The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About008-77 Fort Collier Industr'l Estates - M-1 - Stonewall - Backfile (2)may.► f�, L,% •� w.e c.c.c�. .P.c . rF &x raw �ifr! 4o2i 9� 1. 2. 3. 4. S.U.M.M.< Number Conditional Use Permit. -sue Site Plan 666--14 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Submittal Date Applicant & Tel 46 S-73vo. Mailing Address 5. Contact & Tel #.1' Mailing Address 6. Type and/or Use 7. Additions and/or New Construction 8. ZONING Classification of Area 9. ZAN/ZMAP Reference # 10. Misc. Reference #s (CUP/SP) 11. LOCATION Adjoining Property Uses Total Acreage REVIEW COMMENTS & APPROVALS: Health Highway Utilities Misc. MISCELLANEOUS ' L�-. .~ . -~ CWB 711 21/2 ?Ourc 71.9 7o 'i;'I IL C 7 LOr,?2 _x 7� 9.5 AC. LOT 24 699 L AC. 23Y 75 3 ve 4 L r Y LOT32 14.2 AC A-1C Z Or. 711702 , ci i 7G . ,^• y i i MOFFFTT 70-9 _�- - ' J i ! 5 Ace', I LOT ,?2 73 f 6,9 6q 710. _ ,8.3 AC. L O T �2/ F 5 AC. LOT 20 \�� \ 0/1 ) J� ✓ :ice - \ x 6.9,9 'j \ \, LOT 30 LOT 3/ /l.6AC 6R3 r,sz r R3 699 20 AC. Lj C3 it - 4orIg I D 7' AC. Ex MN or 5 AC 402 679 Is (P. ---------------- \ \I -7 7 A , 7� LOT 4 5 AC 4.1 C, 07 O�-- -77 G4S (0 0 I 441 1 1p fn 008, - `7 7 I-OT7 5.5 AC. I N, I 4 - G93 l r \ 11/ 5 5 AC. ; 407- ,1 LOr 5.54': 5 5A /2.5, AC. \ t 1 i LA J i . AC \ Or 1 15 •4C t , IN loll � � i � _ gar.. i4��-- •� � j � %w� ftJ.Pl COG,G/E.Q /it/G�r/.S7.P/.4�, ESTATES I/ i � � STt�.t/EL</,•lLL O/ �6/tl% �GL.P/GE CGY/�/Y ' Areberick C.ouni U epartment of Manning Mitt P6vInunient H. RONALD BFRG P. O. BOX 601 PLANNING DIRLCTOR 9 COURT SQUARE REVIEW and CO�L`1E1dT EVALUATION DOROT112A L. STEFEN WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 ZONIN, ADMINISTRATOR (To Items 1, 2, 3) 1 /X3/ Frederick County Dept. of Public Works ATTN Thomas Maccubbin 2 }/Y/ VA. Department of Highways and Transportation., ATTN Reginald C. King, 3 / / ATTN 4 / / REZONING / / SITE PLAN / / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT hLV SUBDIVISION 5 / / ENCLOSURES Fort Collier Industrial Park 6 PROPERTY OWNERS 7 Representative(s) 8 .....advised by copy of this form of responsibility to contact above -checked office(s) concerning this application as soon as possible. 9 .....advised by copy of this form that above -described office(s) have been requested to submit a review comment. 10 PROPERTY LOCATION Stonewall District 11 PROPOSED USE 12 TOTAL ACREAGE 13 Your REVIEW COMMENTS would be appreciated no later than as soon as possible 19 1 14 BY H. Ronald Berg DATE February 27, 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15 For your REVIEW COMMENTS: We must have contours showing both on and off site drainage before our Design Section will accent this plan for review. 16 For your SIGNATURE 3/662-4532 DATE March 13, 1978 _Areberich 19onn#v Pryar#men# of ]Jnblic Works STAN PANGLE, JR. P. O. Box 601 DIRECTOR 9 COURT SQUARE M E M O R A N D U M WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 TO: John Riley, Planning Director Q 1` FROM: Stan Pangle I SUBJECT: Fort Collier Industrial Park Access Road Bond Estimate DATE: 6 June, 1980 John: As per your request, I've done a bond estimate on the Fort Collier access road. This includes the road -way that Mr. Stine will be requesting for industrial access funds. Clearing and Grubbing $4,000.00 Storm Sewer 2,750.00 Road -bed and Road -way 41,000.00 Construction Total Estimated Bond $47,750.00 If we can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call. X Stan 703 - 662-8671 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION 1550 Ccmmerce Street May 28, 1480 Winchester, VA. 22601 &e: Fort Collier Road Frederick County STiivE Mr. ii. Bruce Edens Greenway Engineering Co. P. 0. Box 666 Winchester, VA. 22601 Dear Mr. Mons: We are returning one copy of the plans for Fort Collier Road. The plans appear satisfactory as designed with the exception of a special design ditch required along the north side of Fort Collier Road as noted on the plans. We are attaching a copy of the Winchester quadrangle showing a revision to the drainage area, the 48" culvert shown is adequate. After the soil tests are complete we can advise the pavement design. If there are any questions, please advise. Sincerely yours, W. R. Bushman Resident Engineer Bys R. C. King Aset. Resident Enginoer RCK/ jaq Copy: Mr. W. F. McCormick Mr. I. Fred Stine, Jr. for . John R . 1 11ey May 28, 1980 Mr. Janes 'White Frederick County Administrator Frederick County Board of :supervisors 9 Court Square Winchester, Va. 22601 Dear 1 r. White: This letter resubmits an earlier request to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to endorse application for Industrial -Road Access Funds. The roadway extension runs from the existing roadway (Brooke Road), entering Ron McDole, Inc. to a point servicing the eastern boundary of a lot containing Harris Intertype. My earlier request (I. Fred Stine letter dated 1/27/79) included a letter from Mr.Donald Neale describing the Intertype manufacturing operation. A plat and engineering profile (dated 2/14/78) of the proposed extension is enclosed. In conjunction with the request for roadway to service Harris Intertype, we also submit a request for an additional extension to serve the eastern boundary of the Northwestern Workshop. The Workshop is now operational and ;.rovides manufacturing services to the area. This extension is defined by plan and profile prepared by Greenway -Engineering, enclosed. This extension is contained within the red lines and approxi- mates 600 feet. A letter will be requested from 'Northwestern Workshop describing their operation and can be included With the documents required by the Virginia Mate Highway Department. Based upon Fort Collier's acquisition of rights -of -way for a second entrance to the Industrial Park and a planned construction schedule for installation of a second entrance road, we request recon- sideration by the Board for their endorsement of this application. Very truly yours, FORT COLLIER IMDUSTRIAL ESTAT7 /dvw I. Fred no) Jr. F.ns. General Manager oos,,,4ohn Riley G/S�G39- 0 Eli u Fort Collier Industrial Estates, P.O. Box 440, Winchester, Virginia 22601 • 703 E T'lay 5, 1980 Ns. Janes White Frederick County Administrator Frederick County Board of Supervisors 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear I,ir.White: (.Z� '' cc: John Riley On January 27, 1979 a letter to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was transmitted Prom Fort Collier which requested the Board's endorsement of application for Industrial Access Road Funding. This was to serve the Harris Intertype facility and extend roadway from Brooke Drive to the eastern bount~:y of Lot No. 5. The Board has to date refused this endorsement and per letter :af Jul; 12, J.979 "conditioned the approval for industrial access funds upon the second means of access ---". Since that date, Fort Collier has endeavored +-,) reek clearance of a second access to the park. This has baec delayed unti_i. property providing for this access was acquired and arrangements ti:orkeri out witi: an abutting developer for rights of way leading from the Fort Collier rop----ty line to the Baker lane extension joining at the Winches ter-i� eft -rick County I can report that an agreement has been reached for rights of :ray as .?escribed. above, providing for a second access to the industrial park. In adM-t:ion, survey and engineeAng of the second access road has been completed and documentation submitted to the Virginia State Department of Highways for their approval. I would appreciate maeting with the Board of Supervisors at the r.,eting seheduled for Fay 14, 1980 to review road construction plans and to request the Board's consideration of the following: 1. Endorsement of Fort Collier's request for industrial access funds to construct a roadway fron Brooke Drive to the eastern boundry of Lot 5 selwing Harris Intertype. 2. A means for site plan approval that will enable the continuation of development consistent with the appropriate construction of roadway to ;verve new industry for Frederick County. I will plan to provide the Board with a full report on the activities concerning the nark. Please confirm that the proposed date is satisfactory. Very Truly Yours, _ FORT COLLIER INDIETRIAL ESTATc.S r . ti c �-J Our symbol Is inspired by the osny military bock]M from loth sides In the Wsr Between the Strata tha a hate untarered on our historic land. ?, 1^f JOHN L HARWOOD, COMMISSIONER LEONARD R HALL. BRISTOL, BRISTOL DISTRICT HOHACE G. FRAL IN. ROANOKE, SALEM DISTRICT THOMAS R. GLASS, LYNCHBURG, LYNCHBURG DISTRICT MORRIE L M. CROWE. RICHMOND, RICHMOND DISTRICT WILLIAM T. ROOS, YORKTOWN, SUFFOLK DISTRICT WILLIAM T ROBINSON, WEST POINT. FREDERICK.SBURG DISTRIC7- RALPH A. BELTON. FALLS CHURCH, CULPEPER DISTRICT ROBERTS L ANDES. STAUNTON..STA UNTON DISTRICT T. RAY HASSELL. III, CHESAPEAKE, AT LARGE URBAN CHARLES & HOOPER, JR,. CREWE, AT LARGE -RURAL COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 March 29, 1978 Mr. H. Ronald Berg Planning Director 9 Court Square Winchester, Va. 22601 Dear Mr. Berg: LEO E. BUSSER, III DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINFFH T. ASHBY NEWBY DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION J. M. WRAY, JR. DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS J. P. ROYER. JR. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING P. B. COLDIRON DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING H. R. PERKINSON, JR. DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO P. 0. Box 443 Winchester, Va. 22601 Your letter of March 17, 1978 concerning Baker Lane has been discussed within this Department. It is the consensus that the original service of this road was the Lockhart farm which we believe was only one dwelling. Several years ago the trailer park was developed on this farm and in our opinion this would have to be considered a subdivision road and could not qualify as a rural addition. The section of Baker Lane within the Winchester Corporate Limits, we are told,is being developed as a subdivision'street. This street is to be built by the City with Mr. J. P. Darlington bearing the cost or a great portion of it. Industrial access funds could possibly be used to provide access to a new manufactoring or processing plant, should one locate in this area, how- ever, all of the or concerning an Industrial access request must be carefully evaluated by the Governor's Division of Industrial Development and the Highway and Transportation Commission before decisions are made as to whether or not a project will qualify. If there are any questions, please advise. RCK/jag Sincerely yours, John W. Chiles, Jr. Resident Engineer By: C. Kin Asst. Resident ngineer TRANSPORTATION - AMERICA'S LIFELINES RECEIVED ,;,, I ;--iik 1978 � vvnv� Tity of Pinr4cster, Virginia v March 24, 1978 Mr. H. Ronald Berg Planning Director Frederick County 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Ron: ROU59 CITY HALL 22601 The Winchester City Planning Commission, at their March 23, 1978 meeting, discussed the proposed access from the Stine Industrial Park to Baker Lane. The Commission does approve the concept of access to Baker Lane, and unanimously voted to reaffirm their comments on access to Baker Lane that were made at the October 27, 1977 meeting. Those comments are as follows: "The use of the proposed right-of-way to the east should be encouraged. This could eventually connect to Baker Lane, and could be a controlled access collector street, thereby limiting traffic conflicts. This would allow a much better traffic flow to the east, which would not encroach upon existing residential neighborhoods in the City." The Commission appreciates the cooperation in this matter shown by the County Planning Commission and Mr. Stine. RTN:bpm cc: Mr. Wendell L. Seldon City Manager a /�C/- ��Cz, A/ faGrru�n �rnan Sincerely, 4004 Reed T. Nester Director of Planning `T4C �kpvle Tapital" RECEIVED 2 4 1978 �rP�rritl2 �� QU1Itti B1:partnuilt of 14-1111ti1118 zlrt) lrnellipIII rift H. RONALD BERG PLANNING DIR r-crOR P. 0. Box 601 DOROTHEA L. STEFEN 9 COURT SQUARE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WINCHESTFR, VIRGWA 22601 March 21, 1978 Mr. Seymour J. Barr Shenandoah Brick and Tile P. 0. Box 32 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Barr: Thank you for coming to my office and casting some light on the status of the right-of-way owned by or leased to Shenandoah Brick and Tile. As I understand our discussion, the twenty-five (25) feet of right-of-way from Smithfield Avenue to the Stine property is in your opinion an access ease- ment, NOT a right-of-way, granted to Stine. This being the case, the fence that surrounds the twenty-five (25) feet will not be removed to open the easement to vehicle traffic. It was also my understanding, that the roadbed from your plant east to Baker Lane is the property of Shenandoah Brick and Tile until it reaches the Dunlap Estate (now Darlington) property. The right-of-way access to the Dunlap Estate, you said, is leased to Shenandoah Brick and Tile. Finally, you said that Baker Lane itself is the property of Shenandoah Brick and Tile and that Lockhart is permitted right-of-way by an agreement. I would appreciate your reaction to my understanding and any corrections that should be made where I have misunderstood the situation. :Most particularly I would appreciate your reaction to the ultimate effect of this information being that access to the Stine Industrial Park must be negotiated with Shenandoah Brick and Tile to gain their approval. Thank you for your help and assistance with this matter, I look forward to your reply. Sincerely yours, COUNTY OF FRLDFRICK, VIRGINIA H. Ronald Berg Planning and Development Director 11RB: b t r cc: J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator 703 �6sz-4532 Arr-berith 1, uuittg_ ryartment Of 131attnittg aub Lbrluyment H. PON ALE) BERG PLANNING D;aEcrOR P. 0. 13OX 601 DOROT4-A L. ST£FFEN 9 COURT SQUARE ZONING A0.mlw-TRATOA March 17, 1978 WMCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22607 Mr. Reginald C. King Va. Dept. of Highways & Transportation P. 0. Box 443 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. King: The questions have been raised concerning Baker Lane as to how that roadway could be taken into the State system and once in the system what improvements would be made. Would you please advise me what procedure is involved in having Baker Lane taken into the system and whether or not industrial access funds could be used to improve the roadway before or after dedication. Would you also advise me as to the types of improvements the Highway Department might be expected to make if Baker Lane was taken into the system as a rural addition. Thank you for your help in providing these answers to our questions. Sincerely yours, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA H. Ronald Berg Planning Director HRB:btr cc: J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator �F,rr tlerich Q1 otttttu Dcparttit ettt of Tal'III Ili II_q clITl .B!'f 01LIUIuClTt H. RONALD BERG PLANNING DIRECTOR DOROTHEA L. STEFFN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR March 16, 1978 Reed T. Nester City Planning Director Rouss City Hall Room 210 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Reed: P. O. Box 601 9 COURT SQUARE WINCHESTFR. VIRGINIA 22601 The Planning Commission and Fred Stine, Jr. met and toured his industrial park and viewed the alternatives for providing additional access. Mr. Stine has commitments to obtain sixty (60) feet of right- of-way from his property line to Baker Lane to provide a substitute for the Smithfield Avenue proposal that was rejected. Before making final commitments, he would like to have the Winchester Planning Commission discuss and approve the concept of access from Baker Lane. Would you discuss this proposal with your Commission and give me their reaction so that our planning may proceed. If you need more information, please contact me and I will get you a copy of the preliminary master plan. Sincerely yours, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA H. Ronald Berg Planning Director HRB:btr cc: J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator 703/662-- 532 Fok 7- L O G z-, ,�.Qi9/P✓/qv � !�i4L . o r-'-'d�(/rvt �h �CG�CS S �d' {D O g e D = Z� .: • J�� 3q0 = 7�SGoo �.poo ioc9 = Z7/oo� /?Oct i3o = ZB?�o0 /oZ0 go Gov SS$ � 7¢j2S0 / s S8.9So Z o Z tic / U'0O = 7/• �f' —� �. � / _ �l � . 8 ri ra • .� 4 S .r �O F i� w sa. > - �/ �� Q✓n TO :�� is = v ..+ • _ 2 - 48 " ,PC r� - s // _ THY G=GO SO a.Z = 3•5 Fort Collier Industrial Estates, P.O. Box 440, Winchester, Virginia 22601 . 703 662-2946 Piarch 4, _976 Mr. H. Ronald Berg Planning Director Frederick County Department of_'lanring and Dev lopment U. Boy 601 T•iinchester, Virginia 22601 Dear .'.r. Berg: This replies to your letter of February 27, 1978. As a result of recent discussions held with -lanning, Directors of both the County and City, State Highway Department and County official:, there has been a rene.;al of activity to develop additional acres:: to Fort Collier Industrial ,states. New parties have been a,pro.-.ched to seriously discuss access roadway. These concern r>ore than -)ne location and will determine more defiidtely the feasibility and potential of new roadwa;7 access. As I have stated before, it is not a short term form of negotiation. There are c nsiderations that have to be -iven to the ec nomics as well as to the practicality of committing to new and additional access crithout fully knowing industry requirements. On this basis I am requesting the .fanning :ommission to consider the follo,,-ing course of -;;tion: 1. That a meet -in,; be arranged where I could meet. witi, the Planning commission to discuss alternatives and if satisfaction given to the -.embers at that time that they ec-:nsidor their action of February 15 to enable the developncnt to proceed on an orde_-ly basis. Becauce of the confidentiality of access negotiations, I am further r Guesting th�-.t I meet on an informal basis with the commission so that a full and corPlete understanding of all the issues involved b-- presented. 2. On an informal bais, preferably in executive session, I would a preciate the Planning :'orrdssion's recommendation of what they con:--ider to be the most pref,.rable additional next major access to the -ark, I. E. locations from Rte. 11 or from s,me point in the Southeast Sector of the property. 3. A consensus .'rom the Commission be obtained that if access were acquired in a given area, that appr,,. riate zoning, if needed w-.luld be approved; t�'.at they would ensure that the ""i.ty of Winchester would have no ob j'2ction to an eventual connection to an,, streets affected under City ,luris,liction, if such access required this. V Our symbol is inspired by the many military buckles, from both sides in the War Between the States, that we have uncovered on our historic land. Fort Collier Industrial Estates, P.O. Box 440, Winchester Virginia 22601 • 703 662-2946 ,'e hope to achieve the understanding that Fort Collier would periodically re?.,ort progress leading toward definite acquisition, but that the issue would be left open, therefore proliding and placing the burden of a timely acquisition upon Fort Collier. If it is possible for the lanning Cormission to accomodate the above reaue:t, I can plan to meet VAth them prior to their next regularly scheduled meeting of March lr, 197" . 'rerhars if the we:_ ther permits, we can arrange to visit the Park location where I can describe the current develo ment and site plans underway on a firsthand basis. I look forward to your relly. Vcry Truly Yours, FORT CO I , I ._jj-'RIAL 11STrTES I. Tr Cone, Jr.� Tre rr Our symbol is Inspired by the many military buckles, from both sides In the War Between the States. that we have uncovered on our hiswric land. ,�rP�Ertt�t �IILlttt�l Department of Planning atta Def etopment H. RONALD BERG PLANNING DIRECTOR P. 0. BOX 601 L.9 COURT SQUARE DONING A IN SRATOR WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR m e m o r a n d u m February 7, 1978 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: H. Ronald Berg, Secretary, Planning Commission SUBJECT: Stine Industrial Park I met with Mr. Stine, R. C. King, and Reed Nester on February 2, to discuss the Stine Industrial Park. Very little new came from this meeting and Mr. Stine agreed that little could be accomplished with the Commission on February 15. Mr. Stine would like, instead, to represent the request for subdivision when it comes before the Commission and discuss his plans at that time. 7031662-4532 Fort Collier Industrial Estates, P.O. Box 440, Winchester, Virginia 22601 . 703 662-2946 January 26, 1976 Mr. h. Ronald Berg Planning Director Frederick County ]'-epartment of Planning and Development 9 Court Square - P.O. ^ox_ 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear I.7r. "erg: shank you for your letters of January; 18 and 23. I have been traveling considerably in the past several weeks so I just received these and I am replying to you while in 1rinchester today. I would al preciate meeting with you, _,r. fang anc Mr. :`:ester on "February 2, 1978. In order for this to be an informative and productive meeting, will '.r. Ling and/or -'r. nester be prepared to discuss future state, city and county roads that are now or will be affecting access to our Industrial :'ark? I would certainly be interested in knowing of any future plans concerned with by-passing or better accessing the cit-T of ?,7 nchester. I will make it a point to call your office - prior to W ebrua.ry 2 and twill tentatively plan to meet with you in your office on the date suggested. In regard to the request from the I'lanning Co, u=. I ssion, I look forward to further reviewing our development. I .-could like, however, to defer this until Februar7 15 in order to have the benefit of a plai.ning meeting with � ou, '`r. 4ester and __r. King prior. rig- travel schedule is somewhat uncertain and if there are any changes I ;rill notify you in auva ce. firer-y truly �r ,rs, FOI�.T COLLI7A", S ikTES LFSjr:ml I, Jr r cc: Eds 0olenan Our symbol Is inspired by the many military buckles, from both sides in the War Between the States, that we hove uncovered on our historic hod. _�I>r'LiPlIC�2 �.;IILttttt? RepaCttttettt of P` jc' aiming aub DefIeloplitPltt H. RONALD BERG PLANNING DIRECTOR DOROTHEA L. STEFEN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Mr. Fred Stine, Jr. 1729 Christmas Drive Morristown, Tennessee 37814 Mr. Fred Stine, Jr. John Marshall Hotel 5th and Franklin Richmond, Virginia Dear Mr. Stine: January 23, 1978 P. O. Box 601 9 COURT SQUARE WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 The Frederick County Planning Commission has reviewed the alternative roadway plan presented to the Board of Supervisors on January 11, 1978. The Commission expressed great concern that time and money might be expended on a plan that will not meet the long term goal of providing access to your industrial park. By unanimous vote the Commission resolved: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby request that a meeting be held with Mr. Stine at the first meeting in February (February 1, 1978) and that the Commission members go view the industrial park with Mr. Stine preceeding the meeting. If the February 1st meeting is not convenient then it was suggested that he meet on February 15th with the Commission. Please let me know if you will be able to meet with the Commission so that sufficient time may be scheduled on their agenda. Sincerely yours, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA -J7 gg't_� Ronald Berg Planning Director HRB:btr CC: J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator H. Edmunds Coleman, III, attorney H. RONALD BERG PLANNING DIRECTOR DOROTHEA L. SrEFEN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Arrberich LQ1ItitU iDepartrand Of jilazitiing atib efrelapment January 18, 1978 Mr. Fred Stine, Jr. Ft. Collier Industrial Estates P. 0. Box 440 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Stine: P. O. Box 601 9 COURT SQUARE WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 In December, you requested a meeting with Mr. King of the Highway Department and Reed Nester to discuss the entrances to your industrial park. I have arranged with Mr. King and Mr. Nester to meet at 4:00 PM on February 2, 1978. If that time is not agreeable or you do not wish to meet, will you please contact me so I can cancel the appointment. Sincerely yours, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA H. Ronald Berg Planning Director HRB:btr CC: J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator 703/682-4532 �� H. RONALD BERG PLANNING DIRECTOR DOROTHEA L. STEFEN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR , IIrrbErick �lIIltIttt? epartinrut of T'itaniting allb :aPfIduptiletit December 22, 1977 Mr. Fred Stine Fort Collier Industrial Estates P. 0. Box 440 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Stine: P. O. Box 601 9 COURT SQUARE WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 As you know from your discussions and corresi,ondence with Mr. Coleman, the Planning Commission is having a difficult time with the site plan for Dawson Investments. I understand that you will be in Winchester and I feel that it would be very beneficial if you and I could meet and reopen the communication we began last August. I believe that we are all still attempting to accomplish the same end and we need to resume our discussion. Sincerely, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA H. Ronald Berg Planning Director HRB:btr CC: J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator H. Edmunds Coleman, III 703/662-4532 LAW OFFICES KUYKENDALL, WHITING, COSTELLO & HANES POST OFFICE BOX 2760 POST OFFICE BOX 678 20 SOUTH CAMERON STREET KING AND CORNWALL STREETS WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 703-667-4640 703-777-5700 703-471 -9800 J. SLOAN KUYKENDALL HENRY H. WHITING LEWIS M. COSTELLO DAVID J. ANDRE THOMAS M, DICKINSON. JR. GEORGE W. JOHNSTON.7Q DOUGLAS A. GREENLEE J. E. WETSEL, JR. DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN H. EDMUNDS COLEMAN. $ J. SLOAN KUYKENDALL.Jn Mr. Ronald Berg Zoning Administrator Frederick County P.O. Box 601 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 September 1, 1977 Re: Fort Collier Access File No. 16,402 Dear Ron: STILSON H. HALL COUNSEL WILLIAM B. HANES ROBERT E. SEVILA RICHARD R. SAUNDERS, JR. (PLEASE REPLY TO WINCHESTER OFFICE) I have discussed the right of way leading to Smithfield Avenue with Gary Pearson of this office, and can report to you as follows: (1) It is our opinion that Fort Collier does have a 45 foot opposed right of way out to Smithfield Avenue; (2) This 45 foot easement is composed of two separate easements; a 20 foot and a 25 foot easement. The 20 foot easement was created by an instrument dated July 3, 1958, and of record in the Frederick County Clerk's office in Deed book 253, at page 187; this easement is next to the brick company. The 25 foot easement was created by an instrument dated February 7, 1966, and of record in the Clerk's office in Deed book 319, at page 342. This is the Humble Oil easement. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, H. Edmunds Coleman, III HEC/kwb cc: Mr. Fred Stine, Jr. Fort Collier Industrial Estates, P.O. Box 440, Winchester, Virginia 22601 - 703 662-2946 August 24,1977 Mr. Ronald Berg Frederick County Dept. of Planning and Dev. 9 Court S,;uare Winchester, Virginia, 22601 Dear Ron: This follows up my letter to you of August 15, 1977 which delt with access road planning for Fort Collier Industrial Estates. It is suggested that in order to discuss these plans in greater detail and to inform the various parties concerned, that a meeting be convened in Winchester at the earliest possible date. I can be available the end of next week, September 1 or 2 if convenient with others involved. I would recommend that this first meeting be handled on an informal basis and include you and your counterpart from the City of Winchester and Mr. Chiles from the State Highway Department. Following these discussions, I think we can descide appropriate steps to be taken after this first meeting. When you receive this letter please give me a call in Weston, Mass: 617-899-1962 and we can then finalize some plans. Sincerely, FORT CQ1J+LR INDUSTRIAL ESTATES f I I. Fred Stine, Jr. 41 Our symbol is Inspired by the many military buckles, from both sides in the War Between the States, that we have uncovered on our historic land. RECEI','r FORT COLLIER INDUSTRIAL. ESTATES P.O. Box 440 Winchester, Virginia 22601 SCHEDULE B PLANNING STANDARDS The Developers, FORT COLLIER FARMS, INC., have adopted a set of Plan- ning Standards, for this industrial park, the purposes of which are as follows: - a - To insure proper use and appropriate development and improvement of each building site; b - Protect the owners of building sites against any use which may de- preciate the value of their property; c - Guard against the erection thereon of structures built of improper or unsuitable materials; d - Encourage erection of properly located, attractive improvements in the park; e - Prevent haphazard and inharmonious improvement of building sites; f - Secure and maintain proper setbacks from streets and to provide adequate free space between structures; g - Provide ample uncongested space and circulation for all property Owners or Lessees; and h - Provide maximum flexibility for expansion, changes in use, and adaptation for property Owners or Lessees. The following standards are to be used by architects, engineers and builders when preparing plans for buildings to he located within the industrial park; however, nothing, below is to be construed as allowing exceptions to any local, county, state or federal statute, law or ordi- nance:- a - WOOD BUILDINGS No building shall be constructed of wood frame or wood exterior. b - EXTERIOR BUILDING & MATERIALS All exterior walls shall be finished with face brick, its equivalent or better, except that buildings may have walls without such facing, provided that same are for future expansion purposes. However, other exterior materials may be permitted if, in the opin- ion of the Developer, such materials are esthetically and durably compatible with those already in use throughout the park. Exterior materials definitely not permitted in the industrial park are concrete block, corrugated sid- ing, unless used in a limited way as a "design fea- ture" or as an expansion wall. Expansion walls build of concrete block shall be painted and main- tained. c - OUTSIDE STORAGE Outside storage of materials is permitted, provided that stored materials are screened from public view in a manner satisfactory to the Developer d - EXTERIOR LIGHTING All exterior lighting shall be installed with con- cealed wiring. e - PARKING No vehicular parking what -so -ever will be permitted on any street within the park. Limited front yard parking from the street to the building will be pro- hibited except for visitor and executive parking be- yond the setback requirements. There shall be main- tained on each site facilities for parking, materials loading and unloading sufficient to serve the business conducted therein without using adjacent streets. All driveways and off-street parking areas shall be paved in accordance with requirements of the township. f - TRUCK DOCKS No loading docks shall be permitted to front or face on any streets within the park except that same may be per- mitted provided such loading docks are limited in number and conform with the esthetic harmony of the park. All truck docks shall be so situated in order that no trucks while loading or unloading will project into a required side yard or rear yard area unless a screened buffer area is provided for. -2- LANDSCAPING The front yard area from the road to the building not covered by walks, parking areas, planted areas, trees, etc., shall be seeded with grass and maintained as a green area. All other areas not covered by construc- tion shall be properly landscaped and/or stabilized to maintain a dust free surface. All grass shall be cut to a 4 inch maximum. h - UNIFORM SIGN STANDARDS No flashing, blinking, sequential, intermittent or mov- ing signs or lights shall be permitted within the park. Each site shall be permitted one (1) identification sign, to he in letters only and constructed parallel to the face of the building, below the roof line and project not more than 6 inches from its face. Said sign shall not contain more than 200 square feet of surface and shall not be longer than the side of the building on which it is erected. i - ACCESSORY BUILDINGS No accessory buildings or other structures shall be per- mitted within the required front, side or rear yards, with the exception of transformer pads or fire hose cabinets. j - OBJECTIONABLE USES No use will be allowed that is offensive to the park by reason of odor, industrial waste, fumes, dust, dirt, smoke, glare and heat vibration, electronic, television or radio interference, or pollution or will be hazardous by reason of danger of fire or explosion. k - SETBACKS AND LOT COVERAGE 1 - Minimum lot size - 3 acres. 2 - Minimum front yard setback - 75 feet. 3 - Minimum side vard setback - 25 feet or not less than height of building. 4 - Minimum rear yard setback - 50 feet. 5 - Maximum lot coverage - 45%. Any deviations to the above standards will be considered by the Devel- oper only if such deviation, in the opinion of the Developer, improves the esthetic appearance of the park. -3- July 1976 SCHEDULE C FORT COLLIER INDUSTRIAL ESTATE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS WHEREAS, Fort Collien Farm, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Approving Agent") is the owner of all of the certain real property located in Frederick County State of Virginia, more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference thereto, and WHEREAS, it is the desire and intention of the Approving Agent to develop all of said property as a park -type industrial center know as the Fort Collier Industrial Estate, and WHEREAS, it is the desire and intention of the Approving Agent to impose upon the Restricted Area and such other portions of the property described in Exhibit A made suject hereto from time to time, mutually beneficial restrictions under a general plan of improvement for the benefit of all of said restricted property, the improvements thereon and the future owners thereof, NOW THEREFORE, the approving Agent hereby declares that the Restrict- ed Area ( and such other portions of the property described in Exhibit A as may be, from time to time, designated by the Approving Agent pursuant to the provision hereinafter set forth) is held and shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, rented, used, occupied and improved, sub- ject to the following limitations, restrictions and covenants, all of which are declared and agreed to be in furtherance of a plan for the subdivision, improvement and sale of the Restricted Area (as hereinafter defined) and are established and agreed upon for the purpose of enhancing and perfecting the value, desirability and attractiveness of the real property and every part thereof. All of the limitations, convenants and restrictions shall run with the real property and shall be binding on all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the property made subject hereto or any part thereof, and shall be for the benefit of each owner of any portion of said real property, or any interest therein, and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon each successor in interest of the owners thereof. A - Definitions 1 - "Approving agent" meana in the following order of precedence: (a) Fort Collier Farms, Inc. so long as it owns and land described in Exhibit A; or thereafter. (b) Any corporation, association, partnership or trust controlled by the Approving Agent or with which the Approving Agent has been merged or consolidated or by which the Approving Agent has been acquired, or the purchaser of the Approving Agent's interest in the land described in Exhibit A and/or the "Restrict- ed Area" contained therein; all as filed of record (hereinafter called Approving Agent's Successor) so long as it owns or represents owners of any land described in Exhibit A and provided it has been granted of record the exclusive right to approve plans and grant variances as hereinafter set forth; or thereafter. (c) Any association (whether or not incorporated) organized by a majority of the owners of record of land in the Restricted Area for the purpose, among others of ap- proving plans and granting variances as hereinafter provided, in which membership is available to all such owners without charge, provided the Approving Agent or Approving Agent's Successor has granted to it of record the exclusive right to approve plans and grant variances as hereinafter set forth, which the Approving Agent agrees will be done by it or Approving Agent's Successor ceases to own or represent the owners of any land described in Exhibit A, if written request therefor is received prior to that time. 2 - "Restricted Area" means the Restricted Area, as described in Exhi- bit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and also such other portions of the property described in Exhibit A as may, from time to time, be designated as subject to the provisions hereof by the Approving Agent or Approving Agent's Successor by duly recorded designation referring to this instrument, whether or not such addi- tional areas are owned by the Approving Agent at the date hereof. 3 - "Site" means an area of land in the same ownership, either shown as one lot or parcel on a recorded deed or filed map, or, if not so shown, described as the Site or Sites for one or more buildings by the owner in a recorded instrument, whether or not in either case acquired at one time or previously so shown as more than one lot or parcel or shown or described for the purpose of lease but not of conveyance as more than one lot or parcel. If an easement or easements over any portion or portions of a Site established by recorded map or recorded instrument then exists or exist or is or are reserved by the Approving Agent for any purpose whatsoever, the area of such portion or portions shall be included in computing the area of that Site. If subsequent to the bstablishment of a Site by recorded map or recorded instrument, any portion or portions thereof are for railroad, street, highway, utility or public purpose taken by right of eminent domain, or deed in lieu thereof, or dedicated or conveyed pursuant to reservation by the Ap- proving Agent, the area of such portion or portions shall continue to be included thereafter in computing the area of that Site. B - Restrictions 1 - No building shall be constructed upon any Site within seventy-five (75) feet of the curb line of any street in existence, or on a recorded map at the time of such construction or within fifty (50) feet of any rear line or within twenty-five (25) feet of any side line, nor shall more than fifty percent (50%) of the area of any Site be covered by buildings. 2 - All buildings shall be designed and constructed of material as pre- scribed in Planning Standards issued by the Approving Agent. 3 - With the required setback area from streets there shall be maintained on each Site only paved walks, paved driveways, lawns and landscaping; and the surface of so much of the remainder of each Site as is not not covered by buildings, by lawns or by landscaping shall be treated so as dust free. At least two-thirds (2/3) of the surface of the re- quired setback area from streets shall be maintained in lawns or other landscaping. -2- 4 - There shall be maintained on each Site facilities for farking, load- ing and unloading sufficient to serve the business conducted thereon without using adjuacent streets therefor; and no use shall be made on any Site which will attact parkin in excess of the parking spaces then available thereon. 5 - Each Site shall be used only for manufacturing, processing, whole- sale, warehouse, distribution center, office, laboratory, professional, reasearch and development activities; and there shall not be permitted any junk or salvage yard or any other use which will be offensive to the neighborhood by reason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, noise, vi- bration, electronic, television or radio interference, or pollution or will be hazardous by reason of danger of fire or explosion. 6 - The exterior of all structures and all walks, driveways, parking areas, lawns and landscaping on each Site shall be maintained in good order repair and in first-class condition. 7 - No open storage shall be permitted on any Site unless protected by screening to a height of not more than eight (8) feet approved in the manner hereinafter provided. 8 - No buildings, exterior signs, fences, or structures shall be erected, or exterior structural alterations or additions made on any Site ex- cept pursuant to plans and specifications approved in the manner here- inafter provided as to landscaping and architectural conformity to a park -type industrial center, wihich approval shall not be withheld unreasonably. The requirement of approval set forth in this paragraph is in addition to, to and not in substitution for any and all other restrictions herein contained. 9 - Any building within the estate which has been destroyed or partially damaged by fire or other causes must either be repaired or completely demolished and removed from the Site by its owner. Repair must be started within a period of six (6) months after damage. Demolition and removal must be finished within six months (6) months after de- struction or damage. Should repair or demolition and removal not be implemented or completed within the allotted time as stated above, the Approving Agent reserves the right to repair or alter or demolish and remove any structure which in the opinion of the Approving Agent is either a safety hazard or an eyesore to the estate, in a manner which will conform with the esthetics of the estate and backcharge the owner of the building in question. C - Approvals, Variances and Waivers 1 - The owner shall submit to the Approving Agent two sets of plans and specifications prior to any and all construction, erection, alterations, changes or additions to all buildings, fences, signs, landscapings, (also grades and elevations), parking areas, loading docks, outdoor lighting, poles and outside storage areas. The Approving Agent shall, within fif- teen (15) days of receipt of said plans and specifications approve or disapprove said plans and specifications. 2 - So long as there is an Approving Agent it shall have the exclusive right to grant approvals required by the Restrictions and to waive or vary the Restrictions in particular respects whenever;in its opinion, such waiver or variance will not be detrimental to a park -type industrial center. __ 4 - Any person, having an interest in any Site, may rely upon any in- strument of record signed by the Approving Agent or after there cases to be an Approving Agent by the appropriate owners referred to above purporting to grant an approval or to waive or vary the Restrictions in particular respects. D - Enforcement 1 - All of the provisions herein contained shall run with the land. 2 - So long as there is an Approving Agent it shall have the exclusive right to enforce the provisions hereof, without liability for failure so to do, except that each owner of record of land in the Restricted area shall have the right to enforce the provisions hereof then ap- pliicable to any Site if the Approving Agent shall fail so to do with- in thirty (30) days after written receipt of a request to enforce this agreement from any such owner. 3 - After thereceases to be an Approving Agent, each owner of record of land in the Restricted Area shall have the right to enforce the Restrictions then applicable to any Site without liability for failure so to do. 4 - No owner of any Site shall ne responsible except for violations occurring while owner. -4- �N!) S p EXHIBIT "A" TAKEN FROM SURVEY PREPARED BY PERRY ENGINEERING COMPANY, INCORPORATED P.O. BOX 439 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22061 -5-