Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05 CommentsMr. Christopher M. Mohn, AICP Patton Harris Rust Associates, p.c. 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Carpers Valley Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Chris: A: \carpersvaneyrezrom. W pd June 27, 2005 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 We have completed our review of the subject rezoning and offer the following comments: 1) Refer to page 4, C. Site Suitability: The Master Development Plan (NIDP) should be revised to delineate the existence of an uncontrolled rubble fill located within Land Bay 1 on land designated as 64- A -83A. The limits of this area should be determined by an accurate field survey. 2) Refer to page 5, C. Site Suitability: The existing wetlands and steep slopes need to be delineated on the MDP. The delineation of the wetlands should include, not only, the four (4) man made ponds, but also, all other wetland areas associated with the natural drainage swales. 3) Refer to page 8, G. Solid Waste Disposal: The narrative shall include an estimate of solid waste generated by the proposed project. This estimate should be compared to an annual solid waste generation of 200,000 tons received at the Frederick County Landfill to determine the impact on future landfill capacity. 4) Refer to page 7, proffer statement, paragraph 14.1: We applaud the applicant's willingness to implement BMP facilities to manage the site's stormwater. The 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Carpers Valley Rezoning Page 2 June 27, 2005 maintenance of these facilities should be specifically assigned to the HOA and /or POA I can be reached at 722 -8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. HES /rls cc: Planning and Development file A:\ carpersvalleyrezcom.wpd Sincerely, Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works 1 Winchester Regional Airport's Comments J V of C Applicant ,I� Winchester Regional Airport Signature Date: 9,ALL'�C� �y \a iriw. Notice to Winchester Regional Airport Please Return This Form to the Rezoning Comments Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: (Rt. 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. Winchester Regional Airport Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA CARPERS VALLEY REZONING Ap nt ease fil out t n formahon as accuratelyy as p ssih n to a s W inchester t Regio on a r g ro X nal Arrporttwith theirerevrews A ttaet a aeoli o�f your application form, location map i proffer st atement, impact analysis, and`any other pertinent information Pr Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc c/o C.E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Senior VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the Phone: (540) 667 -2139 south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road Current Zoning: RA/B2 /M2 Zoning Requested: R4 Acreage: 331 acres 21 July 18, 2005 C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Senior VP Patton Harris Rust and Associates, PC 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Carpers Valley Rezoning Comment Shawnee Magisterial District Winchester, Virginia Dear Mr. Maddox: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority's position on new residential development on property adjacent to the airport and within the Airport Support Area has not changed. The Airport Authority by majority vote on July 14, 2005, opposes the R4 rezoning plan as presented with 785 residential units and any rezoning request that would include dense housing within the Airport Support Area. Enclosed are two opinion letters from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation regarding this rezoning proposal. After giving this matter careful consideration and review, the Airport Authority strongly recommends the Frederick County Board of Supervisors not amend the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan to accommodate this rezoning request. Sincerely, v_4\ NfnCurvek;LS Serena R. Manuel Executive Director Enclosure WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662 -2422 Cc: Mark K. Flynn, Legal Counsel w /encl Joe Delia, FAA/WADO w /encl Randall P. Burdette, VDOA w /encl Eric Lawrence, Planning Director, Frederick County w /encl COPY Randall P Bu dece Director Dear Ms. Manuel: RE: Winchester Regional Airport COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Department of Aviation 5702 Gulfstream Road Richmond, Virginia 23250 -2422 Ms. Renny Manuel, Executive Director Winchester Regional Airport Authority 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 July 11, 2005 Thank you for inviting the Department of Aviation's staff to attend the meeting between the Winchester Regional Airport Authority and representatives from Patton, Harris, Rust and Associates regarding the proposed development of the Carper Valley Golf Course. Prior to the meeting the Department's staff had a chance to review the proposed development map and the proffers dated May 20, 2005. We appreciate Mr. Mohn's candor and listening to our concerns. However, our position has not changed. It is the Department's position that placing residential development near an existing airport constitutes an incompatible land use. One aspect of the proposed development that was viewed favorably was the non- residential commercial development in Land Bays 2 and 3. It is our understanding that these !and bays will be used as future sites for United States General Services Administration and the National Guard Armory respectively. Our concern is what would happen in the event these parties are not able to acquire the property within the 24 months following the proposed rezoning. It is our hopes that the local governing bodies would enforce the intent of the proffer in Section 3.2 on page 3 of the attached Proffer Statement. The proffer states that in the event the perspective governmental parties were not able to act as anticipated within the 24 months following the rezoning, then the property may be employed for commercial and employment uses. Provided this is the case, the Department has no objection. The Department would voice significant objection if the owner came back to the locality and sought to locate additional residential dwelling units in these land bays. V /TDD (804) 236 -3624 FAX (804) 236 -3635 Ms. Renny Manuel Julyll, 2005 Page 2 The Developer is making an effort to meet the federal separation criteria. Nevertheless, it is our experience there will be complaints made from these perspective residents about noise and low flying aircraft, regardless ofthe disclosure letters or mitigation measures. The main threat to airports today is incompatible land uses. The airport loses the flexibility to respond to the growing needs of the community. To allow incompatible land uses creates conflict between the needs of the citizens, the aviation community and the needs of the developers. A substantial part of the Department of Aviation's mission is to cultivate an advanced market driven aviation system that is safe, secure and provides economic development. The development of the Winchester Regional Airport has been an important element in our ongoing mission and should be preserved and protected from encroachment. Over the past 10 years the Commonwealth has invested nearly $2,028,235.90 at the Winchester Regional Airport. The 2004 Virginia Airport System Economic Impact Study indicates that the Winchester Regional Airport has resulted in $7,082,000 in annual economic activity for Winchester and the surrounding localities. The Commonwealth entered into these investments with Airport Authority with the clear understanding that the Authority and local jurisdiction do all in their power to protect the Commonwealth's investment. Any failure to protect the airport from incompatible land uses may jeopardize future funding for development on the East side. Additionally, any new capital improvement project on the West side may be reviewed on a case by case basis with regard to potential impacts that particular project would have on adjacent properties. The Department of Aviation strongly urges you, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority and the local governing bodies to prevent residential encroachment and other incompatible land uses from being developed in the vicinity of the Winchester Regional Airport. If I or my staff can be of any assistance in this matter please feel free to contact us. Since ly, 5 Randall P Burdette Director, Virginia Department of Aviation U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration July 1, 2005 Ms. Renny Manuel Executive Director Winchester Regional Airport Authority 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 WASHINGTON AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210 Dulles, Virginia 20166 Telephone: 703/661-1358 Fax: 703(661 -1370 RE: Winchester Regional Airport, Proposed Land Use Changes on Adjacent Airport Property Dear Ms. Manuel: In our letter dated July 10, 2002 (copy attached) FAA had provided comments regarding the proposed modifications of the County Comprehensive Plan that would include mixed -use residential /commercial /public facility development with up to 275 homes and a potential middle school on the Carper's Valley Golf Club site. On June 16, 2005 I attended a Winchester Regional Airport Authority (WRAA) meeting where representatives from Patton, Harris, Rust and Associates presented details regarding a revised development plan for the Carper Valley Golf Course. As we noted previously the Airport Support Area was developed jointly by the WRAA and the County to protect the long -term viability of the airport and to comply with the AIP Grant Assurance No. 21: 21. Compatible Land Use. It will take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft. In addition, if the project is for noise compatibility program implementation, it will not cause or permit any change in land use, within its jurisdiction, that will reduce its compatibility, with respect to the airport, of the noise compatibility program measures upon which Federal funds have been expended. FAA has made a substantial investment at the airport based in part on the WRAA's assurances to provide long -tern compatible land use through implementation of the Airport Support Area. FAA's continued support will be based the Authority's compliance with this assurance and providing an environment for the unrestricted operations at the airport. While the commercial /employment' area inland Bay 2, the location of the Armory Site and the increased setback of the proposed housing units are improvements of the previous conceptual plan, the increase in housing units from 275 to 750 and the lack of clarity of the long -term implications of the proffers do not cause a change in our opinion that this development will have a negative impact on the continued growth and viability of the airport. If I can provide any additional information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerel L oseph B. Delia Airport Engineer cc: DOAV 06/ 23/2005TEUZ414148 FAX 7038216616 MILLER AND SMITH INC. 8401 Greensboro Drtue Suite 300 Mclean. Virginia 22102 703 -821 -2500 Fan 703- 821 -2040 wu,tamflenandsmffhmm June 23, 2005 Ms. Serena Manual Executive Director Winchester Regional Airport 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Carpers Valley Dear Renny, MId, R SMITH Thank you for arranging the meeting yesterday with Mr. Wilmot and Mr Fisher. I believe that there are opportunities for both our entities to succeed in the development of Carpers Valley. The following are commitments that we are willing to proffer, assuming that the Airport Authority will support our request for the rezoning in its current format. 1. The Airport Authority has isolated approximately 20 acres of land that is needed from Carpers Valley, for development projects. Our firm will accommodate your need in a number of ways: a. Trade Airport land that is outside of the development zone for CV land inside the zone on an acre per acre formula. b. Trade CV land for the land needed for the extension of Coverstone Drive across the Airport land which will eventually be the future Public Safety Building site, and a portion of Prince Frederick Drive. The Airport shall dedicate the area of land necessary for this road to the County of Frederick. c. The land needed for the Airport aviation easement at the southwest corner of our property will be set aside as an easement at no cost to the Airport. The Airport may install their fence on the easement line; CV will use the density assigned to the easement area, and will begin any setback requirements at the actual property line a 002/003.______- 06/23/2005 THU 14:48 FAX 7038216816 MILLER AND SMITH INC. UO03 /003 d. CV shall reserve the balance of the area that the Airport Authority has designated for acquisition until June 30, 2013 for purchase by the Airport. e. If the Charter of the Airport Authority will allow, CV wishes to pursue a Joint Venture with the Airport to develop the Airport property, and perhaps additional CV property for aviation related purposes. A venture would be established which would create a Development Partnership LLC between the two entities which could accelerate the timeline for the hanger construction, and could expand the developable property for the Airport. If the text of this letter is acceptable to your Board, we will begin to survey the areas that will be the subject of the trades, and will complete an option agreement for the residual land. Please let me know the decision of the Board. Sincerely, John Conrad Vice President Cc: John R. Riley Chuck Maddox U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration July 10, 2002 Ms. Renny Manuel Executive Director Winchester Regional Airport Authority 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 Dear Ms. Manuel: WASHINGTON AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210 Dulles, Virginia 20166 Telephone: 703 /661 -1358 Fax: 703/661 -1370 RE: Winchester Regional Airport, Proposed Land Use Changes on Adjacent Airport Property The Winchester Regional Airport Authority (WRAA) in conjunction with its constituent members, in particular Frederick County, has done a magnificent job in the planning and development of the Winchester Regional Airport. The airport has grown from a small rural field to a modem state of the art corporate facility. It has complimented and been a catalyst for the successful industrial development that has flourished around the airport. The FAA has been pleased to be a partner in this development and has invested millions of dollars from the Aviation Trust Fund to support capital improvement projects. We have been following with great concern the proposed modifications of the County Comprehensive Plan that would include mixed -use residential /commercial /public facility development with up to 275 homes and a potential middle school on the Carper's Valley Golf Club site that abuts and is immediately north of the airport. The Fredrick County Comprehensive Plan established an Airport Support Area that has been an excellent tool to protect and ensure the continued viability and growth of the airport. This proposal should be closely scrutinized to evaluate the potential impacts on airport operations. As a condition of receiving Federal funds the Authority is required to ensure that airport planning is consistent with other plans for the area in which the airport is located. These assurances also require that appropriate action be taken to the extent reasonable to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of airport activities that are incompatible with airport operations. The Commonwealth of Virginia has also enacted an "Airport Safety Zoning Ordinance" under the Code of Virginia that speaks of Airport Safety Zones, height limitations and use restrictions. Any residential development would be located in such proximity to the airport that night time operations, engine run -ups, touch and -go landings, etc. would ultimately become contentious issues that could negatively impact growth and revenue generation at the airport. Locating a middle school directly under the local aircraft traffic pattern will be a perceived public safety issue. Residential development and public buildings must also consider appropriate noise insulation measures and an adequate buffer should be considered between the centerline of Runway 14 -32 and housing, public buildings or potential congregations of people (preferably a minimum distance of 1,000ft). Security impacts must also be thoughtfully considered. Both inadvertent entry and other potential security implications should be carefully evaluated. We respectfully request that this proposed development be carefully evaluated with respect to the Authority's obligations under the grant assurances. FAA has serious concerns regarding the potential negative impacts of this development on airport operations. It would be a shame to minimize the foresight and planning that the Authority has exhibited over the years, which has led to the development of Winchester Regional Airport as a strategic economic asset for northern Virginia. If I can provide any additional information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Joseph B. Delia Airport Engineer cc: DOAV 2003 0 JUt, W JUL 202005 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT WILBUR C. HALL (1892 -1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 SAMUEL D. ENGLE 0. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. Dear Eric: 16 7 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET LEESBURG, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 703 777-1050 July 11, 2005 Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Director Department of Planning and Development of Frederick County 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Carpers Valley Proffer Statement WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 540.062.3200 FAX 540-652 -4304 E Iewyers @hallmonahan.cws HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITC,HELL JUL 1 2 2005 A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW "V1 ?ITV PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 0848 I have reviewed the above referenced Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and is legally sufficient as a Proffer Statement, subject to the following: 1. As this is a consolidated project for the development of land owned by multiple owners, the County should confirm that all of the owners of all of the parcels are listed on the Proffer Statement and have executed the Proffer Statement. 2. As I was not provided a copy of the Master Development Plan or the Design and Development Standards for Carpers Valley, my comments do not address the specifics of this Proffer to the extent that it references the Master Development Plan or the Design and Development Standards for Carpers Valley. Eric R. Lawrence July 11, 2005 Page 2 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL 3. In Paragraph 1.3 it is suggested that property to be owned within the development by the federal government or by the Virginia National Guard may be exempt by law from some provisions of County ordinances. If any such exemption exist, it would be preferable for the Applicant to specifically identify such exemptions, as it may impact the County's review of this rezoning and the p- roffers. In Paragraph 1.4.1, I do not believe that it is necessary or preferable to label the subject dwelling units as "market rate While the terns "market rate" is defined in the paragraph, there could be uncertainty as to whether the sales price on a particular unit was "market rate" so as to be included within the limitation. It seems to me that the intention is to limit the dwelling units in the development to 750 units, in addition to the allowed 35 "workforce" units. Accordingly, I would recommend that the restriction state "that residential development on the property shall not exceed 750 dwelling units, not including the workforce housing units permitted pursuant to Section 3." Appropriate revisions would then made throughout the Proffer Statement where the term "market rate" is used. 4. In Paragraph 1.5, it should be expressly stated that the rental apartments and condominium units over retail and office uses are subject to the 750 dwelling unit restrictions set forth in Paragraph 1.4.1. 5. With respect to Section 3, (Workforce Housing) it is not clear to me what role the County is to have in the implementation of the workforce housing provisions, and particularly the establishment of the sales prices. I would have the further specific comments on the paragraphs in this section: a. With respect to Paragraph 3.3 and its subparagraphs, I believe it would be difficult for the County, in the future, to determine whether an appropriate sales price had been set for a workforce housing unit. The sales prices are to be set by the applicant, according to the enumerated "guidelines I believe it would be difficult to determine what costs are to be taken into consideration in setting sales prices, particularly with respect to "hard and soft costs builder -paid Eric R. Lawrence July 11, 2005 Page 3 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL permanent mortgage replacement costs, costs resulting from proffers and site development and infrastructure costs. b. Subparagraph 3.3.1 states that the sales prices will be based upon certain costs for housing by "private industry in the immediate are of the Property". It would appear, therefore, that the established sales price is not to be based upon the Applicant's actual cost for constructing the housing, but rather comparable cost by private industry in the immediate area. It would depend upon whether the County projects that this Applicant's cost would be more or less than the comparable cost of private industry in the immediate area to know whether this is an advantageous provision or not. c. Subparagraph 3.3.1 says that the sales price shall include hard and soft costs required to construct and market workforce housing units. However, Subparagraph 3.3.3 states that marketing expenses will not be included in determining the sales price. d. It would appear from Paragraph 3.3.5, although it is not clear, that the costs related to a workforce dwelling unit will also include some allocated costs for site development and infrastructure costs for the entire project. e. In Paragraph 3.4 I would think that the County would want an express statement that in marketing in the initial six -month period be directed to deputies, school teachers, and other County and school employees. 6. I would suggest that in Paragraph 4.1 the provisions for the federal acquisition and the airport acquisition be separated into separate sentences. It should also be noted that these provisions do not provide for the dedication of property, or the sale of the property at a given price, but rather holds the specified parcels for a given period of time, with any acquisition to have to be negotiated with the Applicant. Eric V. Lawrence July 11, 2005 Page 4 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL 7. In Paragraph 7.1, if it is intended that the provision on sidewalks is to require sidewalks on both sides of public and private streets, that fact should be expressly set forth in the proffer. 8. Section 8.2 provides that a master homeowners association to be established would make an annual contribution for each residential unit, and for each 1,000 square feet of commercial, for fire and rescue. Since the homeowners association has not been established and is not a party to these proffers, future enforceability could be an issue. In addition, the subparagraph provides that the contribution shall terminate if the volunteer fire and rescue company converts to a fully paid service. In that event the company would presumably no longer exist, but the cost to the County for fire and rescue service will continue and would likely be increased. It would seem that if the volunteer fire and rescue company ceased to exist, the annual contribution should be made to the County. This subparagraph also provides that the obligation to make the annual contribution will be the obligation of the master HOA, and the obligation shall be monitored and enforced by the master HOA, which is, in effect, providing for self- monitoring and self enforcement. 9. In Paragraph 14.1, the provisions for public water and sewer facilities presumes that the Sanitary Authority lines are now at the property boundary, or will be brought to the property boundary by the Sanitary Authority. Further, the word "property" at the end of the first sentence should be capitalized, to make it clear that the "property boundary" being referred to is the external boundary of the entire development, and not interior property boundaries. 10. In Paragraph 15.2, it is not clear what is sought to be accomplished by the second sentence which states "The Applicant shall consult with the Executive Director of the Airport with respect to the granting of a reasonable avigation (sic) easement." It this to be a voluntary easement or an easement which will have to be Eric R. Lawrence July 11, 2005 Page 5 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL purchased by the Airport Authority? If it is to be an easement to be contributed, can the location of the easement be determined at this time and specifically provided for in this Proffer? 11. In Paragraph 16.1.1 and its subparagraphs. concerning Coverstone Drive, I do not believe it is clear what the Applicant's obligations are with respect to Coverstone Drive. I believe it is clear that the Applicant shaldlesign Coverstone Drive in all phases. It seems to be implied that Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Coverstone Drive will be constructed by the Applicant, but that is not expressly set forth. It should be. With respect to Phase 3, it would appear that the Applicant has an obligation to design Coverstone Drive Extended, but that the County will have the obligation to construct Coverstone Drive Extended, as the monetary contribution by the Applicant goes into an escrow account, which is to be released to the County. 12. With respect to all of the escrow account provisions in the Proffers (Paragraphs 16.1.1.1.3, 16.6, and 16.7) it is not clear to me why the County should have to wait 90 days after requesting release of funds which are sitting in an escrow account. Also, I would recommend that all of the escrow account provisions provide that the funds will be placed in an interest- bearing escrow account, with the interest to accrue to the benefit of the County. 13. Paragraph 16.9 would indicate that some of the road improvements which the Applicants have agreed to make will require acquisition of right of way by the County. As I do not have a copy of the Master Development Plan, I assume and would suggest that this issue be carefully reviewed by the staff. 14. In Paragraph 18.1, I would recommend that the monetary contributions subject to the execulator clause include contributions to an escrow account, as well as contributions which are paid directly to the board. Eric R. Lawrence July 11, 2005 Page 6 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. RTM /ks erre a :y yours, a.4 I L4) a' Robert T. Mitchel RE: Carpers Subject: RE: Carpers Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:11:20 -0400 From: "Alexander, Scott" Scott.Alexander @VDOT.Virginia.gov> To: 'Chuck Maddox' <Chuck.Maddox @mobile.phra.com 'Elawrenc <elawrenc @co.frederick.va.us "Conrad, John" <jconrad @millerandsmith.com> CC: chuck.maddox @shentel.net, patrick.sowers @phra.com, "Copp, Jerry" <Jerry.Copp @VDOT.Virginia.gov "Ingram, Lloyd" Lloyd .Ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov "Funkhouser, Rhonda" Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov> Chuck: The proffers submitted on 7/5/05 10:21 are conditionally acceptable to VDOT, with the following stipulations: I. The right -of -way for the connection of Coverstone Drive to Prince Frederick Drive must be obtained by the developer prior to presenting the rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors. If this critical Zink is not secured prior to rezoning (upon which all transportation analysis to date is based), VDOT can not support the project. Despite any implication of Section 16.9 of the proffers, VDOT is disinclined to utilize powers of eminent domain to provide for improvements necessitated by the proposed development. 2. A final TIA is submitted for approval, reflecting all issues discussed in prior conversations /correspondence. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to give me a call/email. Scott Scott Alexander Assistant Residency Administrator VDOT Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone #540- 984 -5605 Fax #540-984-5607 FYI... Eric: Scott Thank you for copying me on your message to Eric. 1 hope the attached can answer your questions. The changes we propose have come out of two rounds of meetings with individual Board members and after responding to the site request by GSA. I hope we can address your concerns before Wed night....here goes Chuck Original Message From: Alexander Scotty To: Charles, Maddox (Charles .Maddox(a phra.com) Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:40 PM Subject: FW: Carpers Valley Proffers From: Alexander, Scott Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:18 AM To: Eric Lawrence (elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us); Mike Ruddy (Mruddy©co.frederick.va.us); Jay E. Tibbs Cc: Copp, Jerry; Ingram, Lloyd; Funkhouser, Rhonda Subject Carpers Valley Proffers We have only had a chance to perform a cursory review of the revised Carpers Valley proffers (dated September 28, 2005; submitted to this office on Tuesday, October 4, 2005). As is the trend with this project, this submission is appears to be a step backwards from the previous version...Our initial comments are as follows: 1. The connection of Coverstone Drive to Prince Frederick Drive still appears to rely upon the attainment of right -of -way from property not wholly owned /controlled by the applicant which, I can only assume, is the reason that the "powers of eminent domain" clause remains. As stated previously, the Residency is averse to utilizing eminent domain to obtain right -of -way for the developer. The developer does control the alternate route and can build this road with dedication to the County without other approval by anybody. I will get you the contract/deed info if you wish. Certain members of the development group are also the landlord for the US Corps. They reserved .7 acres from the lease to allow for a future road. We did not know about this until putting together the GSA offer. It is not the intent of this proffer to avoid the airport property which remains the route of choice. We do now have an alternate route if necessary. 2. The shift in alignment of Coverstone north along Prince Frederick may preclude the future extension to 522 relocated without costly condemnation of the Barrett-Perry property. In order to preserve both a 90- degree intersection with Prince Frederick and a more feasible alignment to 522 relocated, we would prefer to see the Coverstone alignment retumed to its previous location. You are correct that the alternate alignment probably precludes the extension to Rte 522 relocated. We believe that a horizontal curve can bring Coverstone to CL alignment with Prince Frederick thus relying on Costello for the connection with Stoplight control. Of course this would result in Coverstone being called Prince Frederick with two connections to Rte 50. The primary plan is to build per the last proffer on which you commented. The proffer of $1000 per lot remains to be used for a road or other things at the sole discretion of the CountyNDOT. We believe right of way will be available from the airport; as you know, we have bent over backwards to accommodate the Airport. All of these issues can be dealt with at the Master Plan stage. 3. There is now a direct entrance onto Route 50 approximately 500' west of the proposed Raven Pointe /Inverlee intersection, which is antithetical to all prior discussions /submissions. As the path of least resistance to Route 50, we would anticipate problems with this entrance, especially with multiple -lane- weave /u- turning movements (i.e. to westbound Rt. 50) when the Ravens signal is complete. It is not our choice to maintain the right in /out (current Carpers Entrance) on Rte 50. The GSA application which is the focus of a County sponsored initiative states that two access points are necessary. We envision the Rte 50 entrance as an alternate or even gated "Emergency" access. It will not be used unless GSA wants it and it may be important to bringing the GSA here. We are just trying to be as accommodating as possible in the interest of Frederick County and for this site to be chosen. also don't know why it would not work ok since the proffer is clear that the median will be closed when the Goff Course ceases operation. 4. Section 15.1.1.1.1. states that the developer will petition for the inclusion of Coverstone into the State system upon completion of base asphalt (only). While they may petition this, we can state now that it will not be accepted until fully completed to State standards. Maybe we should say 1 -2 surface or something that will allow and bond a surface course later. The phasing design of this roadway is a design issue and a subject for plan review; we understand that VDOT cannot accept the road until fully complete. 5. Section 15.2 should specify that the road should be complete prior to GSA occupancy. The October 4 proffer says this. Time constraints resulting from the late submission (and the lack of revised TIA data) prevents us from fully evaluating the elimination of trigger for the completion of 4- laning Coverstone versus the reduced housing units, among other issues. We would reserve the right to comment further on this submission but, as noted above, believe that after only a cursory review we've found that this submission neither addresses our prior concern nor adequately addresses new issues. I will drop off the Oct 4 proffer on Tuesday am and would hope 1 can review these issues with you personally. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, don't hesitate to give me a call /email. Scott Scott Alexander Assistant Residency Administrator VDOT Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone #540- 984 -5605 Fax #540- 984 -5607 RE: Carpers Valley Proffer Review Subject: RE: Carpers Valley Proffer Review Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:04:19 -0400 From: "Alexander, Scott" Scott .Alexander @VDOT.Virginia.gov> To: 'Chuck Maddox' <Chuck.Maddox @mobile.phra.com> CC: 'Eric Lawrence' <elawrenc @co.frederick.va.us "Copp, Jerry" <Jerry.Copp @VDOT.Virginia.gov> Chuck: I have reviewed the proffers v.6/30/05 -15:19 and offer the following: 1. The sentence "Coverstone shall be completed in accordance with the foregoing road phasing schedule" was suddenly added, which would seem to indicate that regardless if the GSA moves in, Coverstone will only be developed as 2 lanes after 451 dwellings, etc. The whole point of this section was to assure that Coverstone would be fully constructed to serve GSA traffic; please remove this sentence to restore the intent of the section. 2. l understand that there is a new TIA that reflects the lack of a connection to Arbor Ct. Please provide a copy at your earliest convenience. 3. Similarly, although we were told that the right -of -way connection to Prince Frederick was "in the bag we still have no indication that this has been acquired. We either need some assurance that you've got the right -of -way, or prove (via TIA) that it's not necessary (and lose the eminent domain section, since there's no longer a point in it being there, and as previously discussed with Chris). Scott Original Message From: Chuck Maddox [mailto: Chuck .Maddoxmobile.phra.com] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:19 PM To: Alexander, Scott Cc: 'Eric Lawrence' Subject: RE: Carpers Valley Proffer Review Scott Attached are the revised and clean versions of the latest response to Erics prel comments Chuck Original Message From: Alexander, Scott [mailto: Scott.Alexander @VDOT.Virainia.gov] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 3:51 PM To: 'Christopher M. Mohn AICP; Charles. Maddox (E -mail) Cc: John Conrad (E- mail); Mike Ruddy (E- mail); John Foote (E -mail) Subject: RE: Carpers Valley Proffer Review Chris: I finally got a chance to review the proffers v.6/24/05 -15:37 with Jerry....With the following modifications, we can sign off on the proposal: 1. With all the modifications to 16.1.1.1.3, I believe we lost the 1 of 3 7/1/2005 4:22 PM RE: Carpers Valley Proffer Review definition of "Coverstone Drive Extended To protect both VDOT and your client, please clarify that this is the section between Prince Frederick 522 Relocated. 2. In the same section, as we previously discussed, please add the ability to utilize some of the funds for other improvements in the vicinity, should the need arise...For example: "...The Applicants shall place the amount of 51,000 per market rate dwelling unit in an escrow account for future construction of Coverstone Drive Extended (not to include any of the 35 workforce housing units otherwise provided for herein) and/or other projects in the vicinity...." 3. In 16.1.1.1.2., the phase completed or bonded found its way into the section....lf "bonded" is left in it must be understood, as in the previous section, that VDOT will not accept the road until complete. I'll be out of the office the next two days, but will check email occasionally; if you need a quick answer on any of the issues above, please contact Jerry cc me. Scott Original Message From: Christopher M. Mohn AICP [mailto:Chris.Mohn@phra.com] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 3:27 PM To: Alexander, Scott Subject: Carpers Valley Proffer Review Importance: High Hi Scott. I wanted to follow up concerning the status of your review of the revised proffers for Carpers Valley. As you know, John Foote emailed a second revision to you Friday afternoon that fully incorporated your written comments from earlier in the day (consistent with our discussion). We have submitted the application to the County Planning Department, and we are naturally being asked about whether VDOT approval will be forthcoming hence, my email! I look forward to hearing from you. Please provide written approval and /or any additional comment to both John Foote and I. Many thanks! Best, Chris 2 of 3 7/1/2005 4:22 PM RE: Carpus Valley Proffer Review Christopher M. Mohn, AICP Director of Planning Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 C 540.664.9889 Email Chris.Mohn @phra.com Web www.phra.com <http: /www.phra.com 3 of 3 7/1/2005 4:22 PM Dear Chris: A: \carpersvallev'rezeom.wpd Mr. Christopher M. Mohn, AICP Patton Harris Rust Associates, p.c. 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Carpers Valley Rezoning. Frederick County, Virginia June 27, 2005 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 We have completed our review of the subject rezoning and offer the following comments: 1) Refer to page 4, C. Site Suitability: The Master Development Plan (MDP) should be revised to delineate the existence of an uncontrolled nibble fill located within Land Bay 1 on land designated as 64- A -83A. The limits of this area should be determined by an accurate field survey. 2) Refer to page 5, C. Site Suitability: The existing wetlands and steep slopes need to be delineated on the MDP. The delineation of the wetlands should include, not only, the four (4) man made ponds, but also, all other wetland areas associated with the natural drainage swales. 3) Refer to page 8, G. Solid Waste Disposal: The narrative shall include an estimate of solid waste generated by the proposed project. This estimate should be compared to an annual solid waste generation of 200,000 tons received at the Frederick County Landfill to determine the impact on future landfill capacity. 4) Refer to page 7, proffer statement, paragraph 14.1: We applaud the applicant's willingness to implement BMP facilities to manage the site's stormwater. The A: \carpe rsvallevrezeom.epd Carpers Valley Rezoning Page 2 June 27, 2005 maintenance of these facilities should be specifically assigned to the HOA and /or POA. I can be reached at 722 -8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. HES /rls cc: Planning and Development file Sincerely, C Harvey E. Sti=awsnyder, Jr., P.E. J q Director of Public Works L JUN 2 8 2005 FRIITRIc:K COUNTY PL A'; 2 n q nn „e MT Carpers Valley Proffer Statement (v.104/05) Christopher M. Mohn AICP From: Alexander, Scott Scott .Alexander @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:49 AM To: 'Christopher M. Mohn AICP' (E -mail) Cc: Eric Lawrence (E- mail); 'mruddy @co.frederick.va.us'; Copp, Jerry; Funkhouser, Rhonda; Ingram, Lloyd Subject: Carpers Valley Proffer Statement (v. 5/24/05) Chris: As the applicant stated in the 4/12/05 engineer meeting, the only way this project is going to be successful is with a good transportation meeting. Since that meeting, the proposed transportation system has eroded significantly. Our concerns with yesterday's submission include: There is only a single access point that the Applicant can construct as of this date. With either end of Coverstone Drive relying on the Applicant's "best efforts" to obtain rights -of -way "at a commercially reasonable cost or relying upon condemnation by the County, a successful transportation network for 300 acres of high- density residential, commercial, and retail is far from assured. Section 15.4 of the proffers is unacceptable to VDOT. As previously proffered, we would expect to see Coverstone Drive ultimately constructed to four lanes by the Applicant, from the eventual tie -in at Costello through the eastern property line, to complete southern site network. By referencing 24 VAC 30 -91 -70 of the 2005 Subdivision Street Requirements, it appears that the Applicant (or his assigns) may be able to circumvent this proffered obligation. If Coverstone is not constructed to four lanes, we foresee this responsibility falling on the County and /or VDOT soon after build -out. There is no real commitment to complete Coverstone to Costello Drive resulting in jogs /left turn movements which, as previously discussed, was to be eliminated. There should be some provision for tying the extension of Inverlee Way to Coverstone Drive, perhaps along the western edge of Landbay 1, thereby providing access to the ridge adjacent to the property line as well. Words like "substantial conformity" in 15.3 leave too much room for future misunderstandings. In the same section, we would be more comfortable replacing "servicing" with "affected Within this section it is also important to note that road improvements will be constructed as dictated by the TIA before issuance of the first occupancy permit for that section /site. As we have discussed, we would expect the minor collector (opposite Sulfur Spring Road) to have restricted driveway access and constructed to four lanes; that all existing private entrances onto Rt 50 from these properties be removed, as well as the crossover at the club entrance. Coverstone Drive should be specified as a major collector, and there should be some recognition that substantial slope drainage easements may be required for all public roads. you have questions or would like to discuss these matters further, don't hesitate to give me a call. cott _ott Alexander ssistant Resident Engineer DOT Edinburg Residency W31 Old Valley Pike dinburg, VA 22824 lone #540 984 -3605 ix #540- 984 -5607 '24/2005 Page 1 of 1 Fire Marshal's Com�m�en Fire Marshal's Signature Date �y DA a- This Form to the Applicant Notice to Fire Marshal Please Mail to: Frederick Co. Fire Marshal 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665 -6350 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: (Rt. 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. Frederick County Fire Marshal Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc c/o C. E. Maddox Jr., P.E., Senior VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Rezoning Comments CARPERS VALLEY REZONING Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Fire Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal Co. Administration Bldg., 1 Floor 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 k 4ffi�CP il ont the rmatloniaskaccurately ast ossib l n r eview. ttach atcopyy of-iyour ap "'heation alysis, and any pertinent informat s to asses the Frederic oit location ma Location of Property: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the Phone: (540) 667 -2139 south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road Current Zoning: RA/B2/M2 Zoning Requested: R4 Acreage: 331 acres 16 Control number RZ05 -0004 Project Name Carpers Valley Rezoning Address 117 E.Piccadilly Street Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Access Comments Access requirements shall meet Additional Comments Plan Approval Recommended Yes Date received 5/19/2005 Tax ID Number 64- A- 82,83,83A,8 City Winchester Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System No Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway /Aisleway Width Not Identified Fire District 21 Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting shall meet the requirements of Frederick County Code section 90 -4. Fire hydrants shall be set at 3 feet from the curb. minimum requirements of NFPA 1141. Reviewed By Signature Timothy L. Welsh Title Date reviewed 5/23/2005 Applicant Patton, Harris, Rust Associates, Inc State Zip VA 22601 Residential Sprinkler System No Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Rescue District 21 Date Revised Applicant Phone 540- 667 -2139 Election District Department of Inspections Comments: NO CDMMEMT RFOO LREl) AT TN(S Ti,,Al= I,11L/ Crr$A. 4T 77/F 27ME of Sr E PL/# -N c tURRnlV /S /11Y RFvlNp. AV Inspections Signature Date: Ille/bs cO i Notice to Dept. of spections Please Return .'In Form to the Applicant Location of Property: Rezoning Comments CARPERS VALLEY REZONING Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Mail to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Inspections Attn:' Director of Inspections 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665 -5650 (Rt. 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. Current Zoning: RA/B2/M2 Frederick County Department of Inspections Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc c/o Christopher Mohn AICP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections Co. Administration Bldg., 4th Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (te ease ofl?nblrc, tae copy o an y7ofler r phca epartmerr a a m �xmap, pro Er statemen i forma ro Shen r ev. httheN�srevi ipactranalysis as c ur s t o st 0 ss t accurately curately as posse n rder to ssist4 our application_ form,locatio inent information' The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the Phone: (540) 667 -2139 south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road Zoning Requested: R4 Acreage: 331 acres RECEIVED lE rs 1 9 2N5 FREDERICK COUNTY CUBUCWORK& INSPECTIONS 15 Fred- Winchester e Authority's Comments: &law WAA° new 1 FWSA Signature Date_ -IckAA 4 Notice to ti re d-Win S •iceA ottty =Please Rety, u This Fo+zn ib the Applicant May 20 D5 01:47p Fill WINC SERV AUTHORITY 540.2 1103 Rezoning Comments Mail to: Fred -Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W.lvlaffett, Executive Director P °D:Rnx 43 Winchester,_ VA 22604 (540) 722 -3579 (Rt:'655) and The Ravens Subdivision. Frielitic- Win&esterService Authority Location of Property: The are located approximately one idle e,ast Intesstate41 on the CALIPERS VALLEY REZONING Eland deliver to: Fred- WindServica Authority Ann Jesse W Moffett lti7•North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant sttame. PattoirHarrisRust& Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667 -2139 Mailing Address: c/o Chi istoulher Mohn, AICP 117 E. Picbadilly Street, Suite 200 Wincliester, VA' 22601 south side -0f.Millwood.Pike(Routc.50 East), across Sulphur Springs Road Current Zoning: '"RA2BEi IZ Zining Requested: -R4 =..Acreage, 331 acres p.1 Applicant Please fill out the information as accurately -as possible in order to assist the Department-of Pubhc with- their review. At+aeb a copy of your application Form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. 23 May 20 05 01:47p Flp WING SERV AUTHORITY 540.2 1103 Page 1 To: Christopher Mohn -Patton Hams Rus,yi sociates Jesse- W-Moffett executive Director Date: May 19, 2005 Re:: Carpers Valley Rezoning- reder ick `.N c hester •yfJu".s xa. w SeMce Please find below comments regarding the above mentioned rezoning application: 1. Considering the size and of the property it extremely hard to evaluate the impact with lheTiriitted'amount of information provided. The applivarrt makes claims of capacity without •any projections beingi.provided. I would estimate that a project of this size could generate between- 300;000:and 420,000 gallons per day. 2. I believe that-this flow will- by- pass the Abrams Creek Interceptor and be delivered to the Opequon Water Recarnation Facility througtraproposed regional pumping station. 3. Based on already Conan ited flows to the Opequomfacility -and pending final regulations regarding nufient discharge limits or caps, capacity at limited. At present without major upgrading•of the treatment process and assignment of sufficient nutrient Toads to provide for an eitpanded facility capacity availability is questionable. p. 2 Sanitation Authority Comments: 1 RfiV /rw- /Vp or Sanitation Authority: Signature. &Date: 4 ,„__.i 2 O Notice to Sanitation Au itetty Tins to the Applicant 05/20/2005 10:01 540B6iii61 FCSA Rezoning Comments Mail to: :Frederick Co: Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P:O.:Rox 1877 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 868:1061 (Rt. 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. CARPERS VALLEY REZONING Frederick County Sanitation Authority Hand deliver to: -Frederick Co Sanitation Authority MAT G',% 2C1^; Attn: Engineer j t i tiS 31S Tasker Road Stephens City, VA Applicant's Name: -Pact n- ..WaartisRust-&-Associates,pc P}yne: (540) 667 -2139 Mailing Address: c!o ehtistaoberrviohn, AICP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The properties are locatedapproximately one mile east of Interstate, 81 on the south side of MillWOod Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road Current Zoning: RA/B2/M2 Zoning Requested: R4 Acreage: 331 acres PAGE 01 urn rcu2G 19 Dept: of Parks &°Recreation See attached. comments... i '/l 6 Parks Signature Date /Abp; Notice to Dept. of Parks "Recreation Please Return This Form to the Applicant 5- 20 -05; 3:33PM;FREDEP ICK CO Rezoning Comments Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Parks Recreation 107.: North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678 ?ARKS (Rt. 655) and The Ravens SudKdivisihn. Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation Patton Hams -Rust Associates, pc c/o ChristopGer Mlohn AICP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The properties are located approximately one mile east oflnterstate 81 on the ;5406659587 2/ 3 sk ,4n3 CARPERS VALLEY REZONING Ist -124 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation Co: Administration Bldg., 2 Floor" 1-07 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540) 667 -2139 south side cif Millwood tRonte50East); at Road Current Zoning: •RA/B2/M2 Zoning Requested: R4 :Acreage: 331 acres 0 2 61. 8t 1'I. -I T ease t li out' hrt- e. t �amp actmznalysis ,,and.ax 0th as ceu'r rely as�possxhl r <o+°- ..terra. et -�-o ass ;sT e; application orn,2ahon 17 5 -20 -053 3 :33PM ;FREOERICK CO PARKS Carper's Valley Rezoning The MasterDevelopmentPlan references atrailsy lem,_eomumity.pool and clubhouse. However, the development should meet all open space and recreational unit ordinances as required by the county. ;5406659687 3/ 3 The monetary proffer would appear to be acceptable to offset the impact of the development. Mr. Pat Sours rr- Patton Harris Rust Associates -pc 117 E. Piccadilly Str; rSuite200- Winchester. VA 226131 Dear Mr. Sours: SMKldkr Frederick County Public Schools- Administrative Assistant to Visiruset.www.frederickk12.va.us e-mail: the Superintendent kapocsia ®hederick:kl2.va -us, May 20, 2005 RE: Careers Valley Town Center This letter is in respt'lnse your requestforcomments concerning thesezoning application for the prrepused CarpPrs Valley Town_Crnter.project.. Based :on.theinfonnazi.ow provided, it is anticip that the proposed 500 townhouses and 500 multi-family units will yield 75 high school'studeats-80 middle school-students; and23BtJrmentary ,LI studentsfor a total of 385 new students upon build -out. Significant residentiLt growth in Frederick County has resulted m *he- schools serving this area having student rtrotlmrnte exceeding thep radical capacity :fora:sc-hooL_The cumulative- impact of this project-and-others of similar nature, coupled with.. he- number of approved, undeveloped residen t al lvtairthe =area; will nece ssitatcthc- futureconstructionnf facilities to accommOdateincreased student-enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval proccss- Respectfully yours, cc: William C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools Stephen Kapocsi Administrative Assistant-to the Superintendent 540-662 -3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst. Street Po6LOffice BoxIS(, Winchester, VA_ 22684 -2546_ FAX-540-662-3890 May 20, 2005 Mr. Christopher Mohn Gilbert W. Clifford Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (ARAB) Comments Carpers Valley Town Center Dear Chris: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. As you have indicated in your inipact statement, according to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, /2 C, �%:-,c ie/l Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP /bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395