:,�Z,.' 'I � t (N E TO P S - L ASE RETURN THIS FORM TO E AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map and all other pertinent information. 0 0 City of inche�; Virginia ATTN: Tim YouWans, Planning Director Rouss City Hall 15 N. Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-1815 The City of Winchester offices are located in Rouss City Hall at 15 North Cameron Street in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Top of Va Development Corporation P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va 22601 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: Location:2 milps Northeast of Winchester, just north of Va-Rte 7. Lnnated south & adjacent to Va - 661 ... East & Adjacent Interstate 81, City of Winchester Co ents :l / o,^�S,5�' ✓�/- s/rPE, fie �L/�iv.�/cJC� -fro✓f ro✓Sio•, sor add, f/o�� �cc�°55 / l /` fo: h"r de.,-" c/e✓e�v(�I� �"FM rde v4�T /�� /M �OhS ror Ome Pi1c SPA✓� CPS o / / ✓ cov c. e,tl /�v/1�taw/h 4,le pce4. / / � r � ion I� � CL/vn �"'1R 5 U ✓ � S� N P c � / /,_,S(.�/ not rCZ04C �+o�e oT yt„5 ur�� y � / ol�ian5 �' / / CLGG�Ss,S/Q � / J / �5 4 i'c fi g o/ elm reev^rplenc� reZQni �j or c� �� r� Zene d /i�.,d ? ek City Signature and Date:` L (NOTICE TO CITY - PLEASE RET RN TIYIS NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this possible in order to assist the agency with also attach a copy of you application form, other pretinent information. 4,112 THE AGENT form as accurately as their review. Please location map, and all COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 October 11, 1989 TO THE APPLICANT(s) and/or ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(s) The Application Of: Caleb Heights Rezoning Application #012-89 To: Rezone 211.04 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). This property is located two miles northeast of Winchester, just north of Route 7, which is south and adjacent to Route 661 and east and adjacent to I-81, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This rezoning will be considered by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of October 25, 1989, at 7:15 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, the Old Frederick County Court House, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, i Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/ dkg 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 This is to certify th.0he attached correspondence wailed to the following on October 11 , 1989 from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: Top of Va. Dev. Corp. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va. 22601 REDBUD ASSOCIATES 201 LOUOOUN STREET WINCHESTER* VA 226C1 DEVELOPMENT CO. OF AMERICA P.O. BOX 520 WESTMINISTER* M0, 21157 HUNTSBERRY* CHARLES WILLIAM 611 HANCLEY AVE. WINCHESTER* VA, 22601 HERRING• LOUIS R. E VERA J. RT. 8 BOX 455 WINCHESTER* VA, 22601 SEIPEL* WAYNE 0. E STEPHANIE P. RT. 8 BOX 408 WINCHESTER* VA. 22601 HASH* ROBERT A. C/O AMERICAN SECURITY BANK 730 15TH ST.* N.W. W01/479 WASHINGTON* O.C. 20005 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roger L. & Ruth McBride Rt. 8, Box 508 Winchester, Va. 22601 MCBRIDE* ROGER L. & RUTH 3. RT. 8 BOX 501 WINCHESTER* VA. 22601 JJJA ASSOCIATES 8700 ASHWOOD DR. CAPITOL HEIGHTS; MD. 20743 o ROBINSON* GUY B. C JEANNE 0. N N RT. 8 BOX 496 '0 N WINCHESTER* VA. 22601 4-1 • u� ro w GLATOWSKI* ALVIN L. +, �-4 , E JANICE MARIE KIRBY o RT. 8 BOX 493 v WINCHESTER * VA. 22601 O 3 MCCANN* HARRY L. 315 JEFFERSON STREET • �-4 o M .� WINCHESTER * VA. X Ln 3 22601 Robert W.-Watkins, Director Frederick County Dept. of Planning I, Manz K. CCax.a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Robert W. Watkins, Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated (�� to6eY // /M , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this -� day of oc-i-O4er , 1989. My commission expires on OTTRY PUBLI n U E r July 26, 1989 TO: THE APPLICANT and ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 RE: The Application Of: TOP OF VIRGINIA DEVELOP14ENT CORPORATION Rezoning Application #012-89 To: Rezone 211.04 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP Residential Performance). This property is located two miles northeast of Winchester, just north of VA. Rt. 7, located south and adjacent to VA. Rt. 661 and east and adjacent to I-81, in the Stonewall District. This rezoning application will be considered by the: Frederick County Planning Commission on August 2, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Frederick County Board of Supervisors on August 9, 1989 at 7:15 p.m. Both meetings will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, the Old Frederick County Court House, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, F 7 Robert W. Watkins Director RWW/rsa 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 r This is to certify that attached correspondence was �ed to the following on July 26, 1989 from the Department of Planning and Developa{E'nt, Frederick County, Virginia: MCBRIDE# RCGER L. G RUTH Be RT. 8 BOX 501 WINCHESTER, VA. Top of Va. Development Corp. 22601 P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Va. 22601 JJJA ASSOCIATES 8700 ASHWOOD OR. CAPITOL HEIGHTS, MD. DEVELOPMENT CO. OF AMERICA P.O. BOX 520 WESTMINISTER, MD. 21157 HUNTSBERRY, CHARLES WILLIAM 611 HANDLEY AVE. WINCHESTER, VA. 22601 HERRING, LCUIS R. E VERA J. RT. 8 BOX 455 WINCHESTER, VA. 22601 SEIPEL, WAYNE 0. STEPHANIE P. RT. 8 BOX 408 WINCHESTER* VA. 22601 NASH, ROBERT A. C/O AMERICAN SECURITY BANK 730 15TH ST., N.N. W81/479 WASHINGTON, D.C. 7onnc; Roger L. & Ruth McBride Route 8, Box 508 Winchester, Va. 22601 20743 ROBINSON, GUY Be G JEANNE 0. RT. 8 BOX 496 WINCHESTER, VA, 22601 Alvin L. Glatkowski & Janice Marie Kirby Rt. 8, Box 493 Winchester. Va. 22601 MCCANN, HARRY L. 315 JEFFERSON STREET WINCHESTER, VA. 22601 Robert W.'' Watkins, Director Frederick County Dept. of Planning STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNT OF FREDERICK I, �� , a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Robert W. Watkins, Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated , has personally appeared before me and acknow edge the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this day of , 1989. My commission expires on 3 -AW--,v at4�- NOTARY PUBLIC 2 COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 July 19, 1989 TO: THE APPLICANT and ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS RE: The Application Of: TOP OF VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Rezoning Application #012-89 To: Rezone 211.04 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP Residential Performance). This property is located two miles northeast of Winchester, just north of VA. Rt. 7, located south and adjacent to VA. Rt. 661 and east and adjacent to I-81, in the Stonewall District. This rezoning application will be considered by the: Frederick County Planning Commission on August 2, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Frederick County Board of Supervisors on August 9, 1989 at 7:15 p.m. Both meetings will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, the Old Frederick County Court House, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, Robert W. Watkins Director RWW/rsa 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 This is to certify to the attached correspondence w.iailed to the following on -July 19, 1989 from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: Top of Va. Development Corp. P.O. Boy: 3276 Winchester, Va. 22601 DEVELOPMENT CO. CF AMERICA P.C. BOX 520 WESTMINISTER• MD, 21157 HUNTSBERRY. CHARLES WILLIAM 611 HANDLEY AVE. WINCHESTER• VA. 22601 HERRINGi LOUI:S R. E VERA J. RT. 8 BOX 455 WINCHESTERs VA. SEIPELt WAYNE D. C STEPHANIE P. iRT. 8 BOX 408 WINCHESTER • VA. 22601 22601 NASH• ROBERT A. C/O AMERICAN SECURITY BANK 730 15TH ST.v N.W. WB1/479 WASHINGTON9 O•C• 20005 Roger L. & Ruth B. McBride Rt. 8, Box 508 Winchester, Va. 22601 MCBRIDEi ROGER RT. 8 BOX 501 WINCHESTER9 VA. JJJA ASSOCIATES 8700 ASHWOCD OR. CAPITOL HEIGHTS: L. E RUTH B. 22601 MD. 20 743 RCBINSON♦ GUY B. E JEANNE Co RT. 8 BOX 496 WINCHESTERv VA. ?2601 Alvin L. Glatkowski & Janice Marie Kirby Rt. 8, Box 493 Winchester, Va. 22601 MCCANN• HARRY L. 315 JEFFERSON STREET WINCHESTER, VA. 22601 Robert W. Watkins, Director Frederick County Dept. of Planning STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDEATCK I, 6% 7a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Robert W. Watkins, Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated (X,C '% ��f c , has personally appeared before Tue and acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this day of , 1989. My commission expires on G n.tt_'_' �t NOTARY PUBLIC RTE 661 ENTRANCE \ o CAN BE CLOSED WHEN {„o 0 POWER LINE r... --� CITY OF WINCHEST a 0 0 0 o a \ WAYNE D. SEIPEL 0 0 0 i o 0 0 o xn IWN T A. NASH ROBER INTERPARCEL CONNECTER POWER LI; rE :S ST17M ` c A� T T-1 STT TT u B Di �' I f PROPOSED USE ACREAGE UNIT DENSITY/ATOTAL CRE UNITS SINGLE FAMILY -URBAN 170 2.0 340 TOWNHOUSES 41 7. 280 ` TOTALS 211 3.6 Avg. 627 , � S .� k-T TT irl T 101.01"Ni LEGEND 'mmm • • — DEV AREA UK LOCAL COLLECTOR ROAD MINOR COLLECTOR ROAD MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD 1 OPEN SPACES, NATURAL BUFFERS, ! HISTORICAL SITES VA I ID M.10 0 c \ MAJOR COLLECTOR' _ 1 POSSIBLE FUTURE PARK BOUNDARY (by others) 1 LAST PORTION • • • TO DEVELOP — — T WALK -WAY STRIP - PARK AREA (by this development) POSSIBLE FUTURE PARK AREA (by other development) LARGER LOTS L, Lf Gb3 P i 2c Q AC POSSIBLE FUTURE -- COMMERCIAL (5 A`c) LOCAL COLLECTOR / 50' R/W \ L \� TM PARCEL 3 \\ 2-- ACn r` ` RAIL FENCE TO BE PLACED AROUND THE PEMMETER OF THE Pgkk% TEMP. ROAD CONNECTOR ltO \ —\\; Xic }. POSSIBLE FUTURE • • � - .111 1 - PARK BOUNDARY � µ � (by others) SSIBLE FUTURE COMMERCIAL (5 Ac)� LARGER LOTS ADJACE l �+FCFr,r TO PARK AREA DR 6W P^56B Id 10 Af.11f 1 i, MAJOR COLLECTOR 1 80' R/W y_SCd.b Gb3 P 61 `_ 1 �• i7[41 AGR *4P ZONED POSSIBLE FUTURE ; PARK BOUNDARY (by others) O LAST PORTION • • • TO DEVELOP 8' WALK -WAY STRIP , PARK AREA (by this development) POSSIBLE FUTURE PARK AREA (by other development) LARGER LOTS • +r Flw . . • . '. k, Gr �'; �. a ,Iy ,; '•� :• �' WW �. OEM ti 4 �j pd; AS • ar ��,,,,,� \ p Aw f"' •�v :'+ter j - , t� nip, ' •�lil��451 I •�� , . � •+,. � 1 i �� ��r/��''t �r.. �•i�:� III` op 49 ���i►'�'�� � �" � ,RE /�� ��� `*��"�' -tom • IF • .� dwV 6h': MAJOR COLLECTOR ,M:r. 30• R/W •1/•U�F.0 POSSIBLE FUTURE PARK BOUNDARY (by others) O�y i r � •� AREA "B" o. oa*r LAST PORTION f ... TO DEVELOP 8' WALK -WAY STRIP f/ PARK AREA (by this development) POSSIBLE FUTURE PARK AREA (by other development) LARGER LOTS 1 \ MAJOR COLLECTOR +� ao' Rnry \r zx� 8 P G, POSSIBLE FUTURE PARK BOUNDARY (by others) T4l r AREA" LAST PORTION • • • TO DEVELOP — — — 8' WALK -WAY STRIP y r� 9c PARK AREA or (by this development) POSSIBLE FUTURE PARK AREA ;by other development) 4RGER LOTS (6 (0 APPLICATION FOR REZONING FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Zoning Amendment No. 012- N Submittal Deadline is ApplicatDate: 6/29/89 P/C Meeting: Fee Paidion(o;7(D.!= 4 B/O/S Meeting: 1. APPLICANT (The applicant is the owner XX other (check one) NAME: Top of Va Development Corporation ADDRESS: P.O. Box 3276 Winchester. Va 22601 TELEPHONE:(703) 667-2120, 2. Please list all owners of the property or parties in interest: RED BUD ASSOCIATES 3. The property sought to be rezoned is located at (please give exact directions) 2 miles Northeast of Winchester just north of Va.Rte 7 Located south & adjacent to Va Rte. 661 and East & Adlacent to U.S. Interstate 81. 4. The proper Fobe f ntage of 200 feet and a depth of -- feet and consists o res. (Please be exact) 5. The propertyrezoned is owned by Red Bud Associates as evidenced by deed from James V.L. Kiser. et ux as recorded in deed book no.L31 on page Al2, registry of the County of Frederick. 6. 21-Digit Property Indentification No:54000-A00-0000-0000-00880 Magisterial District:STONEWALL 7. It is requested that the property be rezoned from A---Z to RP. 8. It is proposed that the property will be put to the following use: Single Family & Multi -Family 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: Housing as allowed by Rp Ordinance. • 0 764 FO �v vl.• W' I bM bD x/ pry txirti CT—�r� ' 00 oO a 9 F A ✓� ` e.. ''N'ER,- NGE b� IV 665 6S2 �' � •� �' � �E/�/yam ` • 2y ., \t. -� '�� '�•' �� ��_ POW a le Ar ,/ •• •\ �,. ._ _ IreLI '/. f\LE 9 ..Clay 60 L,►�' INTER &1_ 7• •• , �• J ;` / BOA - F••• j : , i to Tra LR wa;r714'yr \ ; �, ete•, ' L °x Wes. " 7 "� 1,yw•i M.r an 4•• ' • •'ri 1 ` _ ' t•1 O .'Qm 8 \. 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 rezoned. (Use additional pages if necessary). These people will be notified by mail of this application. (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 21-DIGIT NUMBER) ,,-Name: Development of America Co. Address: P.O. Box 520 Westminister, MD 21157 Property I.D.## 54000-A00-0000-0000-0099F ,,-'Name: Charles William Huntsberry Address: 611 Handley Ave. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.## 55000-A00-0000-0000-00030 Name: Charles William Huntsberry Address: 611 Handley Ave. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.## 55000-A00-0000-0000-00040 /Name: Louis R. & Vera J. Herring Address: Rt.8,Box 455 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.## 55000-A00-0000-0000-00050 c./Name: Wayne D. & Stephanie P. Siepel Address: Rt. 8.Box 408. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.## 55000-A00-0000-0000-00180 Name: Wayne D. & Stephanie P. Siepel Address: Rt. 8.Box 408. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.## 55000-A00-0000-0000-00190 Name: Wayne D. & Stephanie P. Siepel Address: Rt. 8.Box 408. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.## 55000-A00-0000-0000-00200 Name: Wayne D. & Stephanie P. Siepel Address: Rt. 8.Box 408. Winchester, Va 22601 • Property I.D.## 55000-A00-0000-0000-00210 Name: Robert A. Nash Address: c/o American Security Bank 730 15th St.,N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Property I.D.## 55000-A00-0000-0000-00220 Name: Roger L. & Ruth B. McBride Address: Rt. 8.Box 508 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.## 43000-A00-0000-0000-01570 `Name: JJJA Associates Address: c/o Driggs Corp. 8700 Ashwood Drive Capitol Heights, MD 20743 Property I.D.## 54000-A00-0000-0000-00870 Name: Guy B. & Jeanne A. Robinson Address: Rt. 8.Box 496 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.## 43000-A00-0000-0000-01590 Name: Alvin L. Glatkowski & Janice Marle Kirby Address: Rt. 8.Box 493 Winchester, Va 22601 . Property I.D.## 43000-A00-0000-0000-0159A Name: Harry L. McCann Address: 315 Jefferson St. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.## 43000-A00-0000-0000-01580 11. Additional comments, if any I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of the Frederick County, Virginia, with the above facts as support of this appllication. f � Signature of Applicant: Ila- Signature of Owner. c,.e e,"c� �// •Owners' Mailing Adress: 5-3o l✓l,; X<Crc 514.� Owners' Telephone No: Y1G 7_ SdC i/ C t , 10 ACRES .- MAJOR COLLECTOR +i'► ` `` �� ♦ t\ 80' R/W ti t J.l,;l. i. A$SGCIn t Q 0 663-P 67 • / 12c 43 AG �- .1L POSSIBLE FUTURE 1' PARK BOUNDARY (by others) 1 -j c LAST PORTION ... TO DEVELOP —' — 8' WALK -WAY STRIP PARK AREA (by this development) POSSIBLE FUTURE PARK AREA (by other development) LARGER LOTS X, r/, L'' t . 157 b b I ,( a IDE I ' �1 \ TM PARCEL 87 JJJA 8 ASSOCIXTZIs-- . D B 663-P t74 124 43 AC m ZONED ~\� 1 lJ. TOTA .L \ _ PIIOPOSED USE _ ♦ ACREAGE UNIT DENSITY/ACRE UNITS y�P` — -�\ ♦ SINGLE FAMILY - URBAN 170 2.8 476 \\ —�♦ TOW'JHOUSES 41 ?•0 280 \\ ♦ lI TOTALS 211 -- 3.6 Avg 756 Pl orect Alea -V.. 1M PARCEL 3 � �-- (,11ARLFS WILLIA-AI . UNTSRE RY DR 74P 124 ACREui S cn iL \ Il DAPARCEL 5 r1 -\ \ LOUIS R. HERRING We V 50 as ACRES ZFiAALFS LI Dt23 AGpeS �_ `.. - �T'✓ / � /f RCEL 18,19. 0.21 IPEL • 39 -P. OS ,�r� ✓ 1 I�,.. I �—` 662 14 Q i � TM PARrEI 27 RC.ENCY LAKES AS50CIA; LS I \ ' k Q/� 1 • D8608P56a z_',zNc ZONED: \111-1 I)4TL l.IAY '. lyR (If Clil I " sc411