The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 08-06-08 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia August 6, 2008 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for the meeting................................................................ (no tab) 2) June 18, 2008 Minutes..................................................................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #07-08 for Martin Deiseroth, for a Cottage Occupation — Home Office. This property is located at 1471 Shockeysville Road (Route 671), and is identified with Property Identification Number 07-4-3-4 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran..................................................................:.................................................... (B) 6) Conditional Use Permit #08-08 for Shenandoah Gas, for an extension of previously approved monopole structure from 120 feet to 180 feet. This property is located at 350 Hillandale Lane, and is identified with Property Identification Number 63-A-2 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (C) 7) Rezoning 904-08 of Red Hawk Estates, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.C., to rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 240 Residential Units. The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 655) in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 65-A-86, 65 -A - 86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65 -A -102A. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (D) 8) Rezoning #05-08 of BPG Properties, Ltd./I-81 Distribution Center, submitted by BPG Properties, Ltd., to rezone 59 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B3 (Business, Industrial Transition) District, with proffers, for Office and Warehouse Uses. The properties are located approximately 0.61 miles north of the Route 11 intersection with Cedar Hill (Route 671), bounded on the west by Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 33-A-109 and 33-A-110. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (E) FILE COPY 9) Draft Update of the 2008-2009 Frederick County Secondary, Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans. The Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the Secondary, Primary, and Interstate road networks within Frederick County. Comments from the Transportation Committee will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Ultimately, the priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration. Mr. Bishop....................................................................................................................... (F) 10) Other MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on June 18, 2008. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. La%ATence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the June 18, 2008 meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the meeting minutes of May 7, 2008 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Impact Model Oversight Committee (DIMOC) Planning Director, Eric R Lawrence, reported that the DIMOC reviewed the updated impact information, including critical input figures. He said the DIMOC asked the staff for updates on the values of future park land and provisions for fire and rescue services. Mr. Lawrence said the information was gathered and sent back to the committee. Mr. Lawrence said the revised Development Impact Model is scheduled for annual adoption by the Board of Supervisors on June 25, 2008. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2264 Minutes of June 18, 2008 10 Al F T -2 - Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcammittee (CPPS) Commissioner Kriz reported that the new subgroups of the CPPS are becoming active and Commissioner Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, and Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, have established a meeting schedule for the subgroups of the CPPS. It was noted that Community Facilities will meet Thursday morning, June 19, at 9:00 a.m., and Transportation will meet on Friday morning, June 20, at 9:30 a.m. In addition, Commissioner Kriz said the Natural Resources Committee has been meeting and they are moving ahead with establishing a new template for the Comprehensive Policy Plan. NAICS Work Group — 06/12/08 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the NAICS Work Group has completed a considerable portion of the M 1 District and hopes to complete the M 1 District at their next meeting. He said the group will begin the M2 District at their next meeting and anticipates finishing the remaining districts relatively quickly, as the M1 District was the largest section. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 06/17/08 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed two projects. The first was a rezoning of 2.5 acres along Route 7, about a mile from the Opequon Creek. The property is zoned B 1 and the applicant has requested a B2 Zoning. The HRAB recommended the existing vegetation in Ash Hollow, along Route 7 and the stream, should remain in place and the applicant should perform a Phase One Archeological Review prior to excavation to insure there are no artifacts, since this is located in core battlefield area. The second item was the signage and park area at the Rutherford project north of Winchester at Exit 317. The proffered rezoning for Rutherford requires historic signage to be placed on site. The Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation will be creating the signs and maintaining the area. The HRAB was comfortable with this arrangement. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject that was not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2008 Page 2265 -3 - PUBLIC HEARING An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article XIII, MS (Medical Support) District, to allow Continuing Care Retirement Facilities (CCRC) in the MS (Medical Support) Zoning District. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that over the past few months, the County has been reviewing proposed revisions to the Medical Support (MS) District to add Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC). Ms. Perkins said a CCRC is a senior housing development planned, designed, and operated to provide a full range of accommodations for older persons including, independent living, congregate care or assisted living, as well as nursing home or skilled -care facilities. In addition to the residential accommodations, a CCRC must also provide accessory facilities for the further enjoyment, service, or care of the residents. Ms. Perkins said the intent of the ordinance amendment is to introduce CCRCs as a permitted use in the MS District. The amendment also includes other minor changes to the MS District regulations, as well as the introduction of new definitions to correspond to the CCRC use. Ms. Perkins continued, stating there are specific uses and housing types that will be permitted for the CCRCs, as well as residential densities, average lot sizes, and occupancy restrictions on the units. She said the overall CCRC development, as indicated in the proposed definitions, may not contain individual parcels and may not include condominium options. The community must be developed as one parcel that is owned and operated by one entity that offers rental options for its residents. She said other changes included are increased commercial entrance spacing, modifications to the structures and parking lot setbacks, which are intended to permit residential units in the district to utilize alleys, and reduced setbacks on private roads. In conclusion, Ms. Perkins said the DRRS (Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee) reviewed this amendment in January and February of 2008 and ultimately, endorsed the changes at their February meeting. She said the Planning Commission discussed the amendment on March 19, 2008 and the Board of Supervisors was sent copies of the ordinance through a mailing. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, believed the staff had accomplished the job of meeting the needs of the CCRC via this zoning district_ He said when the original Medical Support District was written, it included provisions for nursing and convalescent homes; however, since the inception of that ordinance, a new all-inclusive model for nursing homes was created with three levels of residential care: independent units, assisted units, and skilled -nursing units. Mr. Wyatt said the Planning Staff rightfully placed this new concept in the ordinance where nursing homes were originally intended to be placed. Mr. Wyatt commented that the structure of the amendment is such that the CCRCs are a by -right use with performance standards attached to guide development. Regarding the occupancy of dwelling units, qualifying residents may have a younger spouse and/or resident staff living at the facility. Mr. Wyatt said the National Lutheran Home is occasionally contacted by a resident who has a child requiring convalescent care. He said the representatives of National Lutheran Home asked whether or not this child would be welcome in this type of facility. The instances are rare, but because of the skilled nursing and ways and means to provide for this population, National Lutheran Homes would be interested in offering the servicein their marketing. Mr. Wyatt speculated that in a large community of 500-700 units, they may have five units in this particular category. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2008 Page 2266 1XIM No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. The Planning Commission was supportive of the request by Mr. Wyatt to include convalescence for minors of residing parents needing full-time care; however, they believed a percentage limit should be included so the use wouldn't ultimately change to a child-care facility, when it was established as a retirement community. Ms. Perkins stated that the staff would draft the language for including convalescence for minors needing full-time care and incorporate it into the draft amendment for the Board's consideration. Commission members were satisfied with staff drafting and incorporating the necessary language; they preferred that this amendment move forward to the Board, rather than be delayed by going back to the DRRS. A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to recommend approval of the Medical Support (MS) District amendment with the inclusion of language that would allow an appropriate percentage for care of younger individuals associated with this particular type of care. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article XIII, MS (Medical Support) District, to allow Continuing Care Retirement Facilities (CCRC) in the MS (Medical Support) Zoning District with the inclusion of language that would allow an appropriate percentage of care for younger individuals associated With this particular type of care. (Note: Commissioners Mohn and Manuel were absent from the meeting.) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, by the establishment of a Business Overlay District. The intent of the Business Overlay District is to allow traditional neighborhood design in commercially -zoned Neighborhood Villages and Urban Centers per the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study Policies. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this proposed zoning ordinance amendment is the fust attempt to implement the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study adopted on February 28, 2007. She said the proposal is for an overlay district that could be applied to the Neighborhood Business (B 1) or Business General (132) District; properties already zoned B 1 or B2 could seek to have the overlay district applied through a rezoning or other properties could seek the overlay district at the time they sought their commercial designation. Ms. Perkins said the proposed ordinance is intended to be utilized anywhere within the County's UDA, as well as on parcels within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) located within areas identified as potential urban centers or neighborhood villages. Referring to a map with potential overlay district locations, Ms. Perkins noted that the locations shown are not set in perpetuity. She pointed out that as land use plans are created or revised into the future, new urban centers or new neighborhood villages and commercial areas will be designated, and as these new areas are created, the overlay district could be available at different locations than what is currently shown. Ms. Perkins said that the overlay is for small and in -fill projects, which are 20 acres in size or less. She said another ordinance is intended to be written in the future for larger sites. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2008 Page 2267 -5 - Ms. Perkins stated that the latest revision of the draft ordinance was supported by the DRRS at their meeting on February 28, 2008. The Planning Commission considered and endorsed the proposed amendment at their meeting on May 7, 2008. She said the Board of Supervisors discussed this proposed ordinance at their meeting on May 28, 2008 and requested clarification on the proposed locations where the overlay would be permitted and had questions regarding fees. Since the Board discussion, the intent and establishment of district portions of the proposed ordinance have been revised to address the concerns regarding location. Commissioner Kriz recalled from the previous Planning Commission discussion, that the proposed overlay would not fit as well with properties less than five acres and this particular proposal was more appropriate for parcels five to 20 acres in size. He asked the staff why the less than five acre parcels were included within this proposal. Ms. Perkins said the proposed ordinance was very flexible and could be accommodated on many parcels; she said there were various ways to ensure the overlay could fit on smaller properties. Ms. Perkins said the Commission's concerns were forwarded to the Board and ultimately, it was recommended for public hearing without changes. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Evan Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, had several issues that he wanted to make a part of the official record. He said that within Frederick County, this overlay is intended to bean "in -fill" product rather than for new development for urban centers. Mr. Wyatt pointed out the existing standards for arterial, collector, and local streets and he was not sure about VDOT's allowance of parking on arterial and major collector -type roads, which is typically where much of the B2 Zoning is located. He was not sure the on -street parking provided by the ordinance could be captured. The other issue raised by Mr. Wyatt was the buffer and screening requirement. He said the language of the proposed ordinance contains the standard buffer and screening requirements; for example, a separate RP against a B2 design. He understood the goal was integration and the intent was to put these overlay areas into existing communities to provide residents the ability to walk to a business or service establishment. He said the proposed buffering language would restrict and prohibit that integration. Mr. Wyatt did not want to discourage the proposed ordinance from moving forward because it was obviously needed; however, he wanted to stand by his earlier statements that the proposed ordinance, as written, was difficult for developing smaller sites, where this ordinance will be applied most often. Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, had concerns about where the proposed overlay district could be applied. He noted that the agenda package includes the proposed ordinance, as well as one attachment with a reference for a potential neighborhood village and urban center location per the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Sowers said the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Study identifies areas as neighborhood village/commercial. He explained that the area in question, particularly for his client, was the area between Tasker Woods and Route 522, which is identified for the neighborhood village/commercial use and would be the intended location for the proposed overlay district. He said subsequent to the Triangle Study being adopted, this particular area will be located outside of the LDA, but inside of the SWSA. Per the agenda attachment, it would need to be located within an urban center or neighborhood village as shown in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Sowers said there was some question of whether or not, as the existing ordinance is written, the proposed overlay district could be applied to this particular property. He said his client would like to use the overlay district, if possible, and he wondered about some clarification to the wording that land use plans identifying neighborhood villages/commercial would also be intended for locations within the SWSA. He thought the ambiguity could result in a reliance on interpretation of the ordinance and it could also require an applicant to obtain a Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment to identify a new location before this could be applied outside of the UDA. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of Tune 18, 2008 Page 2268 No one else wishedto speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates supported the ordinance and believed it was a good plan, especially for parcels of five acres in size or larger; however, he did not think it accommodated smaller parcels well. Commissioner Oates said that rather than delay this proposal fi`oin moving forward, he suggested something for smaller parcels be drafted separately and sent to the DRRS. Commissioner Oates said he would be supportive of Mr. Wyatt drafting a proposal for the.DRRS's review. With regards to Mr. Sowers' comments, Commissioner Oates said the committee had every intention for this going into the Route 277 area. Commissioner Oates did not think there was a problem and it was simply a matter of language clarification. Commissioner Thomas asked the staff if a property would have to be identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as a neighborhood business area to be able to use the Business Overlay. Planning Director, Enc R Lawrence, replied that later on this evening's agenda, the Planning Commission will be considering the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Study, which is the area to which Mr. Sowers was referring and incorporates what Mr. Sowers is seeking to do for his client. Mr. Lawrence said ultimately, if this Business Overlay District and the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Study are adopted, it will enable what Mr. Sowers is seeking to accomplish. Cormnission members believed the UDA ordinance amendment for a Business Overlay District was a good plan, especially for parcels of five acres in size or larger, and they were in favor of moving this ordinance forward. They agreed the proposal may not accommodate smaller parcels, those less than five acres, as easily and they supported drafting a separate proposal for review by the DRRS. In addition, they recognized the proposed ordinance amendments would more than likely need some language clarification and were supportive of these efforts. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Cormnissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, by the establishment of a Business Overlay District. The intent of the Business Overlay District is to allow traditional neighborhood design in commercially -zoned Neighborhood Villages and Urban Centers per the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study Policies. (Note: Commissioners Mohn and Manuel were absent from the meeting.) An amendment to the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan for Frederick County, Chapter 6, Land Use, to include the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Plan. This plan provides opportunities to create new communities, integrate land use and transportation choices, address community infrastructure needs and expand the County's goals for economic development in the Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) area. The plan expands the Urban Development Area (UDA) by approximately 664 acres and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) by approximately 2,360 acres. Action — Recommended Approval Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2008 Page 2269 -7 - Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, spoke about the considerable public input and participation involved in the development of this land use plan; he said it truly creates opportunities in an area not previously thoroughly planned. Mr. Ruddy said the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land use Study promotes five main areas of new land use focus: the Route 277 Urban Center, the Route 277 Triangle, the Center of Economy and Interstate Commercial at Relocated Exit 307, the Neighborhood Commercial area at White Oak Woods, and the Tasker Woods location. In addition, he pointed out a significant transportation component, the proposed Route 277 Parkway. Mr. Ruddy referred to the maps accompanying the text which described the community facilities, additional needs, environmental resources, and recreational resources, in addition to some future community facilities needs, such as the new fire and rescue facility, a new elementary school, and expansions to existing uses. He stated that implementation of this plan includes an Urban Development Area (UDA) expansion of approximately 600 acres to support the Urban Center designation and an expansion of approximately 2,300 acres of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to support the future economic development land uses identified within the plan. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Ms. JoAnne Leonardis, a -resident of the Red Bud District and Vice President of Preserve Frederick, came forward to speak. Ms. Leonardis said the mission of Preserve Frederick is to promote compatible development that strengthens communities, protects natural and historic resources, and preserves the rural character. On behalf of Preserve Frederick, Ms. Leonardis spoke in favor of the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Plan and the amendment to the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan. She said the Plan takes an innovative approach to expanding the County's industrial and commercial tax base by promoting mixed-use land designations that give people the ability to work, live, and recreate on a human scale while providing the County with economic growth. She said road networks are improved, pedestrian mobility is promoted, stream corridors are protected, and the important commercial facilities that new development will demand are provided. Ms. Leonardis was also pleased to see the Business Overlay District draft ordinance presented and approved, which will promote the traditional neighborhood development and ideals from the UDA Study. She commented that traditional neighborhood design and new urbanism principles have the potential to transform the landscape and community in a positive way. Ms. Leonardis remarked that all of the hard work that is going into this project was appreciated and applauded. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, recognized the Planning Department's Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, for the great amount of work that went into the development of the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Plan. Mr. Wyatt said this plan actually started as an 80 -acre urban center request that Greenway filed and it grew into something much larger and more complex. He commended Mr. Ruddy and the committee for an excellent job, not only in creating the land use plan, but with the community outreach. Mr. Wyatt spoke in favor of the plan and hoped it could be moved forward with a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission. He raised a word of caution, however, and hoped the plan could remain flexible so if there are opportunities for development, a proposal will not get bogged down with property - specific planning at a Comprehensive Policy Plan stage of development. Commissioner Ours stated this had been a very good process and a tremendous amount of input had been received from a variety of people throughout the county. In response to Mr. Wyatt's concern, Commissioner Ours stated that flexibility was definitely a part of the vision for this plan. Commissioner Ours believed the proposed plan would work well for Frederick County. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Plan and the amendinent to the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours and unanimously passed. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2008 Page 2270 M. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an amendment to the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan for Frederick County, Chapter 6, Land Use, to include the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Plan. (Note: Commissioners Mohn and Manuel were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Waiver Request of the Irene Lucille Schafer Trust, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for an exception to the Frederick County Code, Subdivision of Land, Chapter 144, Article V, Design Standards, Section 144-31, Rural Subdivisions, C(3), Minor Rural Subdivisions, to enable family division of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. The property is located on Burr Stone Lane, off Wardensville Grade (Rt. 608), and is identified with P.I.N. #70-A-2 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that Greenway Engineering is requesting a waiver, on behalf of the Irene Lucille Schafer Trust, of Chapter 144-31 C(3), Subdivision Ordinance requirements, to enable a family subdivision of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. Mr. Cheran said the applicant is seeking a waiver from the minimum 50 -foot width requirement for a shared private driveway. The parent parcel is currently served by a 30 -foot right-of-way. Mr. Cheran said the application package includes letters from adjoining property owners served by Burr Stone Lane who declined to grant property for this easement. He said the waiver would enable the creation of two family lots to be served by the existing 30 -foot right -of -way - Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, said he was contacted by Ms. Mary Schafer Plunkert, who is the trustee for the Irene Lucille Schafer Trust, and the purpose of the request for creating the family lot is to make sure all members of the trust were afforded one piece of property, when the trust is settled. Mr. Wyatt said there are no issues in creating the lot and meeting the dimensional and acreage requirements or the drainfield and reserve areas; however, Burr Stone Lane is a 30 -foot existing right-of-way. Mr. Wyatt stated that his client's effort to acquire additional right-of-way from adjoining property owners was not successful; he referred to copies of certified letters that were included in the Commission's agenda packet. Mr. Wyatt commented that all of the properties that access Burr Stone Lane are on less than a 50 -foot right-of-way. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments at this point of the meeting and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Robert McFall said he has lived on Burr Stone Lane longer than anyone; he purchased his property in 1972 on the 30 -foot right-of-way. Mr. McFall said he did not want any more of his property taken for Burr Stone Lane. He didn't care if the right-of-way was taken on the other side of the road, but he did not want any of his property taken on his side of the road. Ms. Mary Schafer Plunkert, the trustee for the Irene Lucille Schafer Trust, said the right-of-way was only 30 feet when their property was purchased in 1972. Ms. Schafer Plunkert hoped to be granted the waiver so the property could be divided between her and her siblings. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2008 Page 2271 A member of the Commission commented that Burr Stone Lane was an existing gravel road and was not anticipated to be changed. No other questions were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Watt, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the waiver request of the Irene Lucille Schafer Trust, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for an exception to the Frederick County Code, Subdivision of Land, Chapter 144, Article V, Design Standards, Section 144-31, Rural Subdivisions,, C(3), Minor Rural Subdivisions, to enable family division of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. (Note: Commissioners Mohn and Manuel were absent from the meeting.) COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, to enable age -restricted, multi -family housing in Frederick County. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this item is a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment initiated by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. (PHR&A), and would allow a new housing type, called Age -Restricted Multi -Family Housing, in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. She said the requested changes are based on a desire to incorporate elevators in a cost-effective manner by permitting taller buildings with more units per building than allowed in the garden apartment housing type. Ms. Perkins said the proposal calls for the new housing type to be allowed only within proffered age -restricted developments. She noted that the new housing type is loosely based on the existing Garden Apartments housing type and she proceeded to explain the differences between them. Ms. Perkins reported that this amendment was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting on February 22, 2007 and the DRRS was supportive of the text amendment with a few modifications. The amendment was then discussed by the Planning Commission on April 4, 2007 and, subsequently, by the Board of Supervisors on April 25, 2007. She said concerns regarding the number of habitable floors and the height were raised, as well as concerns about placing this type of use adjacent to existing residential uses. Changes were made to the ordinance after the Board meeting, but consensus on the revisions was not achieved. The item was again presented at the Planning Commission's retreat in February 2008 and Board members expressed hesitation regarding .the height of the structures when adjacent to existing residential units. Ms. Perkins stated that the proposed text amendment has since been revised and was presented to the DRRS in April and May of 2008. At the April meeting, the DRRS suggested that the height of the structures not be reduced and remain at 60 feet and further, that the number of habitable floors remain at four to encourage pitched roofs instead of flat roofs. The DRRS also suggested that the side and rear perimeter boundary setbacks begin at 40 feet in height instead of 35 feet, since garden apartments can be up to 40 feet in height by right. The DRRS also discussed the parking space requirements and requested that they be modified to include more spaces for the larger units. Revisions were also made to the definition of age -restricted to include the state code reference. The revisions were presented to the DRRS at their May meeting and they recommended that the ordinance be sent to the Planning Commissioner for review. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2008 Page 2272 -10 - Commissioner Kerr believed the intent of the proposed ordinance amendment was right on track, however, he did have a concern about the amount of parking required. Commissioner Kerr said the last thing he wanted to see is an age -restricted unit with a huge asphalt parking lot. He believed the parking aspect of the amendment needed to be closely examined. Commissioner Thomas expressed his hope for the DRRS to begin work on the parking lot ordinance either this year or next. He believed there was a need for a two-tiered parking lot ordinance: one requiring a hard surface of asphalt, concrete, or paving, and the other consisting of an overflow with a "green" parking design. Other than the parking issue, no other concerns were expressed and Commission members were supportive of the proposed amendment. Ms. Perkins said she would forward the Commission's concerns about the parking requirements to the Board of Supervisors. OTHER Commissioner Oates raised an issue about some of the studies undertaken in the past where good ideas were formulated, but because of a possible flaw, the whole concept was put on a shelf. He mentioned the RA Study and, in particular, a section included within that study for rural economic diversification. He said it specified uses that could be established in the county such as wineries, feed stores, and equestrian facilities. Commissioner Oates believed that section needed to be pulled back out and pursued for adoption into the ordinance. He said no one really had any negative issues about that section; it was just lumped in with the RA Study and was indefinitely postponed. Commissioner Oates said he would like to see the Planning Commission move that section forward to the DRRS. Commissioner Oates said an additional item, raised earlier in the Spring, focused on reducing warehouse size across the board. He said the Industrial Parks Association and several others were against it, especially in the M 1 and M2 areas; however, it was also going to be applied to the Business and Commercial areas. Commissioner Oates thought the Commission should revisit the subject and limit the size ofwarehouses in the B2 and B3 areas. He said warehousing is allowed as an accessory use with retail in B2 and it is allowed by right in B3; however, generally those districts are closer to the major corridors and residential areas and he didn't think the County wanted to see a half -million square -foot building being placed on a B3 parcel. Commissioner Oates said he conducted some research and the largest building on a B3 parcel in the County is 125,000 square - feet and it belonged to Car Quest on Valley Avenue; the next largest building is Sportsplex at 900,000 square - feet. He said after those two, everything is in the 30,000 square -feet and less category. Commissioner Oates thought the County needed to adopt it for protection in the future. He commented that a structure of 200,000 square -feet and larger needs 20-25 acres to begin with. Commissioner Oates said he would like to have the Commission direct this to the DRRS next Thursday. Commission members had no problems with these items returning to the DRRS for further study. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2008 Page 2273 ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No other business remained to be discussed and the e meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. by a Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2274 Minutes of June 18, 2008 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #07-08 MARTIN DEISEROTH Staff Report for the Planning Commission w Prepared: July 18, 2008 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator 1>38 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 08/06/08 Pending Board of Supervisors: 09/24/08 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 1471 Shockeysville Road (Route 671). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 07-4-3-4 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential South: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential East: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant PROPOSED USE: This application is for a Cottage Occupation — Home Office. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 671, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT commercial standards. CUP #07-08, Martin Deiseroth July 18, 2008 Page 2 FIRE AND RESCUE: Plan approved as submitted. INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT: The area of the existing building to be utilized shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, International Existing Structures Code and Sections 304, use group B (Business) of the IBC International Building Code/2006. Other Code that applies is CABO Al 17.1-03 for a change of use building permit. Permit shall be issued and final inspection approval granted with a new certificate of occupancy issued prior to operation of the business. Please note, IEB section 506 exception #1 (ADA 20% rule) shall apply for change of use, renovations or additions for accessibility. HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The Health Dept. has no objection if there is to be no increase in quantity or quality of wastewater to be disposed into the alternative sewage disposal system serving the property. Planning and Zoning: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows cottage occupation in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposed cottage occupation use would occur at the applicant's residence, with no other structures associated with this CUP located on site. There will only be one employee (the owner) associated with this cottage occupation. Based on the limited scale of this proposed use and review agency comments, it appears that this use will not have any significant impacts on adjoining properties. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/06/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than one (1) employee allowed, other than members of the family residing on the premises, with this Conditional Use Permit. 3. No more than ten (10) customers per week. 4. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size. 5. Any expansion or modification of facilities will require a new Conditional Use Permit. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. 19& Martin Deiseroth 08 A 9F Conditional Use Permit for Home Office PAYNE MICHAEL L ETAI-9/ CUP 07 - 08 COAlt 07 ty r8o4f 4 3 14j 0 Cl;'It�'9 & PIN: 07 - 4- 3- 4 SOMA r a V � 0 .4s 07 4(e s Joy 'vqy 07 43 2A 4 BURNS LARRY W & JANET LEE .7 V�i 'k 07 R/43 2B RUSSELL E &pATT Z. 0 . 08 41 26' kF GAJ ERVIN PROPsLLC 4 FBF 07 43 3 HUFFMAI't 08 41 27 MICHAEL S 01> ERVIN PROPS LLC *4 7408 4128 0 '4 C ERVIN 0 07 43 4 41 DEISEROTH 0 '*,P,10. PROPS LLC `jP La MARTIN J& KATHLEEN A4 'r4"' k 0 in c, 1 1 v I '� '�. ; I ) 4 .0 rn 71 '0 t C X* "V .4 Ti 43 41 A; R At -'yj/' <e 7* 08 4 X ERV A4 PROPS. 4?1 07 A 71 0 FILES CHAPEL % i"It rk ITWO K41 Z./�_08 A 11A ,�K�4'� %�; LA MARK JERRY L. & CHRIS E. Case Planner: Mark =Appli—i— Zing M2 (h,d,.w,,l, G--1 D-,,l,,p.—m A— 131 lH-i—., Naghl ih—d Dst-n 1,11 C---ir, Dh..wl) -I SWSA 132 (;--1 Di,lnt) ms tWd—1 s.1,1-1 Di't,m) AGFUlistricts 4W B3 01--- Di,l,wt) 41 R4 (Residential Planned C ....... a, Di,vwn 0 250 500 1,000 Feet W*1 I 4i..S-11i 4W HNI (Lll—lile M f taring Di,liiin 44M R5 (R•.,id-lwl D-blc Cl,u,,h Dw-1 4W HE Oligh�. Ed—tw.i RA (Rul, I A— Doti i,l) I- Red 11W Dist, id �1 Nil Light Di,i-ll R), tR—d-twl Dkt-l) Map Document: (NAP1anntng_And_Developmem\ I_Locator_Mps\20C)B\MartinDeiseroth_CUP0708-06170B.mxd) 611712003 -- 2.08.33 PM Submittal Deadline �✓ CO P/C Meeting le BOS Meeting - �J APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the X owner other) NAME: Martin J. Deiseroth ADDRESS: 1471 Shookeysville Road, Winchester, VA 2260 TELEPHONE 540-888-9487 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Martin J. Deiseroth Kathleen A. Deiseroth 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) Proceed approx, 4 miles on SR 671 from Green Spring Rn,;d 4. The property has a road frontage of 46r) feet and a depth of 600'W-7�71E feet and consists of 7.2 acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by Martin J & Kathleen A Deiseroth as evidenced by deed from Nobel E. Davison, Jr_ _ recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. U 0 01915 8 on page N f A , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Tax(Parcel)Identification (I.D.)No. 07-4-3-4 Magisterial District Gainsboro _ Current Zoning Area 7. Adjoining Property: USE North Farm East R�.si �Pnce South Vacant West Vatrani ZONING 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing)_ Home office to provide professional accounting (CPA) services. Occasional meeting with clients (est. no more than 5-10 per week mostly in tax season. Small sign near road. 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: None 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME M. Huffman ADDRESS 1489 Shockeysville Rd PROPERTY ID# 07-4-3-3 NAME .L & S Burns ADDRESS 262 Files Chape PROPERTY ID# 07-4-3-24 NAME D. Britton ADDRESS 182 Rockey Top Lane PROPERTY ID# o7-4- -16 NAME S Foley ADDRESS 161 Files Chapel Dr PROPERTY ID# NAME E ADDRESS 1830 Ia p1 ala Br PROPERTY ID# 08-A-11 NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 480 \50 F -I OCI f PARCEL - 4 .. 40 PA.E 55 !i RITTL R MOUNTAIN, SECTION 'III j GAIN_-©CRO DISTRiCT F.tEDERICK CUUNTY,'VA, NORTH i i N 20 ' Iles Chapel Drive N 22 E 30' R-O-W 4 235' 6 451 E 200' '�Jhrib PARCEL - 4' I ,jA..��cnbRv rJ� S 56 30f E ' PIO. us '?, 7.2 Acres 737' j N G3 I" W i NATE O/ 600' VIRW,�QQ' D/ p�ww u�" j econdary State S 108' oute 671 S _ i 5 E 50' pt' 200' S 28 45'U 107.5'_ 1 � = 200' ,. li WU D OF DESCRIIJILN Scale All that certain tract or parcel of land, lying and being situate jj approximately 7 miles north of Gainesbaro, Virginia, in Gainesboro District, Frederick County, Virninia, being identified as Parcel= 4, i j Ritter Mountain, Section 111, and being more particularly described I as follows: aeginning at a point in the center of Secondary State Route 671; 1 thence ;.ith a blazed line N 63 15: W 6001 to a point in the center of Fills Chapel Drive, a 30' right-of-way; thence with the metes and ji bounds of Files Chapel Drive N 6 45' E 2001; thence N 22 E 114'; thence i N 2.0 30' E 235' to a point in the center cf said right-of-way; thence with a blaz_d line S 56 30' � 737' to a point in the center of State and bounds ❑f said State ro 112oute 671; thence with the metes _,d S 6 E 10' W 200'; thence 50'; thence 5 28 45' W 107.5'; thence 5 42 ^.� 40 ME 553 FARCEL - 4 , RITTER MOUNTAIN, SECTION III GAIrj S0GRO DISTRICT FR.EDERICh COUNTY, VIRGINIA iLRD OF DESL':�?FTIIjPJ S 25 W 1OB' to the point of beginning, containing, 7.2 acres. And being a portion of the land that was conveyed to Burton Hoover by deed of Everett S. hirkpatrict, et ux, dated Aunu=t 27, 1957, and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Viroinia, in Deed Book 242 at pane 371. Clinton L. Ritter Land Surveyor V:1131NA FRZOE1t^.' JU:;Ty, 3 =C. T' is instrument writ -.5(j was Plod to me on the day of 193 , at ^cam and with certiiicat of acknowlLd9'neat thereto anne.(ad was gid' admitted to rocord. TaX imijosad Uy S=c- id if a:se=sable. i of $ �DO and 53-54 have been paid, Ldcullk- 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner's Owners' Mailing Address 1471 Shockeysville Rc, Winchester, VA 22603 Owners' Telephone No. 540- R-88 911g7 TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 908-08 X41 �2� SHENANDOAH GAS Staff Report for the Planning Commission w ® Prepared: July 19, 2008 1J3N Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 08/06/08 Pending Board of Supervisors: 09/24/08 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 350 Hillandale Lane (Route 651). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 63-A-2 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: M-1 (Industrial Light) District Land Use: Washington Gas ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: M-1 (Industrial Light) Land Use: Telephone Company South: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Vacant East: RP (Residential Performance Land Use: Vacant West: Route 81 Land Use: Interstate Highway PROPOSED USE: This application is for an extension of previously approved monopole structure from 120 feet to 180 feet. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 651, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed CUP #08-08, Shenandoah Gas July 19, 2008 Page 2 use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT commercial standards. FIRE AND RESCUE: Plan approval as submitted. INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT: Building permit required for construction. Structure shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, use group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of The International Building Code 2003. Structured plans submitted for permit application shall be sealed by a VA Licensed Design Professional for antenna attachment. Please note the requirements in Chapter 17 Special Inspections for this type structure, soils, concrete, bolts, etc. Note: All Chapter I VUSBC min. inspections shall be conducted by the Frederick County Inspections Staff. Request to utilize a third party inspection agency that complies with the Frederick County policy shall have prior approval granted by the Building Code Official. WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT: The existing tower does not penetrate the FAR Part 77 surfaces of the Winchester Regional Airport based on the Federal Aviation Administration's Aeronautical Study Number 2002 -AEA -1095 -OE dated October 1, 2002 at a maximum height of 196 feet (AGL). That determination study expired on April 1, 2004; therefore, the applicant must re -file with the FAA for a new study. Regardless of the FAA's determination regarding lighting regulations, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority requests the following be considered as a requirement for approval of this CUP: 1. Towers over 200 feet AGL are required by FAA to be lighted. For towers between 150 and 199 feet AGL, the Winchester Airport is requiring all structures to be marked and lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460 -IK, Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting. 2. Applicant is required to file with the Virginia Department of Aviation and applicant should send a copy of the FAA Aeronautical Study and a quadrangle map showing the proposed tower location for their review and comment. Provided these conditions are met, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority has no objections to the Conditional Use Permit application. Planning and Zoning: This proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is for an extension of the current monopole -type telecommunication tower from 120 feet to 180 feet, located on a 10.9 - acre site on Hillandale Lane (Route 651) adjacent to Interstate 81. This 180 foot telecommunication tower will have setbacks of approximately 300 feet from Hillandale Lane (Route 651), 152 feet from the rear property line, 337 feet from the right property line, and 595 feet from the left side property line. These setbacks were calculated with Conditional Use Permit 911-02 to meet future extension of this tower from 120 feet to 180 feet. CUP #11-02 was approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on November 13, 2002. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for Commercial Telecommunication Facilities in the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance specifies that a CUP for a commercial CUP 408-08, Shenandoah Gas July 19, 2008 Page 3 telecommunication tower may be permitted provided that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic values are not negatively impacted. Furthermore, additional performance standards shall apply to the CUP review in order to promote orderly economic development and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/06/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The telecommunication tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers. 3. In the event a telecommunication tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the Conditional Use Permit will be deemed invalid. 4. The telecommunication tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of abandonment of operation. 5. Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. U 1b0 500 1,000 Feet W �" E Shenandoah Gas Conditional Use Permit CUP #08-08 PIN: 63 - 2 - A +h F' ;0 r" Case Planner: Mark - Future Rt37 Bypass Zoning M2 (Industrial, General Dis!rict) CUPO808_ShenandoahGas !-F-1 ": _ BI (Business. Neighborhood District) 4M MHI (Mobile Home Community District) Urban Development Area 82 (Business, General Distrist) On) MS (Medical Support District) " a) S W S A 133 (Business, Industrial Transition District) RJ (Residential Planned Community District) 4W EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) 4M' R5 (Residential Recreational Comm silty District) 4M HE (Higher Education Distinct)J) RA (Rural Area District) Ml (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residential Performance District) .pit :!r' .UCL_' Submittal Deadline PIC Meeting 0 BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the X owner other) NA,1E : Shenandoah Gas ADDRESS: 350 Hillandale Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 TELEPHONE Orlando Spencer 703-750-4575 OSpencer@washgas.com 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street.) From Exit 310 Interstate 81 proceed East to Dead End and Traffic Light. Turn left and proceed 4110 turn right and proceed through gate. Bear left between buildings and the site is located to the left. 4_ The property has a road frontage of 951.43 feet and a depth of 42185 feet and consists of 10.985 acres. (Please be exact) J . The property is owned by Shenandoah Gas evidenced by deed from as recorded (previous owner) in deed book. no. 311 on page 425 , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6- 14 -Digit Property Identification No_ 63 2 A Record #0041011 Magisterial District Shawnee District Current Zoning M-1 7. Adjoining Property: USE North Commercial East Agricultural South Commercial West Commercial ZONING M-1 RARP M-1 B-3 & M-2 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) Extension of 120 foot monopole structure that was approved in November 02, CUP#11-02. Request to extend tower to 180 feet and move existing microwave dishes to a centerline of 177 feet. Additional height is required to meet any communications requirements 0 It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed • No additional buildings are proposed 10. 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back_ if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME Hood, HP Inc, Attn: Sally Sevier ADDRESS 6 Kimball Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940 PROPERTY T DO 63 A 86 A Record #0038637 N,,x iE. Hamman Investment CO Inc ADDRESS 931 Pinto Circle, Nohomis, FL 34275 PROPERTY ID# 63 2 B Record# NAME Glaize Developments Inc ADDRESS PO Box 888, Winchester, VA 22604 PROPERTY ID#75 A 91& 94 Record #0024154 NAME Hodgson Construction LLC ADDRESS 1180 pple ie i ge, Winchester, VA 22603 PROPERTY ID#75A91C Record#0037832 NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME _ ADDRESS PROPERTY IDH NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NPNE ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS ID# ?_ Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposea and/or existing structures on the property, intlurdinQ measurements to all property lines. See Attached Sketch and Construction Drawings � I 4? o oq `4 aawrsi�sGs�ti}n __ 4 q. 37 C] JL1-� I o O N� zspkzl unA�w Inc �..'?'C7 61 1.4�.{``ur ��II i7 F.: fl 'Cl n.t re O f(r MI fa �f x c \YA i1ot r 18 CON6yq.l 15 v Shenandoah Hdls *�t I�a i � "-,t•.f &I�*1 _ �y Q ;...t" � �t� ug 0 Sir" t '�. L- 'SQ�..,,tz V J ._': IX _ ui !r E pq i -#?t zCsk 5 A�rbPz (VAND{oAt-r RWaYr.r• i ' - ' � Fede rri), Heights !! y a ' • -p/ GREE110, K DR 0 G�AZo - - q y0 3136 i -- Greenwood Heights.,. ,f '�. ;: '.- f``__''• -'-o _.,. f o i � _..4� MOWBROOKE PLS.. 11 EI}DS 1rn d - w 6� RUpB ( SESLM 113A dna AU LRELW OOD DR'--_ SR 62z MOUNT, N VIEW LN ,h`� ._ 9103 - - ff f, "` .0 1 CLISTERKnR'AVE' IV � F7L? LET -�7 AFIELD ernstownF �X it1 T - . 522 —1&1 C b ti{ i a If WaslmrjroW u Gas Tner N39-7-32:1, �W78-11-411-6.Ir41 17 ------ - /S tt I : � • � � ,r''r 522 BartoTvlllew_ - ,. I R reek�A'9Rkr fP'arkins Mills iz t -r pl I tAt<tiS3Df'Q9- s �2 �r"/0 �zcg�Out�D4tI�4 KIT RD e1,: Data use subject to license. m OO 2008 Del-orme. Topo USAR) B.O. 0 1/� i4 �%a 1 1114 uvt m-delorme_com MN (10.0` W) Data Zoom 12-0 Fax sent b9 : 7637587945 RAM 65-19-E8 99:54a Pg: 1/1 12. Additional comments, if ny:NOre — I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Credcrick County, Virginia to allow the ose described in this application. I understand that the sigri issued to me when this aOplication is submitted must be placed at the front property line at Jieast seven (7) dabs prior to the first public hearing and mainr.ained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a C'onditionai [ase Permit authori�,&s any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of supervisors or t~lanning and DQvelopn+ent Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant IAMC /K Signature Of Owner C7wner-.sr Mai.iing Address 350 Hillandale lane, Winchester, VA 22602 owners' Telephone No. Orland spencer 703-750-4576 0spencer@wahga5t0om consultant: Lynn Koerner 540-335-0030 TO Bli COMPLETED BY THE ZUNINc ADMINISTRATOR= USE CODE: RRWMAL DATE: 1-W il-W 1110Llsirie s, Inc. 53780 Site Cycle; i. DeSign: 2 Engineer: jor- c -aye: 3. "Ustnsne_.-. VIArdTIK GAEIXTRC CUMMI "f 01010/2003 Sipe: 1 11:27 -10, }'Ise : POI E- a bn aie; lrapered - ---- S u M 1.1 11 R y D r A N A L Y S I s' R E S U L T S conuiLivnv..- ................. 80 mpn Basic Wind (0.30" radjcl 50 L,ph Opel. rat iO el.� null ing Code ................ )..xpossu e .................... .. . C Gust resparsse facorr........ Ei1?6`tIi?isle St-eSS-ncruase .. .. 1.33 1�+....��"��_- _=...c.�. TqU spttcm lG;,metes.............. 66.400 ire Emberirnent Depth ............ - Fo1e Shape.... ............... . 19 -sided Polygon Joint Type .. ... . . - . 1•{jr i' d Sllazt S ee ilei�iii . 26 if, k -P=4 t `;c}n Bottom SI -..I: Sect. Thickness Yield. Diameter Diameter JLint Steel Le zgz:kt It) II yl {At) inhl Overlap Taper ::eight -5e{Y (ft) (2n) ( si) (ir) (in) (in) {in "Li} {'r;ins7 1t = 3-5.630 �4 0 -?$750 oS 380 65 29.110_ 3U.•i10 38.370. 0.00 0.153"7 2 4£.000_0.13'?50 - 3 _-36.250 0.2500:} a'5 33.3709 •tS.32C Za-00Y. ..0.1917 ---3fiG 4.315 4 43.000 0.31250 GS 43.6.10 57,.E10 79.00 0.1917 8:'2.25 3. a0" 6.3326 . 6_. 50.1 rn 60,Ou0 0,7:91] 9.450 sFiC"IJ?-i 4 711,-APM FOMR E tvD bio; .7I'.a At lase of Sec'tioit i+}G,+:.Ratio uect. Axia;. Bending lloriz. fi.ctual Elec, Lead Mcrae.,] r: Shear Torsicr 7, 1owable 5e❑ Luad Case (ft_) _ (kins) (f -C -kills) _ ()ci�a} {ft -K; Yusi.- _li tat;"E�nl � .(ii 1 Cqr 0008 1£4.17 3.2763 20.9972 _ 3.66591 -- .3 19''71 J.0:161 Cor«iagC00 x:20,00 11.2063 n 7 .5a.,20512_.3S86 11.3216 0.5914 3 C;xE 008 80.92 18.0082 474.368.5 7G..2606 12.6616 0.6411 4 Cambo008 38.13 29.4151 1769.9300 22.3.188 17.0547 0.6652 5 combo 002 0.00 39.75000 28115.7551E 26.1945 17.e547 x".8,33 3> I.SAX it�1r=0135:--..... _.-,.- 48.139_6 2875.2925 26.3847 17.0347 cc 560.157..^.Pi PRQPi'.f<'3:�`S: Didn1 1'. 1.1 D .aa/ Across Thi.Ck Thick Yi.,i klsk. ;le,• vlats It) i4;/r) (i)/t] Area J T x ;k1ps) 7ncat'ian (�t} (,n)--- {inn 2atia Ratio {i: "L) ii? 4j t:i:}"4; 3 0.97G QTop 150.00 27.3x0 0.1875 23.S1 346.03 16.13 3031.1 .1511.8 4:Solice 168.00 219.580 25.G8 158.29 17.55 3867,2 1928.8 r.::oC ,1.64.17 30--;!0 2e.36 162.19 -7.99 41E;1. G 7,075. - 2 3.460 aTop 168.00 29.170 0.1675 25.20 155.57 17.25 3670.0 1830.; rKI0t 120-00 38.370, 33.85 204.64 22.72 6391.7 X185.4 3 4,37.5 G9'oP 117.17 38.370 0.2500 25.30 153.48 30.25 11134.1 .55-53 .2 86..58 42.780 29.132 179.12 35.53 1.17-'_.11.2 8852.0 Rot; BO.92 45.320 30.20 181.23 35.76 a8401.7 91"18.0 4 6.225 '-Toa 86.13 42 .6,10 0.3125 23.1.3 139.55 42.941 2G393.6 10:.71 _ = Splice 4. •i.7:! 52.120 27.;,.G 166.98 51.44 35058.4 .174ES.G imt3ilt 36.33 52.810 28.12 168.99 S2.07 36351.5 18'.30.7 5 9.160 rlTor 1,3 5G.13%3 0.3_25 2?.15 ?cZ. y ci - n =233? 9 1612r .7 F_pt 0.00 60.000 32.37 192.00 59.20 53426.4 26656.8 Washington Gas Shenandoah Division Jul 9, 2008 Frederick County P.O. Box 2400 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 869-1111 Shenandoah. Gas is requesting authorization to modify its existing 120' monopole tower. We need to raise the tower to 180' for the following reasons. Over the years we have expanded our natural gas service area and we are forecasting continued growth in this region. With this expanding service area we must be able to control and monitor the flow of natural gas through the vast pipeline system. We must be able to effectively and efficiently dispatch personnel to service the pipeline. To continue providing a safe and reliable product to its customers, Washington Gas/Shenandoah Gas is installing a digital voice and data system that will provide cominunication coverage of its current and projected service area for the next 15+ years. Iba the system design, we need to add a link to our current communication network. In order to complete this link, we must add a microwave dish at 120' to the tower at our Blue Mountain site. This site also connects to our Winchester site. The new Blue Mountain dish must be at 120' to clear obstructions to the Columbia Gas tower. This additional dish will result in three dishes at the top of the Blue Mountain tower. This tower can not support this additional loading and it is at its maximum height. To overcome this issue, we must raise the Winchester tower to 180' which will allow us to lower the dish linking Winchester and Blue Mountain to 80'. This will enable the project to move forward and expand our private voice and data communications over our complete Shenandoah service area. Thank you for your cooperation on this request. Orlando Spencer Wireless Communication Architect Washington Gas 703.750.4575 Office 703.408.6419 Cell 703.750.7945 Fax ospencer@washgas.com REZONING APPLICATION #04-08 RED HAWK ESTATES Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: July 16, 2008 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Planning Commission: 08/06/08 Board of Supervisors: 09/24/08 Action Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 655). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 65-A-86, 65 -A -86B, 65 -A -98,65-A-102 and 65 -A -102A PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Residential and vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: B2 (Business General) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural Use: Vacant Use: Residential/Agricultural Use: Residential/Agricultural/ Frederick County PROPOSED USES: Up to 69 Single Family Homes and 170 Townhomes Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 655, 656 and 50. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is NOT satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application dated January 15, 2008 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. VDOT offers the following comments: 1. The applicant has increased the financial contribution from $60,000 to $150,000 for potential off-site improvements along Sulphur Spring Road. While the increase is welcomed, it is far less (approximately $625 per unit) than many of the recent rezonings have provided. 2. The residence lots noted along existing Greenwood Road should not be constructed until such time as Greenwood Road thru traffic has been relocated to future Channing Drive as shown on the County's Eastern Road Plan. The existing roadway lacks sufficient sight distance to safely allow for ingress and egress to these residential sites. 3. VDOT suggests that the applicant look at the possibility of accessing the Town House portion of the development via Route 50 and the Arcadia parcel adjacent to the proposed development vs. constructing a crossing of the Sulphur Spring stream. VDOT is willing to meet with the applicant to review the above comments. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Co.: Needs to be some sort of guarantee as to not having full road closure for any period of time. Department of Inspections: No comments Department of Public Works: See attached. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments regarding changes, except those comments put forth on April 11, 2006 letter regarding water and sewer usage. 4/11/2006 - There are no flow projections given for water and sewer usage. The plan seems to indicate there are 232 dwelling units, which could be equated to around 50,000 gallons a day. The developer should verify water and sewer usage. Sanitation Authority Department: We should have sufficient sewer and water capacity to serve the development. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proffer statement, as it relates to trails, open space and parks and recreational amenities, includes so many generalities and contingencies it is difficult to understand Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 3 the impact of the proffer. Staff recommends the developer commit to specific offerings that are measurable today. Staff recommends the county proffer model be used in determining the impact this development will have on the capital facilities needs of the Parks and Recreation Department. Furthennore, the construction of the trails should be completed by the development and in accordance with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan, with no reduction in the cash proffer for Parks and Recreation capital facility development. The 100% hard surface trail system, on public easements, should then be turned over to the HOA. All trails should meet Frederick County Standards. Staff also recommends that more specific benchmarks be used when identifying when the development of amenities will be completed. Plan appears to provide the appropriate amount of usable open space. Plan should include a trails summary outlining locations, costs, typical sections, schedule for development and how, and by whom, trails will be maintained. Developer should determine whether all conditions necessary for the inclusion of the bicycle trail can be met and then complete the proffer accordingly. Construction of the trail system should take place as Red Hawk Estates is being developed. The schedule for trail construction should not be based on development of adjoining parcels. The area to be dedicated as community open space should be more clearly defined. The developer should provide a more concrete proposal pertaining to the offer of obtaining the "Community Wildlife Designation". It is not clear to staff if the information pertaining to Parks and Recreation in section 9 of this report constitutes an offer by the developer to include these amenities within this development. Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objection if public water and sewer are provided, and existing sewage disposal systems and water supplies are not affected. All required setbacks to the above must be maintained. Winchester Regional Airport: After review of the revised proffer for Red Hawk Estates for proposed residential performance, we did not see anything addressing our prior comment made in 2006 as follows: "The proposed site does lie within airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport and is in close proximity to the northeastern edge of the Airport Support Area. In order to protect growth and future operations of the Winchester Airport, residential occupants should be provided with disclosure statements about the close proximity of the site to the Airport and the possibility of experiencing noise from over flights of aircraft arriving to and departing from the Winchester Regional Airport." The center of the proposed residential development portion of the project with 239 residential units is less than 6,000 feet from the centerline of the runway at the Winchester Regional Airport. With twenty-four operations, jet traffic has steadily increased over the past several years and continues to grow with owners of larger jet aircraft housing their jets at Winchester. We are not opposing the rezoning request but we do feel it is important to protect the operations of the airport and request you include our request to make know to future homeowners that they are in close proximity to a regional airport through a disclosure statement and/or a covenant in their deed. Frederick County Public Schools: We offer the following comments: 1. The cumulative impact of this project and other projects in various stages of development in eastern Frederick County will necessitate future construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. We estimate that the 71 single family detached units and the 166 single family attached units that this development will contain will house 28 high school students, 25 middle school students Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 4 and 49 elementary school students. In order to properly serve these 102 students, Frederick County Public Schools will outlay $3,583,000 in capital expenditures and $1,042,000 annually in operating costs. 2. The cash proffers for school construction total $3,463,000. This would defray most but not all of the resultant capital costs noted above. 3. The current intersection of Greenwood Road and Sulphur Spring Road is in an awkward and unsafe arrangement for school buses. Buses turning right momentarily block both lanes of traffic. Based on the Conceptual Plan contained in the Impact Analysis Statement, potentially two additional buses (one elementary and one middle/high) would travel through this intersection. Improvements to Greenwood Road and extension of Channing Drive per the Eastern Road Plan would improve safe transportation of students. We note the proffered dedication of right-of-way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and the extension of Channing Drive and the proffered construction of a portion of Channing Drive. Unfortunately, relocating Greenwood Road and connecting it to Channing Drive will occur at a later date as neighboring parcels develop. 4. Please note there are two different Conceptual plans and two different Generalized Development plans in the packet submitted to us. Frederick County Public Schools is concerned about all land development applications. Both capital expenditures and annual operating costs are significantly increased by each approved residential development. Historic Resources Advisory Board: see attached Attorney Comments: see attached. Blue Ridee Forestry Consultants: No changes have been made with the application that will impact the future productivity, aesthetic or wildlife qualities of the forested acreage. Planning Department: Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a, composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 5 [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] T ly"d TTvo The properties are located in the UDA and the SWSA. The Comprehensive Plan's Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan provides no specific guidance as to the future land use designations in this area. The use of adjacent land is a significant consideration in the evaluation of the appropriate future land use of this area. The property is in the vicinity of the Frederick County Landfill, the old Frederick County landfill which is currently being utilized by the Sherriff s Office, existing industrial businesses, property currently zoned B2, Business General, and scattered existing residential uses on individual health systems. It is recognized that the property is within the UDA; however, the proposed residential request should be carefully evaluated to ensure it is consistent with current or planned land uses in this area. The application should be reviewed based upon the current Comprehensive Plan. It is recognized that through the UDA Study this area was preliminarily identified as an opportune area for additional commercial and industrial land uses, and potentially a location for future recognition as an urban center. However, this is not presently a part of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the consideration of land uses supportive of the operations of the Frederick County Landfill and the Frederick County Sheriff who operates an outdoor shooting range on the property to the west of this site should continue to be a high priority. Transportation The County's Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of this project identifies improvements to Greenwood Road and the extension of Channing Drive. Both are identified as major collector roads. It is anticipated that the intersection of these two roads and Sulphur Springs Road would occur in the immediate vicinity of this property. A solution to the convergence of these three roads should be identified and addressed in conjunction with this rezoning application. Subsequent planning efforts have elevated the improvement of Sulphur Springs Road to the top of the County's secondary Road Improvement Project list. VDOT is currently in the design phase for this project. This rezoning application should recognize the future improvements to Sulphur Springs Road. In addition, the alignment of Channing Drive through this project to Route 50 in the vicinity of Independence Drive has been reinforced through the eastern road plan. The construction of Channing Drive in this location was also recognized in the rezoning of the adjacent property to the Southeast in rezoning #06-90 of Kathryn M. Perry. This property is currently owned by Acadia. This old rezoning application proffered the construction of a four lane divided road through their property in support of their commercial rezoning. Site Access and design. The Application is generally divided into two sections by Sulphur Springs Road. Access to the property to the north is via Greenwood Road and access to the southern property is indirectly to Route 50. Additional access to the southern property is via improved Brimstone Lane. It is Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 6 important to recognize that there are several properties located internal to the properties requested to be rezoned. A Generalized Development Plan further identifies the site access and design. 3) Site Suitabilit"nvironment The properties are bisected by Sulphur Springs Run and its associated floodplain. This is key feature that has been addressed in the application. The property also contains several smaller tributaries that bisect the development area. In addition, several wetlands exist on the site. Other features of the property include areas of steep slopes and mature woodlands which should be a greater consideration with this request. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The TIA prepared for this application does not effectively evaluate the transportation program proffered by the Applicant. However, it should be recognized that the modifications to the application and proffer statement more accurately depict the transportation network envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. The limited value of the conclusions of the TIA should be recognized. Transportation Program. The Applicant's transportation program is highlighted on the accompanying Generalized Development Plan and is further summarized as follows: • The dedication of right-of-way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and Channing Drive over their property. • A commitment not to construct houses on Greenwood Road until such time Greenwood Road is relocated to Channing Drive. • A contribution in the amount of $180,000 for the construction of a traffic signal or other transportation improvement. • The construction of a four lane divided section of Channing Drive across their property. • The construction of a two lane roadway across the adjacent Arcadia Development Company property to connect with Route 50. • Pedestrian improvements in association with the transportation improvements. Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 7 Several alternative trigger mechanisms are proposed in implementation of the Applicant's proffer Statement. Many of these are less than desirable and should be more specific. It is Staff's intent to ensure a Proffer Statement that can be effectively administered in the future. Additional comments from Mr. John Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner are summarized as follows. I . The transportation proffers as written have no time triggers. 2. Arcadia is committed to building two lanes to Route 50. If Red Hawk takes on that responsibility instead of building an additional two lanes, what has the County gained? You cannot offset your impact by offsetting someone else's impact instead. 3. Given item two, the signal proffer amount seems insufficient to offset the impacts of Red Hawk. 4. The signal proffer, as currently worded, is too restrictive and would be better if there was an option to use the cash in the general area. 5. It may be worth pointing out that it will be appropriate to cul de sac Greenwood Road upon the implementation of the new connection with Channing Dr. C. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services. The application recognizes these impacts. However, the latest version of the County's Development Impact Model should be used to ensure that these impacts are accurately mitigated. As noted previously, this project may have an impact on adjacent County owned facilities; the old Frederick County Landfill which is currently home to the Frederick County Sherriff's impound lot and outdoor Shooting Range, and potentially to the existing Frederick County Landfill. The impact to the existing residential land uses internal to this project should continue to be recognized. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated May 1, 2008, Revised July 14, 2008 A) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has proffered a generalized Development Plan which identifies access, areas of residential land use, types of residences, and area of open space preservation. B) Land Use The property shall contain a maximum of 240 residential units with no more than 69 single family detached units and no more than 170 single family attached residential units. It should be clarified that no multifamily units will be developed on this site. Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 8 The application provides for approximately 32.5 acres of open space. C) Transportation The dedication of right of way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and Channing Drive over their property. A commitment not to construct houses on Greenwood Road until such time Greenwood Road is relocated to Channing Drive. A contribution in the amount of $180,000 for the construction of a traffic signal or other transportation improvement. The construction of a four lane divided section of Channing Drive across their property. The construction of a two lane roadway across the adjacent Arcadia Development Company property to connect with Route 50. Pedestrian improvements in association with the transportation improvements. C) Communi y Facilities The Applicant has provided monetary contributions to offset the impacts to community facilities. This item should be updated to reflect the current impact model and should not include any credit calculations such as proposed for Parks and Recreation. With regards to Public Safety, the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution up to $650,000 toward the construction of a new indoor shooting range. This proffer should indicate the impact that placing a residential development adjacent to one of the few remaining outdoor shooting ranges would have on the operation of the range. A proffered contribution towards the construction of a new facility appears to be wholly inadequate. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/06/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: While the property is located in the UDA, the residential land use proposed in this rezoning should be carefully evaluated in consideration of the surrounding land uses. Many of the impacts associated with this rezoning request have not been mitigated by the Applicant. In particular, the impact to the adjacent Sheriff's shooting range facility. In addition, the transportation impacts associated with this request and the proffered transportation improvements aimed at mitigating the impacts may not be sufficient. Transportation improvements do not appear to have been provided in the same scale as the proposed development. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. TO: R. J. Turner FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Preliminary Points — Red Hawk Estates Rezoning DATE: June 14, 2006 The following points are offered regarding the Red Hawk Estates Rezoning application. Please consider them as you continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. Red Hawk Estates — Preliminary ezoning Notes. General. The Comprehensive Plan's Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan provides no specific guidance as to the future land use designations in this area. The use of adjacent land is a significant consideration in the evaluation of the appropriate future land use of this area. In the vicinity is the Frederick County Landfill, the old Frederick County landfill, existing industrial businesses, and scattered existing residential uses on individual health systems. It is difficult to consider the proposed residential request consistent with current or planned land uses in this area. The application is presently being reviewed based upon the current Comprehensive Plan. The evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan through the UDA Study preliminarily identifies this area as an opportune area for additional commercial and industrial land uses. The expansion of the commercial and industrial land uses that front and have access on Route 50 preliminarily appears to be more appropriate than the addition of residential land uses in a relatively isolated location. In addition, the consideration of a Landfill Support Area may provide guidance regarding desirable and undesirable land uses in this area. The permitted density of the project could enable @ 5.5 units per acre. The application's discussion is based on 224 units. This discrepancy should be addressed and could be incorporated into the proffer statement. The impact statement should address the potential impacts to those properties internal and adjacent to those for which this rezoning is being requested. Particular consideration should be given to any operational impacts that may result on the longstanding industrial use to the south. Transportation. The County's Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of this project identifies improvements to Greenwood Road and the extension of Channing Drive. Both are identified as major collector roads. It is anticipated that the intersection of these two roads and Sulpher Springs Road would occur in the immediate vicinity of this property. A solution to the convergence of these three roads should be identified and addressed in conjunction with this rezoning application. This rezoning application and its accompanying TIA should reflect the comprehensively planned road network and the adjacent road intersections. As presently presented, no TIA has been provided and the roads identified in the Comprehensive Plan have not been fully addressed in the application. The TIA should include an intersection analysis of the adjacent road system. The scope of which should be determined in conjunction with VDOT. The TIA should be based on the worst case scenario instead of the current approach which is based on an intensity less than that which would be permitted by the future zoning (5.5 units per acre / 2.3 units per acre).A proffered commitment to the number of units could assist in the clarification of the impacts identified in a TIA. The desired typical section for a major collector road should be addressed and incorporated into this application. The location of Route 37 in the vicinity of this project should be included in the exhibits accompanying this application. Other. Preservation of riparian areas and buffers should be accomplished within the GDP and proffers. In particular, along the areas designated with a floodplain. Low Impact Development techniques should be identified and integrated into the application and Proffer Statement. The wetlands should be identified up front and mitigation techniques incorporated into the application. The areas of woodlands should be evaluated on the nature of the woodlands, not on the commercial value of the woodlands. Consideration of the description of woodlands in County planning documents and ordinances may be more appropriate. Provide an enhanced analysis of the water and sewer impacts associated with this request. This should include capacity analysis of the facilities that would be impacted by this rezoning request. Provide an enhanced analysis of the solid waste impacts associated with this request. This should include capacity analysis of the landfill and convenience site facilities that would be impacted by this rezoning request. Impacts to community facilities should be evaluated using the County's Development Impact Model rather than the old Fiscal Impact Model. Mitigation of the impacts should be considered further. The proffer statement should be in the appropriate legal form. It should be specific in nature, not descriptive. It should not include speculative offers but should include commitments and mechanisms to ensure the commitments will be met in an appropriate time frame. A Generalized Development Plan should be utilized and incorporated into the proffer statement to better describe the scope of the application. Provide a plat of rezoning that includes a metes and bounds description of the properties for which the rezoning is being requested. Please provide an executed Limited Power of Attorney Form with the application. August 29, 2006 Mr. R. J. Turner Turner Enterprises, LLC 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Red Hawk Estates, Rezoning Application Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Turner: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 5401678-0682 We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning request for Red Hawk Estates dated August 16, 2006, and offer the following comments: Refer to A. Site Suitability, Page 2 of 12: The narrative indicates that development of the site will include connecting to current water and sewer through the .Pcn.y parcel of land (Tax Map #64-A-158). Indicate if these connections will occur within an existing easement or if a new easement agreement will be required. If the latter condition will be necessary, provide a copy of the agreement with the submission of the master development plan. 2. Refer to B. Surrounding Properties, Page 4 of 12: The discussion indicates that the proposed development on the south side of Sulphur Spring Road abuts the former (closed out) Frederick County Landfill. This closed out landfill comprises approximately 40 acres, not 25 acres as referenced. The discussion also indicates that the current uses of the closed out landfill property are compatible with the proposed development. Indicate how an outdoor shooting range and an impound lot are compatible with a high density residential development. The discussion indicates that the Perry Engineering Company, Inc. has moved their powder magazine and plans to move other operations to another location. Indicate what other operations they plan to relocate. Refer to the Generalized Development Plan, Page 5 of 12: The proposed generalized 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Red Hawk Rezoning Application Comments Page 2 August 29, 2006 development plan shows a realignment of Greenwood Road crossing through the landfill property plus bisecting the Perry property. Indicate if the owners of the Perry property have been consulted about this proposed realignment considering that it bisects their shop and part of their office building. Also, the proposed road alignment cannot be constructed over the closed out landfill unless the affected area is remediated in accordance with the Department of Environmental Quality's (D.E.Q.) requirements. This remediation would be very expensive. Likewise, any inter -parcel connectors crossing the landfill property would require remediation. Therefore, we recommend that any interparcel connectors except access drives to the impound area and other outparcels be removed from the development plan. 4. Refer to the Conceptual Plan, Page 7 of 12: The above comments made for the Generalized Development Plan also apply to the Conceptual Plan. 5. Refer to the Tabulation Summary on Page 8 of 12: The number of residential dwellings, 71 single family and 166 townhouses, conflicts with the numbers included in the rezoning application, paragraph 11. Correct this discrepancy. 6.- • - ► YTor to C. Sewage Conveyance and D. Water Supply, Page 9 of 12: Refer to comment number one to clarify the easement issue through the Perry property. 7. Refer to F. Drainage, Page 10 of 12: The discussion references Exhibit 4 for drainage and topographical information. Exhibit 4 illustrates the existing topography. However, there is no reference or delineation of drainage features. In fact, the contours are not labeled for future reference. 8. Refer to F. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Determine the impact on solid waste facilities by calculating the anticipated solid waste generated by the proposed development. Also, indicate that the collection of solid waste will be provided by private hauler as indicated in the proffer statement (paragraph 12.2). 9. Refer to H. Community Facilities, Parks and Recreation, Page 11 of 12: The projected capital cost for public park facilities, $281,846, doe not match the amount shown in the table under I. Other Impacts, $446,150. Correct this discrepancy. Clarify the reference to Proffer Statement number seven. Proffer statement number seven references school impacts, not parks and recreational facilities. 10. Refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Page 2: Indicate why traffic counts were not Red Hawk Rezoning Application Comments Page 3 August 29, 2006 included in the TIA at the intersection of Sulphur spring Road and Landfill Road. 11. Refer to Offer to Frederick County to Purchase Closed out Landfill: Previous offers to purchase the approximate 40 acre parcel of closed out landfill property have been rejected because the offer did not adequately relieve Frederick County from future liability. The new offer dated March 4, 2005, still does not indemnify Frederick County from future liability. The only way Frederick County can be indemnified from future liability is if the purchaser guarantees that the closed out will be remediated to the satisfaction of the D.E.Q. Also, the purchase offer indicates that the purchaser will pay an amount of $350,000 toward the construction of a new shooting facility. This offer conflicts with the proffered amount of $650,000 for the construction of an indoor shooting range. 12. Refer to the Arcadia Development Plan: This plan indicates residential development when the actual approved use is B-2 as indicated in the impact analysis, paragraph B. Surrounding Properties, Page 4 of 12. This plan should be corrected or deleted from the application package. I can be reached at 722-8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Harvey trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Development file CAProgram Files\WordPerfect Office X3\Rhonda\TEMPCOMMENTS\REDHAWKREZCOM.wpd June 12, 2006 Turner Enterprises, LLC 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Red Hawk Estates Rezoning; PIN(S) 965-A-86, 98, 102 and 102A Dear Mr. Turner: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of May 16, 2006. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Repo , the Virginia Department of Historic Resources as well as information provided by the applicant. The HRAB felt that the proffers associated with historic preservation and recognition were adequate and did not request any changes to the proposed rezoning. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, r Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL HAND DELIVERED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Red Hawk Estates (Turner Enterprises, L.L.C.) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. The last sentence of the first paragraph must be deleted. If the Board were to deny this conditional rezoning application, and the Applicant appealed that denial to the Circuit Court, and if the Circuit Court overruled the Board and remanded the matter to the Board for reconsideration, the application which would be back before the Board by virtue of the remand from the Circuit Court would be this conditional rezoning with these proffers. If the Applicant did not wish the Board to go forward with the reconsideration with these proffers, the Applicant would have to withdraw the application at that time. A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS -"� ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1572) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 a 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST 50SCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG. VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540-662-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON January 29, 2007 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. HAND DELIVERED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Red Hawk Estates (Turner Enterprises, L.L.C.) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. The last sentence of the first paragraph must be deleted. If the Board were to deny this conditional rezoning application, and the Applicant appealed that denial to the Circuit Court, and if the Circuit Court overruled the Board and remanded the matter to the Board for reconsideration, the application which would be back before the Board by virtue of the remand from the Circuit Court would be this conditional rezoning with these proffers. If the Applicant did not wish the Board to go forward with the reconsideration with these proffers, the Applicant would have to withdraw the application at that time. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy January 29, 2007 Page 2A 2. The Proffer Statement references a Generalized Development Plan. It should be noted that the GDP was not available to me in preparing this review. 3. In Proffer 3.1, the dedication should be to Frederick County as the proper entity to hold title to the easement. Further, it should be noted that the construction of the trail by the Applicant is subject to certain contingencies, including "limitations due to terrain and construction considerations." 4. The staff should review Proffer 4 regarding low impact development techniques, to be sure that the techniques are appropriate for this development. In particular, the staff should determine the appropriateness of the proffer to install sidewalks on only one side of the street in this development which may contain 250 dwelling units. 5. The County should carefully review Proffer 10.3 regarding the proffer to construct an indoor shooting range in return for the County permanently discontinuing the use of its outdoor shooting range. The proffer provides that the location of the indoor shooting range shall be determined by the County. If this proffer is acceptable to the County, the County should undertake to designate the location promptly after any approval of the rezoning application. 6. In Proffer 15. 1, concerning the dedication of the right of way for the relocation of Greenwood Road, the staff should determine whether it is clear what is meant by the condition that the County or VDOT must "approve" the relocation within ten years. Further, the proffer should set forth when the dedication shall be made, such as within 60 days of a request by the County. 7. In Proffer 15.3, the staff should determine whether the road and roadway improvements are sufficiently identified. The proffer is to construct those improvements which are "necessitated" by the development of the property. That is a bit vague. Are the proposed improvements shown on the MDP? HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy January 29, 2007 Page 3 It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. V�truly yours, Robert T. MltcheA. Jr. RTM/ks - .ed Hawk Estates �K ` \ ' ReZoning REZ 04 - 08 PIN: 65-A- 86, 65-A- 86B, 65-A- 98. fid A 119 'i ®. 5 e3 ¢ Q e f 1- r I - - X64 A\- .-. SULPHUR sPR)n1r. e� n O - ° I - 9 65 P 65 A as A 13A S 1 e � 11 �M•:!'9d�trRi6�4�IX�i8Y: 1 r� sCA a6 •1 R G �' y 65 A 139 ss A eo q Ot as A Ise 6 fid A 119 'i ®. 5 e3 ¢ Q e as A 96A fi5 A 6fi q d1',. 67 I V - - X64 A\- .-. SULPHUR sPR)n1r. e� n O - ° I fid ■s -R�i t A 14aA al A aha { "VQ' {�� * 110 - as i A '! 6d A 153 65 1 F B f ,� YAL A 11 ail k 65 A 95 S P G fi5 A 164 dp �p 6d A 15 a, t.. 6 A 9 a e 55 A I01 t65 A 1039 Sp 65 A 103A{/ gFFFk lk `n to 0 •� "' i o • �4: ti; Future Rt37 ,�Q I 1 * FuLurQ Rt37 - Case Planner: Mike ®Application Zoning My (Industrial, General District) 4 'I Future Rt37 Bypass Urban Development ♦ pmenl Area BI (Business_ bleighbo hood District) B2 (Business, Gen 1 District) i MHi (Mobile Home Community District) }\ ` MS (Medical Support District) S WSA ` B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) R4 (Residertial Planned Community Dialrict) I -t 40'• EM (E -tractive Manufactunng District) 4m) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) l;'` • �f HE(Hlgher Education District) (;_) RA (Rural Area District) a B f MI (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residential Performance District) " 0 250 500 1,000 Feet _ jnla.,�+ 'I L�, °:oi 'C )t;;F :.;._:- s -.c•-.. ,-.,, . in::dl ...,.: ,. .,- 1107.07 1,b] REZONING: PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ# PROPERTY: 85.3 Acres Tax Map Parcels 65-A-86, 65 -A -86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-1 02A RECORD OWNER: Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. R.J. Turner, Manager APPLICANT: Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Red Hawk Estates PROFFER DATE: May 1, 2008, Revised July 14, 2008 The Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as identified above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' ("Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. The Applicant hereby proffers as follows: LAND USE 1.1 Areas of development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Performance ("RP") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code. All residential development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be approved by Frederick County. 1.2 The Property shall be developed in conformity with the Generalized Development Plan ("GDP") dated April 16, 2008 submitted herewith with regard to the locations for residential dwelling units, open spaces, improvements and roadways as generally depicted on the GDP. 1.3 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum gross density of 2.81 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of two hundred forty (240) dwelling units on 85.3 acres. Of the maximum number of dwelling units (240), no more than sixty-nine (69) dwelling units shall be single family detached residential units, and no more than one hundred seventy (170) dwelling units shall be single family attached residential units. 1.4 The construction of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) units per calendar year. 1.5 In order to preserve the distinctive natural characteristics of the Property, the minimum amount of open space on the Property after development will be at least 32.5 acres or thirty eight percent (38%) of the Property. No more than fifty percent (50%) of this open space will be within lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. 1.6 In order to preserve the distinctive natural characteristics of the Property, the 100 - year floodplain area for Sulphur Spring Run located on the Property and all wetlands and steep slopes (exceeding fifty percent (50%) slope grade) adjacent to Sulphur Spring Run located on the Property will be preserved as "community open space" as generally depicted on the GDP. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all areas of the Property on which the location of roadways or trail systems are depicted shall be specifically excluded from the terms of this proffer, and the right to install and maintain utility facilities, access rights of way and recreational facilities in and upon such areas is hereby reserved. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS 2.1 The Property shall be developed as a single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, design standards and this Proffer Statement, as approved by the Board. -2- 3. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL; LINEAR PARK 3.1 The Applicant shall construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail ten feet (10') in width, and dedicate an easement twenty feet (20') in width encompassing said trail for the purpose of creating and maintaining the area as a linear park open to the general public along the banks of Sulphur Spring Run. In addition, the Applicant shall construct a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails along the public roadways generally depicted in the GDP submitted herewith connecting all the areas of open space and all of the residential areas of the Property by a continuous network of trails. These trails shall be ten feet (10') in width, located within an easement area twenty feet (20') in width dedicated to the Property Owner's Association for the development and included as "open space" in the development. The location of the trails is to be determined by the Applicant but shall be as generally depicted on the GDP submitted herewith as the "Proposed Trail' (in the designated "Proposed Sulphur Springs Greenway") and along the public roadways depicted therein. Construction of said trails by the Applicant shall be in accordance with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and in conformity with specifications imposed by the County. The trails shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the drawing labeled "bike trail typical" submitted herewith. The Applicant shall construct the trail in its entirety on or before the date on which the building permit for the one hundredth (100th) unit is issued. The area of the public linear park shall be maintained as open space by the Property Owner's Association but shall be dedicated to public use, not limited to use only by the property owners in the development. 3.2 The Applicant will construct a water feature in that area identified for the same in the "Community Open Space" set forth on the GDP submitted herewith. The water feature will consist of an impoundment of water ("pond") constructed in accordance with all applicable State and County statutes and ordinances. The water feature will be constructed and completed on or before such time the "Community Open Space" generally depicted on the GDP is conveyed to the Property Owner's Association in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 below. 4. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES 4.1 The Applicant will implement the following Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to the extent feasible after detailed engineering of the site development and within a hybrid design including both conventional and LID stormwater management techniques. Page references provided below refer to: The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Urban Manual for Low Impact Site Development by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission and Engineering Concepts, Inc. (October 2005): -3- 4.1.1 Conservation of resources: reservation of the area within the 100 -year flood plain of Sulphur Spring Run, designated wetlands and adjacent steep slopes as community open space and the protection of woodlands located within same (including the planting of more or additional native species, as advisable) in order to provide a substantial buffer along Sulphur Spring Run (page 4-2); 4.1.2 Limitations on impervious surfaces (page 4-7); 4.1.2.1 Limitation of residential private driveway widths to nine (9) feet; 4.1.2.2 Minimization of building front setbacks to the extent permitted by the Zoning Ordinance in order to reduce residential private driveway lengths; 4.1.2.3 Use of private roads where possible; 4.1.3 Installation of bio -retention basins in conjunction with conventional stormwater management facilities, if determined feasible during site engineering (pages 3-4, 4-13, 6-1 through 6-7). 4.2 In addition to implementation of the low impact development techniques set forth above, stormwater management and best management practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, so that the highest order of stormwater control existing under Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility results. 5. PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 5.1 The Applicant shall erect an appropriate historical marker or plaque identifying the site of the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop as identified in Section H of the Impact Analysis Statement. The Applicant shall preserve the site of the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop. 6. FIRE & RESCUE 6.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $771 per single family detached residential unit for fire and rescue purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $568 per single family attached residential unit for fire and rescue purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 7. SCHOOLS 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $18,431 per single family detached residential unit for school purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $12,980 per single family attached residential unit for school purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $2,028 per single family detached residential unit for recreational purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit, subject to Section 8.3 below. 8.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,550 per single family attached residential unit for recreational purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit, subject to Section 8.3 below. 8.3 In consideration of the construction of the bike trail and dedication of the public linear park set forth in Section 3. 1, the Applicant agrees to make the contributions set forth in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 subject to a credit in the total amount of $40,000 to be applied by reducing the amounts payable upon issuance of a unit's building permit in the amount of $166.67 per payment ($40,000 divided by 240 units equals $166.67 per unit [$40,000 / 240 = $166.67]). This amount ($40,000) reflects the estimate of the cost to install the trails submitted to the Applicant by its engineers and does not include the value of the land dedicated to public use. 9. LIBRARIES 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $372 per single family detached residential unit for library purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 9.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $285 per single family attached residential unit for library purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit. -5- 10. PUBLIC SAFETY 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $875 per single family detached residential unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $669 per single family attached residential unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $650,000 toward the actual contracted cost of construction for the construction of an indoor shooting range to replace the currently existing outdoor shooting range, one of the last outdoor firing ranges owned by a city or county in the Commonwealth of Virginia, located on Tax Map Parcel No. 65-A-95 owned by the County, which adjoins the Property. The location of the indoor shooting range shall be determined by the County. The Applicant shall not be required to make the aforesaid contribution unless and until the County has approved a contract for the construction of the referenced indoor shooting range and given written notice to Applicant that the County will permanently discontinue the use of its property (Tax Map Parcel No. 65-A-95) as an outdoor shooting range upon the completion of the construction of the said indoor shooting range. The Applicant shall make this contribution within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written notice from the County but in no event shall the Applicant be liable for the contribution set forth in this Section 10.3 after that date which is ten (10) years from the date of final rezoning of the Property. In the event the County has not given the Applicant the written notice required under this Section 10.3 within ten (10) years from the date of final rezoning of the Property, this proffer shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. In the event the actual contracted cost of construction for the referenced indoor shooting range shall be less than $650,000, the Applicant shall only be liable for the total amount of the actual contracted cost of construction. 11. GENERAL GOVERNMENT 11.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $450 per single family detached residential unit to be used for general government administration upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 11.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $344 per single family attached residential unit to be used for general government administration upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 12. CREATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION 12.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a Property Owners' Association (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, M maintenance and repair of all community open space and other "common areas" not dedicated to the County or others, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development. In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall be responsible for refuse and recycling collection throughout the development. 12.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all community open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use; (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, including curbside refuse pick-up by a private refuse collection company; and (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12.3 After the establishment of the POA, upon the first sale of each lot on which a residential unit or units are located in the development, the POA will be entitled to collect an initial assessment in the amount of $200 per unit (in addition to the regular annual assessments imposed by the POA) to fund the initial operations of the POA. 13. WATER & SEWER 13.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 14. TRANSPORTATION 14.1 The Applicant shall dedicate a right of way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and Channing Drive over those portions of the Property identified as "Extended and Improved Greenwood Road As Per Eastern Road Plan" and "Extended and Improved Channing Drive Per Eastern Road Plan," each as generally depicted on the GDP attached herewith. 14.2 The Applicant agrees not to construct houses on lots adjacent to existing Greenwood Road which will be accessed from existing Greenwood Road unless and until Greenwood Road is relocated and connected to proposed Channing Drive per the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan as set forth in its Eastern Road Plan. After such time as Greenwood Road is relocated, the Applicant may -7- construct houses on lots which may be accessed from that road which corresponds to existing Greenwood Road. 14.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $180,000 to the County for the construction of a traffic signal and/or other associated improvements as required by the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation at such time the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation determines such traffic signal and/or associated improvements become necessary to address measurable impacts resulting from the development of the proposed Red Hawk Estates. 14.4 The Applicant agrees to construct the proposed Channing Drive as a four (4) lane, divided roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Channing Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation in that area of the Property dedicated to the County for the relocation of Channing Drive pursuant to Section 14.1 above. The Applicant will construct the improvements proffered in Section 14.5 below prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. The Applicant will complete the construction of the proffered improvements set forth in this Section 14.4 upon the completion of eth construction of the last townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. 14.5 The Applicant will construct on the property owned by Arcadia Development Co. (Frederick County Tax Map # 65-A-116) proposed Channing Drive as a two (2) lane roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Channing Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Applicant has entered a memorandum of understanding with Arcadia Development Co. whereby the parties agree to enter a definitive agreement providing that Arcadia Development Co., its successors and assigns, will allow the Applicant, its successors and assigns, access to the property to construct said roadway from the Property to U.S. Route 50 and Arcadia Development Co. will dedicate the right of way related to such roadway to the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation upon acceptance of the same after construction. The agreement between the Applicant and Arcadia Development Co. will be contingent upon the granting of this rezoning application as applied for by the Applicant. 14.6 The Applicant agrees to construct all improvements, including pedestrian improvements, locat ed on the Property r elated to "Old Greenwood Road" as depicted in the GDP attached herewith and all improvements, including pedestrian improvements, located on the Property in that area of the Property dedicated to the County for the relocation of Greenwood Road pursuant to Section 14.1 above. Such improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Greenwood Road and "Old Greenwood Road" and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation. 15. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 15.1 In the event the monetary contributions contemplated under this Proffer Statement are paid to the Board within thirty (30) months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after thirty (30) months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") reported by the United States Department of Labor such that, at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI - U from (i) the CPI -U as reported on that date which is twenty-four (24) months after the date of the final rezoning to (ii) the CPI -U as reported on the date of the most recently available CPI -U relative to the date on which the contributions are paid. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the amount of contributions be adjusted by a factor greater than six percent (6%) per year, simple interest. Respectfully submitted this day of Q, 2008, TURNER ENTEURISES, LLC IN T Manager / STATE OF VnRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �day of 2008, by R.J. Turner, as Manager for and a Member of Turner Enterprises, LLC. G a� NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: / ( MAVREEN A. GRILLO NOTARY ID # 7123235 NOTARY PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA LMYCOlrtMISSIONEXPIRES DECEMEER31,2011 M { S, ♦.�-,.`Yx�`i j FaterMetl % Greenwood Per Eastern Road Plan i ," - ' ♦_�'r j% } ; { \'""\\ `� C ITC Key: h. t Ker•' Ot 'Eiisting' 1 1 \ 1 1 l�t l� Single -Family "Old Greenwood Roa •to/ " Sao (! / t i Detached Remain as Local Reside al t ( � % � % � 1 r � f n :. oeuclted xon w ``'Y n,Street' ; i ns s / )r �\ Cluster Homes �� Bdianded & Improved #t t1 , Channing Dave ,1y 'vliPerEMem Road Plan i�,,`r:me,Benoy`, ::_, et\Z�,- 1 & Interim Accasstp., `-_ Shooting Ra W- �,,,—\ 1 �i' [ai 0ln- "istingParcels!: \ •�,.....v "` 1 '. ^-' , -''i , -r.i Townhomes 1 `, \\ il�h ,.._Me Brimstone Lane _ 1 n Improved ,t `��',-• � �i ! : � � -:_ Sulphur Springs )J 's= (80' R.O.W. With t1W ,%rf� , I •�`�✓` Cpnmtac4'J Commudy IQrtlFgs&Satb0.ckst tl.*•J'' r•. :77,..d/s'.-%/j Open $pace OWa:Pece � �... -.,. v�,.; � '�f � /%Is'�/"r � COn1m11111Iy j open Space Ppmdmete umlbd ,��'•�. ii r0a(noodplam. )it. • . •r......a.•••• a,�j q`_/', Proposed Tmll: '^,. I' t l \- \-.`'�.. Mgp•a mulaWNA. icy s+• ,,�9$� f., jbepmEemmOUWE *1\~• e � :�.'-t .A !.�'_� t�l 41 :I I••- `\ •PobmW !Leri :L;I P `. iA,- E:dended & Improved Channing Drive Per Eastern Road Plan NOW: See Illustrative Cross -Section for Road Efficiency Buffer Treatment x Red Hawk Estates ware lw.a +(( it WWWWOMe 't1 J '� -�S Generalized \� \ Development Plan Frederick County, Virginia TUmer Enterprises, LLC synpoetica r^. �•'^'� \. \ \ ! oam: Mm,,.zroa c�gal�meomeem No1w r�AreopoaCom i 111M { S, ♦.�-,.`Yx�`i j FaterMetl % Greenwood Per Eastern Road Plan i ," - ' ♦_�'r j% } ; { \'""\\ `� C ITC Key: h. t Ker•' Ot 'Eiisting' 1 1 \ 1 1 l�t l� Single -Family "Old Greenwood Roa •to/ " Sao (! / t i Detached Remain as Local Reside al t ( � % � % � 1 r � f n :. oeuclted xon w ``'Y n,Street' ; i ns s / )r �\ Cluster Homes �� Bdianded & Improved #t t1 , Channing Dave ,1y 'vliPerEMem Road Plan i�,,`r:me,Benoy`, ::_, et\Z�,- 1 & Interim Accasstp., `-_ Shooting Ra W- �,,,—\ 1 �i' [ai 0ln- "istingParcels!: \ •�,.....v "` 1 '. ^-' , -''i , -r.i Townhomes 1 `, \\ il�h ,.._Me Brimstone Lane _ 1 n Improved ,t `��',-• � �i ! : � � -:_ Sulphur Springs )J 's= (80' R.O.W. With t1W ,%rf� , I •�`�✓` Cpnmtac4'J Commudy IQrtlFgs&Satb0.ckst tl.*•J'' r•. :77,..d/s'.-%/j Open $pace OWa:Pece � �... -.,. v�,.; � '�f � /%Is'�/"r � COn1m11111Iy j open Space Ppmdmete umlbd ,��'•�. ii r0a(noodplam. )it. • . •r......a.•••• a,�j q`_/', Proposed Tmll: '^,. I' t l \- \-.`'�.. Mgp•a mulaWNA. icy s+• ,,�9$� f., jbepmEemmOUWE *1\~• e � :�.'-t .A !.�'_� t�l 41 :I I••- `\ •PobmW !Leri :L;I P `. iA,- E:dended & Improved Channing Drive Per Eastern Road Plan NOW: See Illustrative Cross -Section for Road Efficiency Buffer Treatment x Red Hawk Estates ware lw.a +(( it WWWWOMe 't1 J '� -�S Generalized \� \ Development Plan Frederick County, Virginia TUmer Enterprises, LLC synpoetica r^. �•'^'� \. \ \ ! oam: Mm,,.zroa c�gal�meomeem No1w r�AreopoaCom 21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. P.O. Box 809 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Facsimile 540.667.1312 Telephone 540.667.1266 petticr@harrison-johnston.com Mobile 540.664.5 134 MEMORANDUM July 15, 2008 VIA EMAIL TO: Jerry Copp, VDOT; Matt Smith, VDOT; John Bishop, Frederick County; John Callow, PHR&A; Barry Carpenter, Sympoetica CC: R.J. Turner, Tuner Enterprises, LLC; John Lewis, Painter -Lewis, PLC; Mike Ruddy, Frederick County FROM: Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Re: Red Hawk Estates; VDOT Meeting held July 11, 2008 Gentlemen: Thank you all for your time on Friday. This memorandum serves to recap the points we discussed in the above referenced meeting. Please advise if I have missed anything or if you wish to elaborate on anything further. We generally discussed the changes to the proffer statement made by Turner Enterprises, LLC to address the comments of Lloyd Ingram received on March 12, 2008 by email. Subject to the additional comments addressed below, the changes to the proffers made in response to Mr. Ingram's comments were acknowledged to satisfy VDOT in regard to the comments made by Mr. Ingram. After a general discussion, it was agreed that the proposed future location of Route 37 in relation to the proposed intersection of Channing Drive extended at Route 50 and Independence Drive should not effect any of the proffers submitted by Turner Enterprises, LLC from the perspective of VDOT and Frederick County's transportation plan. Regarding Section 14.3 of the proposed proffer statement, VDOT and Mr. Bishop noted that the wording of the proffer limited the use of the proffered funds to si gnalization at the Route 50 / Sulphur Springs interchange. It was discussed that sigaalization may be required at Route 50 / Channing Drive extended or even at Channing Drive extended and Sulphur Springs Road. Turner Enterprises, LLC understands the concerns stated and has amended Section 14.3 of its proffer statement to reflect this change. A copy of the revised Section 14.3 is attached. Regarding Section 14.2 ofthe proposed proffer statement, VDOT and Mr. Bishop all pointed out that as drawn on the Concept plan for Red Hawk Estates, the lots fronting on Greenwood Road (as depicted therein) would probably not be approved by VDOT if submitted for site plan approval. This was acknowledged by Turner's representatives and it was communicated that the concept plan was not being proffered and the location of Greenwood Road, once actually determined and engineered, would ultimately determine the lay --out of lots within Red Hawk Estates fronting on Greenwood Road. Otherwise, the proffer as drafted addressed Mr. Ingram's written comments. Regarding Section 14.4 of the proposed proffer statement, it was generally discussed that the proffer did not contain any language specifying the timing of construction of the proposed Channing Drive improvements. Turner Enterprises, LLC understands the concerns stated and has amended Section 14.4 of its proffer statement to reflect this change. A copy of the revised section 14.4 is attached. The TIA was generally discussed, particularly the fact a new TIA had not been generated for the property in light of the revised proffer to construct proposed Channing Drive extended across the Red Hawk property and across the Arcadia property to Route 50. It appeared obvious to all present that the proffer to construct an access to the Red Hawk property all the way through to Route 50 would alleviate concerns about traffic impact on Sulphur Spring Road. After discussion it was agreed that it would be helpful to VDOT to have a memorandum from PHR&A showing the trips generated from the property split between the property located north of Sulphur Spring Road versus the property located south of Sulphur Spring Road. PHR&A is preparing such a memorandum for your review in order to confirm that VDOT's concerns about traffic impacts to Sulphur Spring Road are adequately addressed in the rezoning application. The concept drawing of the streetscape for Channing Drive extended across the Red Hawk property was discussed in regard to the width of the right of way necessary to construct the street as depicted. It was acknowledged by the representatives of Turner that the drawing should be amended to reflect a Wright of way for proposed Channing Drive across the Red Hawk property and the Arcadia property. Barry Carpenter will be revising his drawing to reflect this and it will be submitted for your information after completion. The above referenced changes to the documents are being submitted to Frederick County for inclusion in the rezoning application to be presented to the Planning Commission on August 6, 2008. If any of you have any additional comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. 14.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $180,000 to the County for the construction of a traffic signal and/or other associated improvements as required by the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation at such time the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation determines such traffic signal and/or associated improvements become necessary to address measurable impacts resulting from the development of the proposed Red Hawk Estates and so long as at least 100 dwelling units have been constructed on the Property. 14.4 The Applicant agrees to construct the proposed Channing Drive as a four (4) lane, divided roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Channing Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation in that area of the Property dedicated to the County for the relocation of Channing Drive pursuant to Section 14.1 above. The Applicant will construct the improvements proffered in Section 14.5 below prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. The Applicant will complete the construction of the proffered improvements set forth in this Section 14.4 upon the completion of the construction of the last townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT A PROPOSED REZONING for Red Hawk Estates Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia November 14, 2007 Prepared for: Mr. R.J. Turner Turner Enterprises, LLC Winchester, Virginia 22601 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540)662-5792 email: office@painterlewis.com Job Number: 0402015 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS section paqe L INTRODUCTION 3 A. SITE SUITABILITY 3 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES 4 C. TRAFFIC 7 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT 8 E. WATER SUPPLY 9 F. DRAINAGE 9 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES 9 H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES 9 I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 11 J. OTHER IMPACTS 11 APPENDIX 12 page 2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES i. INTRODUCTION Turner Enterprises (the Applicant) proposes to rezone adjoining parcels of land along Sulphur Spring Road, VA Route 655, in Frederick County, VA. The parcels are currently zoned RA and are identified as TM#s 65-A-86, 65-A-98, 65-A-102, and 65 -A -102A. It is the Applicant's desire to have these parcels rezoned to RP. The total area request is approximately 85 acres. Please refer to Exhibit 1. The applicant desires to rezone the total acreage of the subject parcels from RA to RP, Residential Performance District. The intended purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the owner to develop the land for residential purposes. A. SITE SUITABILITY The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan includes the subject parcels within the Rt. 50 East Corridor. The Rt. 50 East Corridor land use plan consists of nearly 3,000 acres that extends from the 1-81 interchange to the western edge of the Westview Business Park, a distance of 3.6 miles. The corridor also extends in the southern direction to include the Winchester Regional Airport, the Airport Business Park, and surrounding areas. There are three major concerns to consider when developing in this area: • The first is the transportation system. Past traffic analysis and future traffic expectations show that a large volume of traffic travels through the section of Rt. 50 east between Rt. 522 and the Clarke County line. It will be important to take traffic volume and hindrance into consideration for any proposed project in this study area. • The second major concern in this study plan area is stormwater management. Approximately 131 of the 3,000 acres in this study area lay in floodplain. The area adjacent to Sulphur Spring Run has had numerous flooding problems in the past. It is important that any future development not exacerbate this problem. • The third major concern to consider when developing in this study plan area is the preservation of historic sites. The subject property in this rezoning request has an identified historical site on it, The Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop (44FK550). The subject parcel has significant frontage along Sulphur Spring Road, VA Route 655, which should allow for siting an entrance with adequate site distance in both directions. Sulphur Spring Road would funnel traffic to Route 50 for travel in the east and west directions and to Greenwood Road for travel in the north direction. Traffic from this area will have immediate access to the arterial road system. A portion of the property is located in the floodplain of Sulphur Spring Run. Considerations will be necessary to ensure that storm events are not going to increase peak discharge rates from the development area. The main branch of Sulphur Spring Run crosses through the property parallel to the road frontage. Several smaller tributary page 3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES runs of Sulphur Spring Run bisect the development area. It is the intent of the developer to improve the subject properties in such a way as to not increase the runoff discharge rates to Sulphur Spring Run. The subject Property lies completely within the Urban Development Area and the Sewer and Water Service Area. Water service will need to come from Millwood Pike and eventually from Greenwood Road. A sewer force main will need to discharge in the existing system in the Westview Business park. Utility lines will be run within the 70' future right-of-way through the Perry -Warner property (aka Arcadia). 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN FIRM Community Panel Number 510063 0115 B shows that a portion of the subject property is in the floodplain. This is the portion of the land bisected by the main branch of Sulphur Spring Run and is adjacent to Sulphur Spring Rd., Rt. 655. WETLANDS ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC has delineated the wetlands on the site. There are two types of wetlands: (1) the streambed of Sulpur Spring Run and (2) a small area a palustrine forested wetland between Sulphur Spring Run and Sulphur Spring Road. Together these wetlands cover approximately one acre. Development of Red Hawk Estates will require the disturbance of about a 50 foot length of the streambed, or approximately 3000 square feet and approximately 0.07 acre of the existing wetlands area. This disturbance will likely occur during the construction of an entrance road to the subdivision. Otherwise, all other wetlands will remain undisturbed and protected in open space. The Applicant will seek the required wetland disturbance permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) when detailed engineering of the entrance road has been performed and the exact impact on the wetlands is determined. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be provided as required by USACE regulations. STEEP SLOPES The property generally slopes toward Sulphur Spring Run. There are several localized highpoints within the development area. The slopes range from 5-40% across the site. Steep slopes, as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, will generally remain undisturbed and protected in the open space areas proposed for the project. MATURE WOODLANDS Approximately 59 acres of the 85 acre site is wooded. This woodland is made up of a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees, including Virginia Pine, Chestnut Oak, White Oak, and Hickory. The property has been timbered in the past and has since grown up into a relatively poor quality stand of trees due to the droughty and acidic site soils. According to a site survey performed by Blue Ridge Forestry Consultants, there is no timber of commercial value on this site. The largest trees are found along Sulphur page 4 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES Spring Run and the adjacent slopes. These trees will generally be preserved in the open space associated with the project. SOILS According to the Soil Survey of Frederick County, the site contains the following soil types: • Berks: 1 B (2-7%) and 1 C (7-15%). These soils are generally moderately deep and well drained. This soil type is often found on broad valley uplands dissected by a drainageway. The unified soil classifications are GM, ML, GC, SC, and SM. • Wiekert: 41C, 41D, 41E (7-65%). These soils are generally shallow and well drained. The Wiekert soils are very closely related to Berks soils and are fairly unproductive with limitations to depth of bedrock. The unified soil classifications are GM, ML, SM, and GP -GM. • Zoar: 44B (2-7%). These soils are generally very deep and moderately drained. Zoar soils are generally found on slightly concave terraces along larger rivers and streams and in upland depressions. The unified soil classifications are ML, CL, CL - ML, CH, and MH. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The subject parcels are bordered generally in all directions by parcels that are zoned RA. There are three adjacent properties that are not zoned RA. Two are to the south. The first is TM# 65-A-116, which is owned by Arcadia Development Co., and zoned B2. The second is TM# 64-A-158, which is owned by Perry Properties and zoned M1. Both of these parcels front along Rt. 50, Millwood Pike. The third parcel is located to the east along Sulphur Spring Road, VA Route 655. This parcel is identified as TM# 65-A-91, is owned by Helen V. Williams, and is currently zoned M2. All of the remaining adjoining parcels are zoned RA. These include TM#s 65-A-12, 65-A-1 3A, 65-A-1313, 65-A-80, 65- A-81, 65 -A -81A, 65-A-82, 65-A-83, 65-A-84, 65-A-85, 65 -A -86A, 65-A-95, 65-A-96, 65- A-97, 65-A-99, 65 -A -99A, 65-A-100, 65 -A -100A, 65-A-101, 65 -A -103A, 65 -A -103B, 65- A-104, and 64-A-129. The location, zoning, uses, size, and owner of these parcels are shown on Exhibit 1. Red Hawk Estates has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding parcels. Existing Brimstone Lane will be improved as part of the development and this will provide better access to the adjacent, existing single family dwellings as well as other adjacent parcels in the UDA/SWSA. The Generalized Development Plan contained in Section 10, shows an open space buffer along the agricultural land and vacant land to the east of Red Hawk Estates. This land is not within the UDA/SWSA. The land to the northwest is generally vacant or large lot single family residential. To the west of a portion of the development, south of Sulphur Spring Road, is the former Frederick County landfill. This area of approximately 40 acres is used for a vehicle impound lot, outdoor shooting range, and a model airplane club. In the proffers associated with this application, the applicant offers a page 5 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES significant monetary contribution toward the closure of the outdoor shooting range. See Section 8. To the south of Red Hawk Estates is the Perry property, identified as TM #64-A-158, and the Arcadia Development Company property, identified as TM #65-A-116. the Perry property is currently used for contractor equipment storage with contractor office space. The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan shows the property as industrial use. The Arcadia property is shown as general business use. The Generalized Development plan shows an open space buffer along these properties. CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR RED HAWK ESTATES AND THE SURROUNDING AREA Regarding future development within the UDA/SWSA, Frederick County has begun to consider promoting "new Urbanist" patterns of development as an alternative to the current standard subdivision. Such patterns are typified by the development of traditional neighborhood development within mixed use community centers. These centers exhibit the following design principles: • Mix and integrate a variety of uses; • Diverse housing types; • Community focal points; • Connectivity, walkability and mobility; • Integrated community facilities; • Open space; • Environmental sustainability; • Enhanced design and planning; • Creation of a sense of place. The applicant engaged Sympoetica to design and illustrate how Red Hawk Estates could fit within a new urbanist concept in the area bounded by Inverlee Way, U. S. Route 7, U. S. Route 50, and the future Route 37 corridor. The resultant Area Conceptual Plan is contained in Section 10. This plan illustrates a concept for the location of neighborhood mixed use community centers in areas previously identified by the county planning staff. These centers are connected to the existing road network by an improved, extended, and realigned Greenwood Road and Channing Drive. The plan shows how Red Hawk Estates could be part of an additional neighborhood center located adjacent to U. S. Route 50. Much of the area in the vicinity of this project is designated for residential, business, and industrial uses in the Comprehensive Plan. However, these uses are shown as isolated areas rather than integrated into a new urbanist pattern. The Area Concept Plan promotes business use along Route 50 and integrates this area with other properties in a more fine-grained, mixed use land pattern. The mixed use community center envisioned for the land between Route 50 and Greenwood Road (relocated) adheres to the design principles described above. It includes a mix of uses and housing types. The community has a primary focal point: the mixed use "mainstreet". This street runs from Route 50 and through Red Hawk Estates. The Route 50 neighborhood center offers page 6 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES density in townhouse areas adjacent to a mixed use core. The center is served by a modified grid of streets that provides vehicular and pedestrian connection and enhanced mobility. V Nile p..:hliC facilities have not been located, they could easily be integrated within the development pattern. Generously planned parks and open spaces are located along the area -wide stream valley, promoting environmental sustainability. More detailed design cannot be exhibited at an area -wide scale, however, the Area Concept Plan shows the potential to create identifiable neighborhood centers, each with a sense of place. The mixed use centers and their defining street grid reflect the new urbanist scale of development present in many neotraditional communities in the region and nationally. Sympoetica concludes that, the Red Hawk Estates plan is a fine example of and fits within a new urbanist concept of development in eastern Frederick County. C. TRAFFIC The Generalized Development Plan calls for the extension of Channing Drive along the alignment preferred by the Frederick County Planning Department. Initially, access to the site will also be provided via improved Brimstone Lane. Interparcel connectors shown will be constructed only in the event of off-site construction. Section 10 also contains a Conceptual Plan for Red Hawk Estates along with a program tabulation summary detailing the proposed density of the development. A Traffic Impact Analysis is contained in Section 7. The TIA as presented is based on a total build -out of 250 residential units in Red Hawk Estates. The actual number of units proposed with this application is limited to 239 units. The applicant recognizes that Red Hawk Estates will have traffic impacts most evident on the Route 50/Sulphur Spring Road and Sulphur Spring Road/Greenwood Road intersections. Manual traffic counts were preformed at these two intersections along with the Greenwood Road/Senseny Road and Sulphur Spring Road/Wood Rise Lane intersections. Using these counts, each intersection was assigned a Level of Service (LOS) for AM and PM peak hour turning movements using the current lane geometry. From the TIA the existing Levels of Service are as follows: No. INTX Description Levels of Service -All Directions 1 Route 50/Sulphur Spring Road B, C 2 Sulphur Spring Road/Greenwood Road B 3 Greenwood Road/Senseny Road A, B 4 Sulphur Spring Road/Wood Rise Lane A The TIA projected background traffic levels for the year 2010 using an annual multiplier and also taking into account "specific future developments", which are residential and commercial projects coming on-line. These future developments contribute enough page 7 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES traffic to Route 50, Greenwood Road, and Senseny Road to nearly double the number of trips currently using there roads. Without lane geometry improvements, the LOS falls below "C" for the Greenwood Road/Senseny Road intersection under these projected conditions. From the TIA the 2010 background traffic conditions Levels of Service are as follows: No. INTX Description Levels of Service -All Directions 1 Route 50/Sulphur Spring Road B, C 2 Sulphur Spring Road/Greenwood Road A, C 3 Greenwood Road/Senseny Road B, C, D, E 4 Sulphur Spring Road/Wood Rise Lane A The TIA added the trips generated by the development of Red Hawk Estates to the projected background traffic levels for the year 2010. Without improvements to the intersection, the LOS degrades again and fall further below "C" for the Greenwood Road/Senseny Road intersection. The resultant 2010 build -out traffic conditions Levels of Service are as follows: No. INTX Description Levels of Service -All Directions 1 Route 50/Sulphur Spring Road B, C 2 Sulphur Spring Road/Greenwood Road B, B 3 Greenwood Road/Senseny Road C, D, E, F 4Sul hur Spring Road/Wood Rise Lane A 5 Site Driveway#1 Greenwood Road A, B, C 6 Site Driveway #2 Sulphur Spring Road A C, D As stated in the TIA, improvements at the intersections will result in LOS "C" or above. These off-site improvements will likely occur as more development is proposed in the areas of the intersections. The applicant is proffering a monetary contribution to Frederick County for general improvements at the intersection of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road. The LOS at Site Driveway #2 will operate at "D" throughout the build -out conditions. The applicant is proffering to dedicate right-of-way for the future Channing Drive. Channing Drive is a planned, major collector road which will connect Senseny Road, Sulphur Spring Road, and Greenwood Road to Route 50 through the Arcadia property. Refer to the Generalized Development Plan. The construction of this road will result in significant, positive changes to the functionality of the major intersections listed above. It is anticipated that the LOS "D" at Site Driveway #2 will improve to a "C" or better with the operation of Channing Drive. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The site is inside the limits of the Frederick County UDA/SWSA line. The development would be serviced by the county sewer system. A sewage pump station would be constructed near Sulphur Spring Run to convey sewage to adjacent FCSA facilities. page 8 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES E. WATER SUPPLY The development would be serviced by the county water supply system. A likely method of connection would be to connect to the existing system in West View Business Park through the adjacent Arcadia Development Company property. F. DRAINAGE The portion of the site south of Route 655, Sulphur Spring Road, has several localized high points and generally drains to the north and east. All storm water runoff will discharge into Sulphur Spring Run. Storm Sewer improvements may be necessary to ensure runoff is able to get across Route 655, Sulphur Spring Road, upon development of the northern portion of the site. Any development on this site can be expected to increase stormwater runoff. It is assumed that with the existing site conditions and the propensity that Sulphur Spring Run has shown to flood, extensive stormwater management will be need to be provided to serve the proposed future development of this site. Please see Exhibit 4 for drainage and topographical information. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The nearest citizens' trash convenience facility is located near the proposed site on Landfill Road which intersects with Sulphur Spring Road approximately 1 mile east of the subject parcel. In general, the collection of solid waste from the proposed residential development will be accomplished by a private hauler. It is estimated that each household will generate approximately three tons of solid waste per year that will be transported to the landfill. Tipping fees are currently $45 per ton for commercial haulers. No additional solid waste disposal facilities will be required for the proposed development. It is estimated that $32,265 in tipping fees will be paid to dispose of 717 tons of solid waste. H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The Red Hawk assemblage contains three (3) historic/archeological sites identified in Frederick County and Virginia Department of Historic Resources records. None is on the National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks register. 1) An archeological site on the property has been fairly well documented. The Applicant obtained a September 2002 report by the firm of Skelly and Loy, Inc., which was contracted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to conduct archeological work at the former site of the Anthony Baecher pottery Shop (VDH #44FK550). The pottery shop site is located near Sulphur Spring Run generally as depicted on page 9 IM PACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES Conceptual Plan contained in Section 10. According to the Skelly and Loy report, Anthony Baecher established the earthenware shop ca. 1862 and continued its operation there through 1889. Mr. Baecher was a skilled ceramicist capable of producing exquisite art pieces, but found his niche producing and selling utilitarian earthenware pots of various types. No structure remains at the pottery shop site, but the archeologists were able to recover numerous pottery shards, as well as nails, brick fragments and pieces of kiln furniture, from their excavations. The study concludes that no further excavations are recommended for the site. 2) According to Skelly and Loy, "J.A. Baecher, grandson of Anthony Baecher, indicated that the shop and kiln were located between Sulphur Spring Road and Sulphur Spring Run, with a house, well, and barn located on the other side of the road." The second historic/archeological site (VDH #34-1135) contains a barn and stone foundation located across Sulphur Spring Road from the pottery shop site. However, the survey form for the site indicates that the barn dates ca. 1890-1910, after Anthony Baecher closed his shop. The authors of the form indicated that there was probably once a dwelling associated with the barn. The barn today is in extremely poor condition, some walls having collapsed. 3) The third site is the Wilt -Dunn -Arnold House (VDH #34-1131), which sits on the bluff above Sulphur Spring Run. This vernacular Federal style house includes a front log portion dating from 1810 to 1830. It is speculated that the house was probably remodeled after the Civil War, when the rear two-story wing and Victorian trim were added. None of this site is located within any Civil War battlefield identified in the National Park Services, Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, published in 1992. The site contains no known historic sites or structures as listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register. According to the Comprehensive Policy Plan, there are several identified potentially significant sites as shown in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey that lie within a mile of the site. These include 1410 - Fruit Hill Farm, 1411 -Fruit Hill Tenant House, 558-Solenberger-Dove House, and 559 - House -Route 679. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report lists several other structures within approximately one mile of the site, which were inventoried due to architecturally or historically significant sites or structures. Please refer to Exhibit 2. page 10 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES EMERGENCY SERVICES Police protection is provided by the Frederick County Sheriffs Department. The nearest fire and rescue facility is the Millwood Fire and Rescue Station located on Weems Lane in the City of Winchester. No additional fire and rescue facilities will be required for the area proposed to be rezoned. The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates that the projected capital cost for emergency service facilities attributable to this development is $139,440.00. The owner recognizes the importance of emergency services, and proposes to proffer a monetary contribution to the local emergence responder. See the attached Proffer Statement. PARKS AND RECREATION The proffers contained in Section 8 detail the commitment from the applicant to create open space on the project and the construct pedestrian amenities particularly along a proposed "Sulphur Spring Greenway". Monetary contributions to offset fiscal impacts are listed below. J. OTHER IMPACTS The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates the following additional fiscal impacts attributable to this development.- Red evelopment: Red Hawk Estates Community Facilities Fiscal Impact Proffers 69 Single Family Units at $23,290/unit and 170 Townhouse Units at $17,732/unit Capital Facility Single Family Townhouse Total Fire & Rescue $49,680 $89,760 $139,440 General Government $22,080 $41,650 $63,730 Public Safety $45,402 $85,510 $130,912 Library $18,423 $34,680 $53,103 Parks & Recreation $147,384 $277,780 $425,164 page 11 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES School Construction $3,809,101 Tntw 1 $4,621,450 $1,324,041 $16n7,n1n page 12 $2,485,060 $3,w t,t-v IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES Iil►'IPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT APPENDIX item EXHIBIT 2 - HISTORIC STRUCTURES MAP EXHIBIT 3 - CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD MAP EXHIBIT 4 - DRAINAGE AND TOPO MAP page 13 2 3 .19 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES EXHIBIT 1 - PROPERTY MAP page 14 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES EXHIBIT 2 - HISTORIC STRUCTURES MAP page 15 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES EXHIBIT 3 - CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD MAP page 16 Fraderlck County Ptonning S Development Civil War Battlefields and ►Sites I Vinchvstvr, Virginia (As Defined by the NPS Shenan oah Valley Civil War Sites Study) jV 12-10-97 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES EXHIB IT 4 - DRAINAGE AND TOPO MAP page 17 0 \1 J /N�/ W CD z Ln Lli 0 ,�t4 � ZUQ v ly LLJ 0O0 af Ld LL- LLJ a- 0 F - o (D 0) 0) 00 Cn (D C,4 r- r, - N u L0 J� CN 04 E c: Uj N CD 41 Lo Lc) 0- �x L: ac0 ):: 0 - 42) o -j- E " cn co Q) Lu (D ..0 0 z a. z LL) LLJ z Z 0 0 Z azo LU SURVEY: C.I.: FRED. CO 5' DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: SEM 0402015 0 500 1000 SCALE: DATE: 1 "=500' 8/29/05 SHEET: Scale 1' = 500 ft EX. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of the Red Hawk Estates Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Turner Enterprises, LLC R. I Turner, Manager 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared by. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. LandscapeArchifecfs. Avenue. Suite 200 -`Martinsburg,West Virginia 254 P -T 01 0jT 304.264.2711 rjF 304.264.3671 August 2, 2006 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Red Hawk Estates located along Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655), east of Millwood Pike (U.S. Route 50), in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to be comprised of 37 single-family detached residential units to the north of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655), 38 single-family detached residential units and 175 townhouse units to the south of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) with access to be provided via two (2) site -driveways along Greenwood Road (VA Route 656) and Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655), respectively. The project is to be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Red Hawk Estates with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Red Hawk Estates were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the study area, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Red Hawk Estates, • Distribution and assignment of the Red Hawk Estates development -generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity analysis software (HCS+), for existing and future conditions. PH ��A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk EstateProject Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the following intersections: • Millwood Pike (Route 50) / Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655), • Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) / Greenwood Road (VA Route 656), • Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) / Wood Rise Lane and • Senseny Road (VA Route 657) / Greenwood Road (VA Route 656). Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 9.5%, based on the published Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing Average Daily Trips (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3 illustrates the respective existing lane geometry and levels of service. All traffic count data and highway capacity analysis software (HCS+) levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Pi4 ��A Traffic Impact Analvsis of the Red Hawk EstatProject Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 2 Page 2 No Scale � � SITE "'0 hester Airpo r OM N a. $utPncrSVrmgs Rd ro Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Red Hawk Estates in Frederick County, Virginia PHA �� Traffic Impact Analysis ofthe Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 3 3 11 No Scale IN Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions DailyAverage AM[ Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) PH R+A A Trak Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 4 Page 4 No Scale Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement +n AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH A Trafizc Impact Analysis of ect N Red Hawk EstatProject Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 5 Page 5 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data within the vicinity of the site, PHR+A applied an annual growth rate of 5 i o per year to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2010 base conditions. Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analvsis of the Red Hawk Estates PH Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 6 Page 6 Table 1 2010 "Other Developments" Trio Generation Sommnry Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Ravens Subdivision 210 Single -Family Detached 315 units 57 172 230 193 109 302 3,150 Total 57 172 230 193 109 302 3,150 Butcher Property 210 Single -Family Detached 65 units 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Total 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Fieldstone 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 40 54 45 25 71 630 230 Townhouse 207 units 15 76 91 75 37 112 1,801 Total 29 116 145 120 62 183 2,431 Lambert -Ward Property 210 Single -Family Detached 145 units 28 83 111 94 55 150 1,450 230 Townhouse/Condo 140 units 11 56 68 53 26 79 1,218 Total 39 139 179 147 82 229 2,668 Abrams Pointe 210 Single -Family Detached 225 units 42 125 167 140 82 222 2250 Total 42 125 167 140 82 222 2250 Brairwood III 210 Single -Family Detached 69 units 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Misc Other Developments along Channing Drive* 210 Single -Family Detached 320 units* 58 175 233 192 113 305 3,200 230 Townhouse/Condo 130 units 11 53 64 50 25 75 1,131 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 Total 176 296 472 581 505 1,086 11,976 Orrick Paramount 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 75 units 8 14 22 24 16 40 424 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 4 8 7 4 11 348 565 Day Care 6,000 SF 41 36 77 32 36 68 476 710 Office 25,000 SF 54 7 62 18 89 107 459 820 Retail 80,200 SF 84 53 137 260 281 541 5,884 881 Pharmacy w/ DT 15,000 SF 23 17 40 63 66 129 1,322 912 Drive-in Bank 6,000 SF 41 33 74 137 137 274 1,351 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 Total 327 231 558 622 680 1,302 11,789 Carpers Valley - Phase 1 220 Apartment 487 units 48 194 242 186 100 286 3,077 230 Townhouse/Condo 263 units 19 93 112 89 44 133 2,288 Total 67 287 354 275 144 418 5,365 Russell Farm 230 Townhouse/Condo 294 units 21 102 122 98 48 146 2,558 820 Retail 440,450 SF 232 149 381 799 866 1,666 17,802 710 Office 264,000 SF 359 49 408 64 311 374 2,817 Total 612 299 911 1 961 1,225 2,186 23,177 PHRn �uvcuuy ww L amu nuscenaneous resiaenttal units at an absorbtion rate of 80 units/year. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 7 No Scale Figure 4 ^q^ 656 00 e � N — — J� Jss � _ J%mmEI24(I29) N a 4m"w438(555) 4*4m= 151(240) (26 l l3 656 (590)289 m J� Jss � T (69)64 19 NI SITE v v v N \N N Q b U 0 1 �C7 � 135(11 S) f 4— 66(78) (601)304 ,(141)82mwm� Road s �cu� 1(2J (5)3'0'(r18� (114)105* / Average Daily Trips AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 2010 Background Traffic Conditions PH A Tra ac In: act final sis o the Red Hawk EstatProject Number: August 2, 2 06 August 2, 2006 Page 8 656 SITE J� Jss � Once r�� 19 NI SITE N \N N Q b U 0 1 �C7 � 135(11 S) f 4— 66(78) (601)304 ,(141)82mwm� Road s �cu� 1(2J (5)3'0'(r18� (114)105* / Average Daily Trips AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 2010 Background Traffic Conditions PH A Tra ac In: act final sis o the Red Hawk EstatProject Number: August 2, 2 06 August 2, 2006 Page 8 No Scale 50 J Signalized"Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(C) EB- 40, Leg "- 1 Left _n JUL C(C) t (�)�� ttr 50 U 656 Signalized Intersection LOS=B(E) A ro C(E) (E)B r PO A SITE di t� N� SITE Signalised "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=C(C) " & SB -1 Left U J kill,U (QB SensenYRoad ir w ro U 655 H Road j *(A)A Ji Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH R+A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 9 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trig Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Red Hawk Estates. Table 2 Proposed Development: Red Hawk Estates Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour In Out Total PM Peak Hour In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 37 units 9 27 35 28 16 44 370 210 Single -Family Detached 38 units 9 27 36 29 16 45 380 230 Townhouse/Condo 175 units 14 67 81 64 31 95 1,523 FTotal 32 121 152 121 63 184 2,273 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Red Hawk Estates. Figure 7 shows the respective development -generated AM and PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Red Hawk Estates assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area roadway network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Pi4 ��A Traffic Impact Analvsis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 10 No Scale Figure 6 PHRn Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis ofthe Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 11 r� No Scale Figure 7 SITE 656 5 Site 011,Jv SITE Af . 2 623) ® `(j23) (21)7 OP �[ ■ (6 9)17 ®� N Ln r A W �y 9 it N ur Pring Road = 655 TJ (33)30 Average Daily Trip AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Development -Generated Trip Assignments P �A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 H August 2, 2006 Page 12 No Scale IN Figure 8 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions DailyAverage AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) P�� A Traffic Impact Analvsis of the Red Hawk Estates H Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 13 No Scale 656 Signalized Intersection LOS=C(IF) W/W,6, 1U Signalized"Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(C) 1vB & SB - 1 Left U ALU" N. B(C) i� �� " Sensen Road (C)B�o a U 657 SITE Signalized"Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=QQ EB- 4"h Leg WB - 1 Left 0 SIT Road *WA Unsignalized Intersection `-,4,� Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH R+A A Trac Impact.,Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 14 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Red Hawk Estates are acceptable and manageable. Assuming suggested improvements, all of the study area intersections, except Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) / Site -Driveway #2, would maintain overall intersection levels of service "C" or better during 2010 background and build -out conditions. The intersection of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) / Site -Driveway #2 will maintain levels of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. The improvements suggested for the study area intersections would be necessary with or without the proposed development. The following describes the recommended roadway improvements as well as the associated HCS+ intersection levels of service: • Millwood Pike (U.S. Route 50) / Sulphur Spring Road VA Route 655): An additional westbound left -turn lane, eastbound left -turn lane and eastbound thru- right lane will be required to maintain an overall intersection level of service "C" or better during 2010 background and build -out conditions. • Senseny Road (VA Route 657) / Greenwood Road (VA Route 656): An additional southbound left -tum lane and northbound left -turn lane will be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "C" or better during 2010 background and build -out conditions. A Traffc Impact Analysis ofthe Red Hawk EstatPH R+A ProjectNumber: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 15 t 1 ..•1f�Y hCa.�ti�� .' � ,\ _ n N, "Riture ,l At -Grade Antersect independer�� l Eztended & Improved Greenwood Road Per Eastern Road Pian t �TIlk I re "Old Greenwood 'Remain as Local Re Range & �... DareAbn �' VNNaq ^flounce ss'`gpy',,� a Extended & Improved +- / Channing Drive' Per Eastern Rued Planflust. ` Nota: See glen'ativetkr Treabnertl. for Road Etfi�Jency Buffer Treatment C atrea a {t D SMb t br ChenninB Don ritx EAeneetl i fl t.. � j /ti" i, •,• ITONd { Emended & Impnr,4d Channing Drive v ; 1; '•\\.\\�\ ,.APer Eastern RoadPM It 5a4ete>rs Pana Red Hawk Estates Conceptual Plan r^� ` �, Vit' Frederick County, Vagina N' �•�.,,ti Thmer Enterprises, LLC synpoetica N. o poaJ!$��{�i1 It 5a4ete>rs Pana Red Hawk Estates Conceptual Plan r^� ` �, Vit' Frederick County, Vagina N' �•�.,,ti Thmer Enterprises, LLC synpoetica N. o t (Eastbound) ' i 20, j Trail Easement Future Improved U Sulphur o j Springs o Run C Uj CD . Proposed E Sulphur Springs Road _ Sulphur Springs (Public Right -Of -Way) i Greenway Note: For illustrative purposes only; not for construction. Scale in Feet D 10 Date: April 18, 2008 Prepared by: syn-poetica -A. Proposed Bike Trail (Typical) Illustrative Cross -Section (Trail to be constructed per Frederick County Parks & Recreation Dept. specifications.) Red Hawk Estates Illustration in Support of the Conceptual Plan Frederick County, Virginia Community Planners & Designers www.sympoetiea.net Turner Enterprises, LLC 4' Nall 10' 5' or hedge MultipurposeSidewf Trail i f Varies 10' 40' -7.5 22' 16' 22' 17.5'r Front I Yard Entry ; j 2.5' 2.5' Zone = Streetseape Easement Travel Landscaped Travel j Lanes Median Lanes j Building Setback 50 Road Efficiency Buffer Line Public Right -Of -Way Residential Lot 80 , Width Note: For illustrative purposes only; not for construction. Scale in Feet Channing Drive Extended Illustrative Street Cross -Section 0 10 20 At Build -Out Date: April 18, 2008 Prepared by: syrip-oetu.:a , 1'... 11 1, 4' VZall or Midge 40' --10' Front Yard Entry �I Streetscape Easement : zone Building 50' Road Efficiency Buffer - Setback Line Resin ential Lot Varies O 0 0 N a� 0 0_ Red Hawk Estates Illustration in Support of the Conceptual Plan Frederick County, Virginia Community Planners & Designers Turner Enterprises, LLC www.sympoetica.net REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA i? be completed by Planning Staff ling Amendment Number Hearing Date Pee Amount Paid $ Date Received BOS Hearing Date_ The following hybrmation shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers; deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: �J F215��- Name: f.>,_Wp—i* E Telephone: fQ 7 - Ot7 Address: 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Name: �3c) iJ�— Telephone: Telephone: 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map �A Agency Continents V/ Plat � Fees Deed to property Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid �_ Proffer Statement 10 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications, Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: P.�.Pi'..�..—.— a L-Cli 44 au � Ono"O/ 'f 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER 6 �s USE �� I dei✓ 'r eGs ZONING S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): 9, The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: 1'7D Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Office: Retail: Restaurant: 10. Signature: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station: Manufacturing: Warehouse: Other: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully snake application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning rnap of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick. County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. 1(we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Plartn ng Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Owner(s): 12 Date: Date: Date: Date: Property Id Number Owner's Name Mailing Address city Zip Acreage Zone Physical Address Physical Street 64 A 129 AMBROSE, SANDRA ANNE CARPER 1690 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602 107.6 RA 231 SULPHUR SPRING RD 65 A 12 SAGER, JUAREZ C 1376 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602 1.0 RA 1374 GREENWOOD RD 65 A 136 CUNNINGHAM, WALTER C & WANDA M 1366 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 6.9 RA p 65 A 86A MGKEE, DONNA M 1384 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 5.0 RA 1384 GREENWOOD RD 65 A 104 YEATRAS, GEORGE S & PETER S 126 N BRADDOCK ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601 56.0 RA 674 SULPHUR SPRING RD 65 A 97 ARNOLD, THELMA I PO BOX 3165 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 43.0 RA 193 BRIMSTONE LN 65 A 96 FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF 107 N KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VA, 226010.3 RA 160 BRIMSTONE LN 85 A 103E ROBINSON, DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 33.0 RA 0 64 A 158 PERRY PROPERTIES T945 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602 45.0 M1 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE 65 A 103A ROBINSON, DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 16.0 RA 315 SHAFFER LN 65 A 116ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95110 59.1 B2 0 65 A 95 FREDERICK, COUNTY OF 107 N KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VA 22601 20.2 RA 164 BRIMSTONE LN 65 A 91 WILLIAMS, HELEN V 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWS,VA 1 23601 3.2 M2 1 336 SULPHUR SPRING RD Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue Office Page 1 2/7/2006 Owner's Name: Pin #: Zoned: Use: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Acreage: Sager, Juarez 65—A-12 RA 1.0 Shuman, John A. 65—A -13A RA 17.19 Cunningham, Walter C. & Wanda. M. 65—A -13B RA 6.89 EFG Investments LLC 65—A-80 RA Single Family Residential 20,07 McAboy, Wilco L. Jr. 65—A-81 RA Single Family Residential 0.91 Whirley, George & Price, Leanna 65—A -81A RA Single Family Residential 0,92 EFG Investments, LLC 65—A-82 RA Single Family Residential 4.00 Malone, Charles R. & Judith K. 65—A-83 RA Single Family Residential 1,22 Parlette, Joanne 65—A-84 RA Single Family Residential 0.65 Shuman, John E 65—A-85 RA Single Family Residential 1.10 *Lehman H. Harold & Carrol A. 65—A-86 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 36.00 McKee, Kenneth F. Jr. 65—A -86A RA Single Family Residential 5.00 Williams, Helen V. 65—A-91 M2 Single Family Residential 3.20 Frederick County Ofc. 65—A-95 RA Regional/Local Government 20.15 Frederick Co. Board 65—A-96 RA Regional/Local Government 0.28 Arnold, Thelma I. 65—A-97 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 43.00 *Wilkins, Bradley & Michelle 65—A-98 RA Single Family Residential 14.52 Boyce, Robert C. Sr. & Elma 65—A-99 RA Single Family Residential 0.64 Williams, Raymond & Kathleen 65—A -99A RA Single Family Residential 1.00 Seal, Robert A. 65—A-100 RA Single Family Residential 1.00 Boyce, Robert C. Sr. & Elma 65—A -100A RA Single Family Residential 1.43 Seal, Robert A. & Jennifer M. 65—A-101 RA Single Family Residential 1.08 *Moulden, Donald W. Sr. 65—A-102 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 27.00 *Moulden, Donald W. Sr. 65—A -102A RA Single Family Residential 5.00 Robinson, David C. & Carol A. 65—A -103A RA Single Family Residential 16.00 Robinson, David C. & Carol A. 65—A -103B RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 33.00 Yeatras, George, Peter & Chris 65—A-104 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 56.00 Arcadia Development Co. 65—A-116 B2 Commercial & Industrial 59.06 Ambrose, Sandra Anne Campbell 64--A-129 RA Agricultural//Undeveloped 107.56 Perry Properties 64—A-158 M1 Commercial & Industrial 44.97 cn z to (n 0 m N 0 D 0 C M z %� cn rri cn :. wk1 o I �J N 0 0 C o� 0z %� cn rri cn :. * denotes subject parcels z cn D PP z _� CONSULTING � F"NC;INRI= RC PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. PROJECT: 116 South Stewart Street RED HAWK ESTATES Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone (540)662-5792 Facsimile (540)662-5793 Email offfiegDainterlewis.com PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1 y m \ �O�NFF'EDEF�t� GRcUP tt lost N/WCNE e�ER REGIONAL * J7Ai A.— ^ OR TNREE LLC ETALS JGR IHFEE LL� ETAfS h \ ^.482?c es SJ B4�s�iees IIIINCHEe3ERR REGIONAL 2:B Ac:ss .AIRPORT I(OMLS DEPpT S�4RES INC S,�kA tiE;es C .AMBROSE SAtlG�a� ,�NNECARPER 19 .x:u t e HOA LA va u+��u+m.0 O G/7tp'e4 ::UINNEL YG�'SCUP LL4 GREENY`IOOD FARM LLC EFG INY TMENIS LLC it EFG INYEiTM NTS 3:. i x:es 7 t�$.3iix:m AMBROSESANVRAANNE CARPER 117,566 �. PERRY PROPERTIB 4!t , ARCAGIAO�CePMENTCO EFG LC i's356 Aces EFG INY %NTS LLC 78.ifix�9es UAW 8 t a� m y 1 ` � yy� � U R' P`Y iC 1 y m \ �O�NFF'EDEF�t� GRcUP tt lost N/WCNE e�ER REGIONAL * J7Ai A.— ^ OR TNREE LLC ETALS JGR IHFEE LL� ETAfS h \ ^.482?c es SJ B4�s�iees IIIINCHEe3ERR REGIONAL 2:B Ac:ss .AIRPORT I(OMLS DEPpT S�4RES INC S,�kA tiE;es C .AMBROSE SAtlG�a� ,�NNECARPER 19 .x:u t e HOA LA va u+��u+m.0 O G/7tp'e4 ::UINNEL YG�'SCUP LL4 GREENY`IOOD FARM LLC EFG INY TMENIS LLC it EFG INYEiTM NTS 3:. i x:es 7 t�$.3iix:m AMBROSESANVRAANNE CARPER 117,566 �. PERRY PROPERTIB 4!t , ARCAGIAO�CePMENTCO EFG LC i's356 Aces EFG INY %NTS LLC 78.ifix�9es UAW 8 b5 -H=14 100.24 Acres AMBROSE SAND�2A ANNE CARPER 64 129 107. -Acres INVES 65-1 TMENTS LLC/ C EFG INVESTMENTS LLC 32.76 Acres 65-A-72 104.01 Acres / CUNNM HAn� oA cav SMITH WLAM � 77 oB6 Aces iD.$6 ACRS S PERRYENGI4NE�RItJGCGINC VESTM�NTS LLC ce<<s 6UMAcres GRGVEEGENEFJREFG INVESTMENTS LLC GRGV EUGE,E F JR k SANGR L 65-A-73 L H H YE:�F R 1 ).CT c '� ` '° 73.49 Acres G& DONN C Acres J UM CONSTANCE L ETALS 64-A 82 65% Acres 0"A8 BR , LO �6a4sJ4A9�ffR1: HILL HARRY TRUSTEE 186 AAc ais i1 INIC RIALPARI L ea 2K CORP / 4, 1 PERRY PROPERTIES 64-A-158 44.97 Acres I'n^ra} a, ,4--�ompnUrSp.�i4 Rtl ARNOLJf�®ELMAI ,fie AAC,i YEATRAS GEORGE �S & PETER S T E COUNTY OF FREDERICK RISES LLC g5 A -1d4 65-A-105 / 56 Acres 41.34 Acres DAVID C8 CAROL 6t%1- . 6 Acres CAROL FINCHUU JOHN R JR 16 4e y ► , `"`�- � e GREENW00D 15 CITY OF WINCHESTER - Q• 49A 44 9 BURNING KNOLLSi�-., sz ,;: • $ 6 fff y y y a 6 6a B ea A 55 'v 190 1 i rpp ° y� ' ° 7 7A S 1 �' 498 co` 14F 4 5 /�\\ - 2 , 14 1 5 ) UO kYarHil Ip q gryh � " a -n , ss.-esa . ' Y�\ - $ � � •t �• c 4F 4J Ipp9 9 q�' f I 8A rn z.e-aez ,_. 41 5 2 E' , vIP�1U 2 !~� 72 4H 1 .a2 -,5o � 4 � �J 9 C t22A 3 n 1ZE$1 11 1868 186C 186[' 5 22 Arsne Al t ro xo i1v13 74 186J 896 1lp;'� 124 - f y,$ zs:-r7 /J 80 i 73 i 86 83A _s" 12 �¢ rya 82 186K z f� 849 2 124 r I z 79 186G =_ 86A s ,S6A .b I� 186 10 ° t` N '� O 83 m 130 s j ie 79A 77 171-71 'o{ `'� R - �,b STONEW E 18t t86F 186E O* 1 js ° t / 82 DI 7e 6 • ST. 1 s y > zua55 a s N : xr� ... - °°a �3 � 185 R r 96-, � � , � S ` DIST, i � �;s � _ t� LINE 57i-1 - ` A" � . LWE Run + ° East Side MHP,Aati1 97 a5E .;' ) o i. is+2 7d K - 45C �y'r ° `O� .N sO Js105 a - *�-r,.� 104 /IJ.€ 78 81 Aho 79 B.O. 80L 45G% oG 79A B.O. 158 80K 0 80F � 796 B.O. 4 15 -4 t� 79C / + j E000 1 45 79D 800 a0G j `F i036 mrm I 4 9 %✓4 801 80D a / 13 DK 406 79E fed 80H 79FWinchester 801 a �> why 103A 103C dp �0 Winchester -- Frederick Co. Airport O 801 `� \ `� + /i f 'l SOM \ 159E �� f 6Mt �.a f / ^SOE ,. 116 \ a 401 \ \t \ \ } C) _ 9 80A . s Q+• 73S959R� - _ �5s5 A See 41 103 40J o i 40115911 1`59 111 \ 18 +' •'p,. a�?i`. '• s � c � Sy✓ 1Avr159M� ! 4� of " d •6 (. ,. A1 r sue " 159D z £ h . , P ��• 39 nc IA 5 A ?� O 159H 11.. \ 157 v 40E 112 168 Y 1 ` rpt (A)1138 1 42 m_u5 0 <'°gar 159A. 1590 .%� 1 / � A j -- --- .J ! D R'bv ) 120A 121 r IU✓ i . A2 • 6 0� 7, 40 /, ,{ .S"" S � � 165 19 121 /� f m 12 1 149 Ses 23 - `' / I 6 t / 159 \ 1 M C 1� .y�P`�a�r �'� z"50's 151 156F I 1 ... - 23 a - ..•- - rH F gj /� 1 ,/e 1456 'lx, X161 �a \o°l 177. 10A g 8 / r 156E \� , ! �9`',"`,' +wp • D _ a ,� � •" +a \ // 5 Q 164 e9 1770 .w "moi �1` 152 pn 24-m+ D2• o os O s°e 21 �sw uam 1n o >6 3 61 7C\ 116 q z2¢ k 10 6 w "w 2 156D a p 1568 4 , ro■ l D5 1 y 63 ' 1 p ^ s q. �,y 1 153 P P¢ .: »s-« N ,• zx-ar I " :.,:1 178 i� 132 -rn zw-aw 4 r 4.-. +�_,•.37 /+ 24® , ,• _- SOLE N r156C 0 600 zv- e 3 4 3 1790A 140 140A "° ZOe 0 200 a 231-5, J 143 163 - 25 32 yp"1 1A yKr'm 79A 141 .s $ 155 2 .pin 29 fiM ^�N REDHAWK PARCEL ASSEMBLAGE Date Acquired Previous Owner Map ID Acres 2/23/05 Donald W. Moulden, Sr. and 65-A-102 31.1684 Melvina M. Moulden 65 -A -102A 2/28/05 Carol A. Lehman & H. Harold Lehman 65-A-86 10.6330 Carol A. Lehman Revocable Trust portion of 4/18/05 Bradley D. Wilkins & Michelle D. Wilkins 65-A-98 14.5230 3/8/06 Carol A. Lehman & H. Harold Lehman 65-A-86 28.9740 Carol A. Lehman Revocable Trust portion of TOTAL 85.2984 Jul -'.Lr Luuo 1 J.:Jp .740400-.5Zj0 / TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC 28.9740 ACRES *'7 i BIAPFNIR S um ROAD Fn -L 0n TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC 10.633 ACRES C(]AS [7F PRE0CR1CK � f THELMA I. ARNOLD PAGE ©2 BS—((A))-102A TURNER ENTERPRISES. LLC t� 4,9922 ACRES _ i�,74 ucCRES ' 1 85-((A)) -102 sit- ((A))m 1t33Ei � TURNER ENTERPRISES. LLC i DAM C_ do CAROL A. 28.1762 ACRES ROBINSON PERRY PROPERIACS i . r DAVID C. & CAROL A. a 12tJ�MSON r IARCAOIA OEVELOPMENT CO- r 1 TURNER ENTERPRISE% LLC TOTAL AREA - 85.1797 ACRES EXHIBIT cunwNc REZONING APPLICATION 405-08 BPG PROPERTIES, LTD./1-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: July 16, 2008 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 08/06/08 Pending Board of Supervisors: 09/24/08 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 59 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B3 (Business, Industrial Transition) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The properties are located approximately 0.61 miles north of the Route I 1 intersection with Cedar Hill (Route 671), bounded on the west by Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 33-A-109 and 33-A-110 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Residential and agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural PROPOSED USES: Office and Warehouse Uses Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/I-81 Distribution Center July 16, 2008 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a significant measurable impact on Route 11. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the revised transportation proffers offered in the BPG Properties/I-81 Distribution Center Rezoning Application dated June 19, 2008 addressed transportation concerns associated with this request. We have the following comments: 1. The opportunity to realign their proposed entrance with Branson Springs Road in the futures will have a positive impact on the overall traffic movement on Route 11. 2. These proffers provide for the necessary entrance/turn lane improvements at the initial entrance in accordance with VDOT requirements at the time of site plan review. 3. While the Department recognizes that there are traffic impact deficiencies at both the Route 11 and Rest Church Road intersection and Route 11 and Brucetown/Hopewell Road intersection, it appears the best solution is to accept a monetary contribution from the applicant. This would allow Frederick County and VDOT to make future decisions on the appropriate use of these funds. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Frederick County, Deputy Director -Transportation: It appears that your updated TIA addressed my previous concerns regarding background traffic. While it continues to be my position that the ideal entrance for this site would align with Branson Spring Road, it appears that you are attempting to meet this goal with your proffers. While it is generally the preference of staff that physical improvements be put in place as opposed to cash proffers, the right-of-way issues in this situation and the fact that the greatest needs are on property not controlled by your client make the cash form of proffer appropriate in this case. I would again note that there is a draft transportation plan in process right now that calls for the extension of Branson Spring Road across the northern portion of your client's property. I would ask that your client consider making accommodations for this future roadway. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Clearbrook Vol. Fire Dept.: As long as the design has the standard fire codes. Department of Inspections: No Comment. Department of Public Works: No comments received for this application. COMMENTS of 2007 APPLICATION: 1. Refer to C. Site Suitability: The site description indicates that the area is underlain by carbonate sedimentary bedrock resulting in karst terrain. Indicate if the karst terrain contains sinkholes or potential piping channels. Also, indicate if the site is marked by numerous rock outcaps which will, most probably, require blasting to accommodate site development. 2. Refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis. The proposed trip generator summary included on page 8 of the Traffic Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/1-81 Distribution Center July 16, 2008 Page 3 Impact Analysis (TIA) reflects the number of trips associated with 150 employees. However, the TIA has conveniently avoided the amount of truck traffic associated with the proposed distribution center. Considering the nature of the development, evaluating the truck traffic is critical in determining the real impact on the road network. Revise the TIA accordingly and resubmit. 3. Refer to F. Site Drainage: Elaborate on the statement "low impact type stormwater management techniques". We anticipate that the stormwater runoff will be dramatically increased because of the proposed development including 739,000 square feet of warehouse space, 11,000 square feet of office space, and numerous acres of pavement. Therefore, we anticipate that onsite stormwater management will be required to mitigate offsite impacts. This mitigation may also require quality as well as quantity control considering the potential for the transport of hydrocarbon contaminated runoff from the parking areas. Indicate how this potential environmental impact will be addressed in the design phase of the subject project. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority Department: We will provide sewer and water service to this site. Department of Parks & Recreation: The Parks and Recreation Department would recommend the proffer statement include a ten foot trail on an adequate easement which to construct the trail. The trail design should meet VDOT and ASHTO guidelines. Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objection under the following conditions: 1. All buildings on site are to be served by the public water and sewer system as approved by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 2. All wells are to be abandoned according to the Private Well Regulations. 3. All septic tanks are to be pumped by an approved septic hauler and abandoned by filling with sand or gravel. 4. Permits are to be obtained from the Health Dept. for a proposal for a motel, hotel or restaurant. 5. All designs submitted should provide for protection of the Branson Spring from any contaminants or drainage due to the proposed future construction. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning application and determined that the proposed development plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 close in surfaces; therefore, special conditional will not be requested. Frederick County Public Schools: We offer no comments. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB considered this rezoning proposal during their meeting of January 16, 2007. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Surveyport and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, as well as information provided by the applicant. At that time, the HRAB felt that the proffers associated with historic preservation and recognition was adequate, but made two recommendations which included: 1. Since the last time a survey was done in 1990, the HRAB felt that the applicant must fill out a preliminary Information Form (PIF) from the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) for the Nathaniel Branson House, which is located on the property proposed to be rezoned. The PIF will determine if the Nathaniel Branson House can receive state recognition for its historical value. Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/1-81 '"Istribution Center July 16, 2008 Page 4 2. The HRAB requested that a landscaped bean be placed along the frontage of the property, so that the viewshed of the Alexander Branson House (across Route 11) would not be negatively impacted by the placement of a 739,000 square foot industrial structure. Attorney Comments: Comments pending Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Inwood Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. The Applicant previously attempted to rezone these properties in 2007. Rezoning Application RZ#07-07 was denied by the Board of Supervisors on September 12, 2007. For the purposes of this current application, the request for a different zoning classification, B3 rather than M1, is substantially different from the previous request and may be processed by Frederick County pursuant to Section 165-11 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. I-]] Land Use The parcel comprising this rezoning application is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the site is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan designates the site for business use. The commercial / industrial transition land use proposed in this rezoning is consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan states that `Business and commercial land uses are proposed along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, on the east and west side of Interstate 81 exits 317, 321 and 323. It is envisioned that commercial uses which cater to the interstate traveler will be developed along the three Interstate 81 interchanges, while retail, service and office land uses will occur along the Martinsburg Pike corridor". Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/1-81 Distribution Center July 16, 2008 Page 5 Transportation Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does include this portion of the County. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for Martinsburg Pike to be improved to a four -lane facility. The Plan also states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. This application does not provide that Level of Service. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan designates Route 11 as a short-term designated route. Site Access and design. The Northeast Land Use Plan discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter -parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. This development has proffered commercial entrance limitations on Martinsburg Pike from the property. The project has also proposed interparcel connectivity with the adjacent parcels to the north. It may be anticipated that additional development opportunities on the adjacent properties may occur in the future. Pedestrian accommodations have been provided along the projects frontage with Route 11. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. This area is also known for karst topography. The Frederick County Engineer has identified that a detailed geotechnical analysis will be needed as part of the detailed site plan design. The HRAB made two recommendations based upon the presence of the Nathaniel Branson House on the property. The HRAB felt that the applicant must fill out a Preliminary Information Form (PIF) from the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) for the Nathaniel Branson House, and the HRAB requested that a landscaped berm be placed along the frontage of the property, so that the viewshed of the Alexander Branson House (across Route 11) would not be negatively impacted by the placement of a 739,000 square foot industrial structure. The application provides for additional landscape screening along Route 11 in an effort to tailor corridor improvements, beyond those customarily required by ordinance, to effectively enhance the corridor appearance of Route 11 and address the comments offered by the HRAB. 4) Potential Impacts Proposed Uses: The applicant has proffered that the property shall be developed with not more than seven hundred fifty thousand (750,000) square feet of permitted uses. It should be further guaranteed that additional land uses that may make up this square footage should be Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/L-81 Distribution Center July 16, 2008 Page 6 limited, such as the limitation that the applicant placed on office uses, to ensure the impacts can be appropriately measured. A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application was amended from the TIA that was prepared for the original rezoning request. The structure of the TIA is now acceptable to the County and VDOT as it is consistent with acceptable practices. The TIA still shows impacts at the evaluated intersections that have not been, or cannot be, addressed by the applicant. As you may recall, the TIA previously evaluated two scenarios. The amended TIA models the proffered land use scenario. The TIA indicates that Level of Service C conditions or better will be maintained on study roads and intersections with the completion of several area improvements including improvements at the intersection of Route II/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road and improvements at the intersection of Route 1 I/Rest Church Road. None of the above improvements identified in the TIA have been addressed by this application. The applicant has proffered to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT. Transportation Program.. The applicant's transportation program is limited to providing for the required access to the site via deceleration lanes and providing for a monetary contribution towards area transportation improvements that would be completed by others in the amount of $350,000. The applicant has proffered to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT. As was the case previously, the necessary improvements identified in the TIA have not been addressed by this application. In addition, the Applicant's transportation program does not provide for or advance the County's Eastern Road Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular, the widening of Route 11. As previously noted, interparcel connectivity should be a consideration with this application. Particular attention has been paid to the property to the north of this project. The extension of Branson Springs Road to the west through this site and over Interstate 81 is a concept that has recently been discussed and should continue to be evaluated with this project and as The Northeastern Frederick Land Use Plan is being reevaluated. Additional comments from Mr. John Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner are summarized as follows. I . Applicant should be preparing their site to make for an easy transition to an entrance area that aligns with Branson Springs Rd. 2. Access should be granted to the entrance mentioned in the bullet above for the property to the north. 3. Right -away should be considered for an extension of Branson Springs along the northern portion of the property. 4. Cash proffer amount is improved. Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/I-81 Distribution Center July 16, 2008 Page 7 C. Design Standards The Northeast Land Use Plan recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. The site is surrounded on all sides by RA (Rural Areas) zoned property, which is either in agricultural or residential use. While it is possible that these uses may change in the future, in line with the Northeast Land Use Plan, for the moment, screening should be addressed. The project's location on a major corridor warrants particular attention. This has been provided for in this latest version of the application. Some additional clarification to allow for an improved landscaped area should be worked into the application. Consideration should also be given to screening along Interstate 81. The applicant has discussed addressing this issue and should incorporate this into the proffer statement. D. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services. However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $10,000. Proffer Statement — Dated June 19, 2008, A) Generalized Development Plan A Generalized Development Plan has been provided by the applicant. Staff would suggest that the flexibility written into the paragraph introducing the GDP may be too flexible and should be addressed. B) Land Use The applicant has provided that the amount of office space on the property will be incorporated into the primary use structure. Further, the applicant has proffered the development of no more than 750,000 square feet. It would be advisable to further guarantee the development of the site will be for one building only, consistent with the GDP. The applicant has proffered out specific land uses. The Applicant has proffered a ten foot wide landscape strip along Route 11 including a variety of landscape plantings. This proffer should be expanded to allow for a broader area of planting in the area set aside between the right-of-way and the parking setback. The applicant has proffered to employ the M 1 district setback and yard requirements for the development of this site. Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/I-81 Distribution Center July 16, 2008 Page 8 The applicant has limited the fagade materials of the buildings fronting along Route 11 and Interstate 81 to a variety of materials. Proffer 7 is redundant as they are required by current ordinance. C) Transportation The Applicant's proffered transportation improvements include the dedication of an additional ten feet of right-of-way for future improvements to Route 11 to be done by others. Right turn deceleration lanes have been proffered. The proffered right turn lanes are the minimum that would be required by VDOT during the development of the site. The Applicant has proffered to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT and has proffered a $350,000 monetary contribution at the time of Certificate of Occupancy for unspecified improvements within the Route 11 corridor. Such improvements would be done by others. The Applicant has proffered to construct a ten foot wide asphalt multi -use trail along their frontage on Route 1 l . In general, the transportation proffer is much simplified from that previously offered. The mechanism for obtaining the transportation proffer is improved and the dollar value of the proffer is more than before. However, it should be carefully evaluated to ensure that the amount is sufficient to address and mitigate the transportation impacts associated with this request. An update to the County's Development Impact Model is presently being prepared. This will be a very important tool to evaluate what may be the appropriate transportation contribution for development projects. D) Community Facilities The Applicant has proffered $10,000 to Frederick County for use by Clearbrook Volunteer Fire and Rescue. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/06/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The B3 land use proposed in this rezoning is consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. Many of the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been mitigated by the Applicant. However, careful consideration of the transportation impacts associated with this request and the proffered monetary contribution aimed at mitigating the impacts should occur. Transportation improvements have not been provided that would achieve a level of service C or address the Comprehensive Plan. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. '-81 Distributi®n ReZoning REZ 05 - 08 PIN: 33 - A - 109, 33-A- 110 Future Rt37 Bypass Zoning M2 (Industrial, General District) Application B I(Business, Neighborhood District) ! MHI(Mobile Home Community District) Urban Development Area B2 (Business, General Distrist) ! MS (Medical Suppon District) SWSA ; B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) 410 R4 (Residential Planned Community District) 4+ EM (Eatractwe Manufacturing District) 4� R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) 40 HE (Higher Education District) (-D RA (Rural Area District) M I (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residential Performance District) you -U 1,000 Feet W E i I- PROFFER STATEMENT -AaJ o9 REZONING: RZ #47-W RA to B-3 (Industrial Transition) PROPERTY: +59 Acres, Tax Map Parcel No.'s 33-A-110; 33-A-109 RECORD OWNER: Estate of Roy Riley Boyce, Jr. and Kay Marie Boyce APPLICANT: BPG Properties, Ltd. and/or its assigns PROJECT NAME: I-81 Distribution Center PROFFER DATE: June 19, 2008 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience of reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all present and future owners and successors in interest. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the plan entitled "BPG Properties, Ltd., Frederick County, Virginia, Generalized Development Plan" dated June 19, 2008, (the "GDP"), subject to reasonable changes approved by the County in connection with Master Development Plan and Final Site Plan review, including revisions required for final engineering considerations, code and regulatory compliance, and revisions required in the event the Applicant elects to construct multiple buildings on the Property. The Applicant hereby proffers the following: Land Use Restrictions. 1.1. The Property shall be developed with not more than seven hundred fifty thousand (750,000) square feet of uses permitted under the applicable zoning, as modified hereby. 1.2. Office uses may be employed on the Property only as accessory uses and shall be located entirely within the structure(s) for the primary use(s). In no event shall there be stand-alone office buildings on the Property. BPG Properties Proffer Statement Page 2 of 6 1.3. The Applicant shall employ the yard and setback requirements for uses as provided in the Ml District, rather than those otherwise applicable to the B3 District. 2. Proffered -Out Uses. The following uses shall not be permitted on the Property. 2.1 Transportation By Air and all Uses Classified as SIC 45 2.2 Transportation Services, and all Uses Classified as SIC 47 2.3 Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations and all Uses Classified as SIC 55 2.4 Restaurant, except food services as may be provided to service employees on site 2.5 Amusement and recreation services operated indoors 2.6 Drive-in motion picture theaters 2.7 Local and suburban transit and interurban highway passenger transportation 2.8 Outdoor ad services 2.9 Automobile recovery service 2.10 Automotive repair, services and parking 2.11 Automobile repossession service 2.12 Product sterilization service 2.13 Repossession service 2.14 Automotive repair, services and parking Transportation Mitigation. 3.1. At the entrance to the Property, the Applicant will provide entrance improvements consistent with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requirements. 3.2. There shall be no more than one entrance to the Property constructed along Route I 1 and in the general location identified on the GDP as "Initial Entrance", which entrance shall be separated at least 700' from the intersection of Branson Spring Road and Route 11, unless otherwise approved by Frederick County and VDOT. Such Initial Entrance shall be closed by the Applicant within thirty (30) days after all of the following conditions have been met: i) an entrance to the Property has been constructed by others in the general location identified on the GDP as "Future Entrance" and ii) a right turn and deceleration lane meeting VDOT requirements has been constructed by others into the Future Entrance. The Applicant shall grant any necessary construction, grading and access easements over the Property necessary for the construction of the Future Entrance and the right turn lane into such entrance. The Applicant shall also grant an access easement over the Property to and for the benefit of the adjoining parcel to the north of the Property to accommodate access to the Future Entrance. 3.3. The Applicant shall enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT as a condition of final site plan approval. 3.4. The Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way along the Property's Route 11 frontage that is ten (10) feet wide from the existing edge of right-of-way. Such dedication BPG Properties Proffer Statement Page 3 of 6 shall be made prior to the approval of any final site plan for development of the Property. The Applicant shall construct a ten (10) foot wide asphalt trail outside of but adjacent to said right-of-way, and dedicate an easement to the County for public purposes for such trail, upon written request by the County. The maintenance of the asphalt trial shall be the responsibility of the owner of the Property or a property owner's association created for such purpose, unless and until the County affirmatively assumes maintenance of the trail in writing. 3.5. The Applicant will contribute to Frederick County the sum of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($350,000.00) to be used for improvements in the Route 11 north corridor, payment to be made at the time of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a use on the Property. Such funds may be used by the Board in its discretion for transportation improvements. 4. Fire and Rescue. The Applicant shall contribute the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) to Frederick County at the time of issuance of the first building permit for the Property, for use by the Board in its discretion, to assist in funding fire and rescue operations in the County. 5. Site landscaping. The Applicant shall provide a ten (10) foot wide landscape strip adjacent to the asphalt trail identified in Proffer 3.2 to be constructed along Route 11, comprised of three street trees (per Zoning Ordinance §165-36.B.1, or equivalent) per one hundred linear feet, and twenty-five shrubs per one hundred linear feet. These plantings shall be in addition to those required by the County's buffering and screening requirements. If no berm or hedgerow along the Route 11 frontage is otherwise required, the Applicant agrees to install a three foot berm or hedgerow along the Route 11 frontage within the ten (10) foot wide landscape strip. The Applicant also agrees to place within this landscape strip no less than two hundred and thirty (230) trees to supplement the screening along that frontage. 6. Architectural. Facing materials of buildings facing Route 11 and Interstate 81 shall be primarily of concrete masonry unit, brick, architectural block, Dryvit or other simulated stucco, or real or simulated wood or glass. 7. Site development requirements. 7.1. All utilities will be underground. 7.2. Stormwater management facilities will be maintained by the Applicant. 8. Deed. The Applicant proffers and agrees that any deed conveying the Property shall affix as an BPG Properties Proffer Statement Page 4 of 6 attachment and incorporation into said deed, a full copy of these proffers in order to fully advise any subsequent purchaser of these proffered terms and conditions. 9. Escalator. In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to Frederick County within eighteen (18) months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement which are paid to the County after eighteen (18) months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date eighteen (18) months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6 percent (6%) per year, noncompounded. [SIGNATURES AND NOTARIES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES] BPG Properties Proffer Statement Page 5 of 6 BPG PROPERTIES, LTD. By: BPG-GP, LLC, its General Partner By: Name: Daniel M. DiLella, Jr. Its: Vice President STATE OF COUNTY/CITY OF To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2008, by Daniel M. DiLella, Jr., as Vice President of BPG-GP, LLC, General Partner of BPG Properties, Ltd. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Registration Number: [SIGNATURE AND NOTARY APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE] BPG Properties Proffer Statement Page 6 of 6 ESTATE OF ROY RILEY BOYCE, JR. By: Name: Kay M. Title: Executor Boyce Kay Marie Boyce STATE OF COUNTY/CITY OF To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2008, by Kay M. Boyce as Executor of the Estate of Roy Riley Boyce, Jr. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Registration Number: 1-81 (R j W VARIES) A Q Z Z Q w W� N Z —I W Oelf 00 U W Yz Uw O D W C) I.1_! m o W Q Drawing Number. GDP .. _- — .. _-.—_ .. _ . _ .. _- _ .. _25SETBACK- —.. _- — .. _-•—_� _ - .. _- _ .. _- — .. _- _ .. _- I � I ' SWMB ' I TRAILER PARKING I I I I N fn V. .i9�711*S} nM !m ml m: -n X71 - NIV -n r "I m x37. D Z -1 3J ID Z ' C) ID ! m 1 —_ O D < C' 0m I.M M I M m CIM m I Z IPOSSIBLE BUILDING FOOTPRINT m I > Z M G) m ! D ! M I Z I I I I I I I I 1 ' ! 1 I I I 1 I I I TRAILER PARKING I I --PROPOSED 10' RM J I DEDICATION — SCREE _ — . 75'SETBACK WIDE PR FFERED IANDSCAPE SWMB 1p' 10' WIDE PROFFERED ' LANDSCAPE SCREEN -- _ — — — FUTURE ENTRANCE PROPOSED 10' TRAIL WIDE INITIAL ENTRANCE U.S. RT. 11 (gQ A Q Z Z Q w W� N Z —I W Oelf 00 U W Yz Uw O D W C) I.1_! m o W Q Drawing Number. GDP WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH & WALSH PC Michael J. Coughlin (703) 680-4664 Ext. 113 mcoughlin@pw.thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680-2161 June 19, 2008 Eric Lawrence Fred. Co. Dept. Of Planning & Development North Building, 2°d Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Re: Agency Comments on the BPG Properties, Ltd. Rezoning Application Dear Eric: Below you will find a chart that reflects the agencies we submitted our application materials to, their comments, and the Applicant's response. COMMENTS RESPONSE Fire Marshal: Thank you. Recommend Approval Frederick County Public Schools: Acknowledged. We offer no comments. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Will provide Acknowledged. sewer & water to this site. Frederick — Winchester Health Department: It is the Applicant's understanding that No objection under following conditions. these regulatory requirements are 1. All buildings on site are to be served by the public water applicable to the project irrespective of the and sewer system as approved by the Frederick County Proffer Statement, and so these conditions have not been drafted into the Proffer sanitation authority. 2. All wells are to be abandoned according to the Private Statement. Well Regulations. 3. All septic tanks are to be pumped by an approved septic hauler and abandoned by filling with sand or gravel. 4. Permits are to be obtained from the health department for any proposal for a motel, hotel, or restaurant. 5. All designs submitted should provide for protection of the Branson Spring from any contaminants or drainage due to the proposed future construction. Also attached 12/14/06 comments. PHONE 703 680 4664 1 FAX 703 68o 6067 1 WWW.THELANDLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Winchester Regional Airport: Acknowledged. No new comments received. No objection previously. Company 13 — Clearbrook Vol. Fire Dept.: Acknowledged. No new comments received. Prior comments: As long as the design as the standard fire codes. Fredericksburg — Winchester Service Authority: Acknowledged. Capacity numbers were previously and are included in No comments but also attached 12/21/06 comments regarding water and sewer capacity numbers. provided the Applicant's Impact Statement. Historic Resources Advisory Board, c/o Eric Laurence: • Since the last time a survey was done in 1990, the HRAB felt that the applicant must fill out a • This comment was previously Preliminary Information Form (PIC) from the Historic Resources (HR) form the addressed as follows: BPG contracted ECS Mid-Atlantic to Department of Nathaniel Branson House, which is located on the complete tothe it a property proposed to be rezoned. The PIT will P artment of hs R e. A copy of the report dated May 1, determine if the Nathaniel Branson House can state recognition for its historical value. 20076 was sent directly to HRAB received and DHR. • The HRAB requested that a landscaped berm be placed along the frontage of the property so that the of the Alexander Branson House (across • The Applicant has addressed this ent viewshed Rt. 11) would not be negatively impacted by the commin Proffer 5. placement of a 739,000 sq. ft. Industrial structure. Proffer 3.4 addresses this comment and Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation: has been modified to require the Applicant to dedicate an easement to the County for Recommend proffer statement include a 10' trail on an which to construct the trail — should meet public purposes in the location of the trail. adequate easement VDOT & ASHTO guidelines. Robert T. Mitchell, County Attorney: No comments received on the Proffer Statement. Fred. Co. Dept. of Planning & Development, Mike We Proffer 5e s necessary and that then to Ruddy: Proffer 5: While this is consistent with that previously applicant will be able to increase the width proffered, I would suggest you insert the word "a of the landscape area, at its discretion, beyond 10' during the site plan process "minimum" in the first sentence before ten (10) foot with the proffers as drafted. wide landscape strip" to enable the landscaping to be spread out within the minimum 25' area between the With respect to landscaping along the R.O.W and the parking lot. Property's I-81 frontage, the Applicant has not had sufficient time to evaluate this I would also suggest you consider providing some form request but will offer a response as soon as of landscaping along the properties frontage with possible. Interstate 81 in an effort to improve the appearance along this corridor and help break up the mass of such a large facility and potential trailer parking area. This should in no way be as intensive as that which you have proffered along Route 11, but some consideration should be warranted. Frederick County Department of Public Works: No comments received and unable to locate comments from previous submittal. Matthew B. Smith, Staff Engineer Acknowledged. Edinburg Residency Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a significant measurable impact on Route 11. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the revised transportation proffers offered in the BPG Properties/1-81 Distribution Center Rezoning Application dated June 19, 2008 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. We have the following comments: • The opportunity to realign their proposed entrance with Branson Springs Road in the future will have a positive impact on the overall traffic movement on Route 11. • These proffers provide for the necessary entrance/turn lane improvements at the initial entrance in accordance with VDOT requirements at the time of site plan review. While the Department recognizes that there are traffic impact deficiencies at both the Route 11 and Rest Church Road intersection and Route 11 and Brucetown/Hopewell Road intersection, it appears the best solution is to accept a monetary contribution from the applicant. This would allow Frederick County and VDOT to make future decisions on the appropriate use of these funds. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for all )wing us the opportuniLy to comment. Acknowledged. John Bishop, Deputy Director — Transportation: Regarding the Transportation Impact Analysis: With regard to the extension of Branson Spring Road, the Applicant requires It appears to me that your updated TIA addresses my additional information before determining concerns regarding background traffic. the impact of a right-of-way reservation or previous dedication for this extension. Regarding the Application and Proffers: The Applicant is open to discussing this item further, but is concerned that there While it continues to me my position that the ideal entrance will be considerable right-of-way necessary to accommodate an extension of for this site would align with Branson Spring Road, it to meet this goal with your Branson Spring over I-81 appears that you are attempting proffers. While it is generally the preference of staff that physical improvements be put in place as opposed to cash proffers, the right of way issues in this situation and the fact that the greatest needs are on property not controlled by your client make the cash form of proffer appropriate in this case. I would again note that there is a draft transportation plan in process right now that calls for the extension of Branson Spring Rd across the northern portion of your Client's property. I would ask that your client consider making accommodations for this future roadway. Thank you for your review of these matters. Best regards, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY, EMRICH & WALSH, P.C. Michael J. Coughlin A. Site Background and History The I-81 Distribution Center property consists of 2 parcels with PIN #'s 33-((A))-109 &33-((A))-110. The 59.077 acres of land are located as shown on the attached Figure 1 Location Map. The site lies outside the Urban Development Area of Frederick County. (See Figure 2). The site had historically been used for agriculture. Principle access is provided by U. S. Route 11 "Martinsburg Pike". fµ6 FF '"^mss e � �•nT � Ill P$ A � I Y t r�, r sem` 4, 0 A d ■ �` A - .i �^4 +�• F� (+��F .off " _ _: ■ moi, � 0 V e qe I-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TAS Drawn by Datei1D/24/06 Job No.07-06-0072 Pate Number' TRIAD ENGWERMG, INC. WIMCkESTER, VIRGMA LOCATION MAP DOH Checked by Cadd file no.i CpCATIONNAP.DWG SCale,N/A FIGURE I � J 22 Sprin _ T E aj esb r� i ; ? : Mei / to " 29 so 32 522 i i Y Hayti ld y , of i I, .tepri Ppson ON 42 _Leeiown 53 - %�'.° 3715 47 I-81 DISTRIBUTI®N CENTER RED 167 M �-FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA �ra�y ® Datea10/24/06 Job NwG7-06-0072 �� TMA" u ° 2r -URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA •�a � Cadet Elle no.. FCque e y,rjN° VSA Che e y y Scales N/A B Location and Access The sites has 2077' frontage on U. S. Route 11 "Martinsburg Pike" which will be the principle access to the development parcel. Figure 3 shows the location of the site with respect to area transportation planning. The site will utilize U. S. Route 11 for this rezoned use. There will be one (1) access point for the site as depicted on the GDP and as reflected in the Proffer Statement. The "Initial Entrance" will be 700' south of Branson Spring Road and the "Future Entrance" will be aligned with Branson Spring. Since the site is located within the I-81 corridor and is situated between exits 321 and 323, traffic to and from the site will be provided with options. Refer to Traffic Impact Analysis by PHR&A for existing and anticipated traffic movements. e"l ��. 739 !` m�6;f f 761 T t - RECONFIGURE Y TO BE . a -• — "�` ^ - !CONNECTIO14 DEDBYESTER `�AL,:2R I 664 M IJ 263 • .I V1Mchesler f- Q5 - f 654 f r rt REMOVE ROAD g.- \ o: E j 622 F 656 6S7 rf.v_.. '4i , 655 645 0'26 :�y ^ t 722 p e'•'`�.: Fax.=.-.:":. �P - 644 Frederick REMOVEe�` INTERCH)NGE County 1ti� ..?� lVff Stephens ,;City 64.7a- ... j f ~' af;''; l:.'.1 T/FI_,.LSECPCN COOS _. .b P ¢•. 636 • In1.,2TRnTEL'9ElOM M111 MEF k1011 —' FNaf'y($f t ; e, ,a 1U 110MT"r.G TO FC DLVAq OW EY15T'.1'W 4 t 1- .1 :C t �'� A+m+�mm=er MAIM- OW FEW /.LC31N — 1" 4 i FAZI• MMOVSDFROlA0. FIED 6.1 11I L'GMFnRE5YSE1: C 6W.Dw- COFIflECI:OMCIOSra NGYEw fflu WA 110m _.ftkulbrs a: mcrtny t, tFav,cevm noxv m bn m.a b r9r 1r'E!YM/tNOE.O MVEI4EFRS Vmo�w� yam. xrtl Im ppm p � A IL I-91 DISTRIBUTMN CENTER FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA mli, f!ll� .: I � ' R 'M Date,10/24/0ta .iob N®.,07m aF07 - Cadd Elle ruXI oAnmsmm mmrr 4 Scale, N/A Maltz vkm*Cn C. Site Suitability The project and general geographic area is underlain by carbonate sedimentary bedrock which results in karst terrain. Topographic mapping for the site indicates a site typical of the karst terrain with gentle slopes and reasonable level plain areas. Typical of other properties within the area, this site is generally suitable for the proposed facility. A site characterization showing important environmental features is included in Figure 4. The following chart provides an area summary: 1-81 Distribution Center Site Characteristics Total Project Area 59.077 Acres Area in Flood Plain 0.00 Acres Area in Woodlands 0.00 Acres Area in Steep Slopes 0.00 Acres Area in Wetlands 0.00 Acres Lakes & Ponds 0.00 Acres The property is planned for a warehouse facility with an approximate building area of 750,000 square feet and parking for 100 +/- cars, 200 trailers, and 150 loading docks. lye Y Kv, -T, 4� Q Q 0, 1-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER FREDERICK TAS DoLte110/24/06 Job No.07-06-0072 COUNTY, VIRGINIA Drawn by ptftt¢ TMD ENGDEMDG, MC. SITE CHARACTERISTICS DOH Cadd file no.t WINCHESTER, VIRGRUA Checked by 4 D. Traffic The transportation impact analysis prepared for this project shouts that under the conditions provided, traffic generation from this site is acceptable and manageable considering the overall development of the U. S. Route 11/1-81 corridor_ Tinder the conditions imposed by this rezoning, this roadway system will continue to function at a level of service of "C" or better during the 2010 background and build -out conditions, respectively. As is stated in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the development of this site to accommodate a 750,000 +/- square foot warehouse facility does not significantly affect the existing or proposed roadway system. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Patton Harris Engineers, R+A Su ry Heyors. P Rust & Associates Planners. Landsccpe Architects. 10212 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007 Williamsport, Maryland 21795 Phone: 301223.4010 Fax 301.223BB31 To: Organization/Company: From: Date: Project Name/Subject: PHR+A Project Number: Memorandum Board of Supervisors Frederick County, Virginia Michael Glickman, PE February 22, 2008 An Addendum to: A Traffic Loa ctAnalysis ofI--81 Distribution Center 14596-1-0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this memorandum as an addendum to the proposed I-81 Distribution Center located along the west side of Route 11, south of Rest Church Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. In accordance with Frederick County comments relating to the PHR+A traffic impact study titled: A Tragic ftbactAnalsy is oLI-81 Distribution Center, dated May 30, 2007, this document presents revised traffic analyses to reflect modifications in background and proposed development trip generation. Accordingly, PHR+A has revised the background and build -out conditions analyses to include: The recently approved Rutherford Crossing development as a Background Development with the revised and approved TIA counts (see page 2); • Use of ITE Code 150, for square footage calculation of trip generation; Limitation of development potential to 750,000 square feet of development using ITE Code 150. Office uses will be ancillary to the primary use, and is accommodated by ITE Code 150; This report constitutes a Worst Case Scenario analysis. All methodology remains consistent with the aforementioned May 30, 2007 study. PHR+A has provided analyses for 2010 background and build -out conditions. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Using the 7` ,Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trig GenerationResort, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 1 shows the 2010 background developments AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes and ADT (Average Daily Trips) at each of the study area intersections. Figure 2 shows the corresponding background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this memorandum. Page 1 of 9 Patten Harris Rust & Associates Table 1 2010 Background Developments Trip Generation Summary Total of all Memorandum To: VDOT Page 2of9 PM Peak Hour1 ADT I Total in Out Total 74 409 106 AM Code Land Use Amount In 188 203 391 4,271 Sempeles Property (Partial Build -out) 293 601 130 Industrial Park 598,950 SF 336 820 Retail 49,000 SF 62 44 92 Total 398 Clearbrook Properties (Full Build -out) 1,017 52 120 GA Heavy Industrial 120,000 SF 54 932 H -T Restaurant 8,000 SF 48 164 208 Total 102 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park (Full Build -out) 152 130 Industrial Park 215,000 SF 152 862 Home Impr. Superstore 117,000 SF 76 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 814 Specialty Retail 187,147 SF 139 932 H -T Restaurant 5,000 SF 30 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,500 SF 122 932 H -T Restaurant 4,800 SF 29 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 932 H -T Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 912 Drive-in Bank 4,100 SF 28 48 31 Total 725 North Stephenson Tract OMPS Property (Full Build -out) 51 110 Light Industrial 800,000 SF 752 485 1,210 Total 752 Stephenson Village (Partial Build -out) 26,652 103 210 Single -Family Detached 429 units 77 220 Apartment 240 units 20 230 Townhouse/Condo 390 units 26 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 266 units 29 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 72 units 3 49 149 Total 155 Other Developments 127 62 730 FEMA 350 employees 190 812 Building/Umber Store 15,000 SF 26 1,064 2 Total 216 Total of all Memorandum To: VDOT Page 2of9 PM Peak Hour1 ADT I Total in Out Total 74 409 106 398 503 3,719 40 102 188 203 391 4,271 113 511 293 601 894 7,990 7 61 3 20 23 180 44 92 53 34 87 1,017 52 153 56 54 110 1,197 33 186 44 164 208 1,814 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 89 228 207 264 471 8,044 28 58 33 21 55 636 117 239 81 75 156 2,233 27 55 32 20 52 610 30 63 37 23 60 699 40 83 48 31 79 915 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 485 1,210 1,031 1,165 2,197 26,652 103 855 118 863 981 5,874 103 855 118 863 981 5,874 232 310 255 144 399 4,290 103 123 100 49 149 1,573 125 150 127 62 189 3,393 51 80 78 44 123 1,064 2 5 4 3 7 251 513 667 564 302 866 10,570 24 214 86 191 277 2,713 13 39 33 37 70 639 37 253 1 119 228 347 1 3,352 Engineers 9 Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Blast & Associates Memorandum To: VDOT Page 3 of 9 Figure 1 2010 Background Traffic Conditions Engineers • Surveyors . Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Hards Rust & Associates Memorandum To: VDOT Page 4of9 Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects q Signalized G Intersection O LOS=B(B) No ScaleSignalized Signalized"Suggested Intersection Improvements" Intersection pp LOS=B(C) Signalization LOS=B(B) Rest Church t° Road 9 q O� >ft$B) Signalized (4) • New Intersection' Intersection wg - 4th Leg LOS—B(C) EB - 1 Left c O i a 1l N,oft s= Drive # �'��► * m SITE G o Sit_ Drive #2 11 `'(4)� Unsignah!ed o Intersection O Signalized"Suggested Intersection Improvements" [QLOS=QQ 'n Signalization EB - 1 Right 11 WB - 1 Right Alignment of Hopewell R Brucetown Rd Ho ewe11v Road U el CSC) vI� Unsignalized O Intersection BnlcetOWn Road R icx tt U (A)A Unsignalized '0 Intersection Bruce[own o F<F) p� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement it Denotes two-way left turn lane ,TJ .TJ A Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum To: VDOT Page 5of9 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trig Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the revised trip generation associated the proposed I- 81 Distribution Center. Table 2 Proposed Development: I-81 Distribution Center Trip Generation Summary TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips remains consistent with the May 30, 2007 report. Figure 3 shows the development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments at each of the study area intersections. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The I-81 Distribution Center assigned trips (Figure 3) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 1) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 4 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at each of the study area intersections. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this memorandum. Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount ADT In Out Total In Out Total 150 Warehousing 750,000 SF 285 63 347 80 240 320 3,110 Total 1 285 63 347 1 80 240 320 3,110 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips remains consistent with the May 30, 2007 report. Figure 3 shows the development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments at each of the study area intersections. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The I-81 Distribution Center assigned trips (Figure 3) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 1) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 4 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at each of the study area intersections. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this memorandum. Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum To: VDOT Page 6of9 N m ti O� No Scale CO (48)171.,% Rest Church Road a C E c � 0 �Z 25(96) o b (32)114 3(4g) n 11 � m (36)9 Site a Drive # I a SITE 11 a Site 1 Drive #2 (168 EY C36)94%W* 13(48) _► F4 no e'ell Road - `roc �[vice[own ko d y a m � N � I1 Note: Alignment of Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) is assumed. 1 I1 it Figure 3 Development -Generated Trip Assignments Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners 9 Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum To: VDOT Page 7of9 Note: Alignment of Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Ho /A is assumed. -- Figure 4 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions Engineers • Surveyors • Planners s Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum To: VDOT Page 8 of 9 Figure 5 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Bust & Associates Memorandum To: VDOT Page 9 of 9 CONCLUSION Based upon the Synchro analysis results, all suggested improvements are a direct result of Background Traffic Conditions, with the exception of a single eastbound left turn lane on Brucetown Road (and the site -related improvements). The Development Generated Impact to study area intersections is minimal. The reconstruction and alignment of the Hopewell/Brucetown/Route 11 intersection is an important road improvement for the corridor, because it is the only intersection in which failing movements can be identified over time. All the study area intersections will maintain the county -requested level of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. Background Developments should be required to resolve the impacts generated by their respective projects. Table 3 summarizes the improvements required during 2010 build -out conditions per the revised analysis as well as per the May 30, 2007 study. Table 3 I-81 Distribution Center Comparison of Improvements Required 2011) Rnild_ont Traffic r..nd4inr.c Improvements mqunea eating Lulu Backgrouna ummuons Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Improvements required to maintain overall LOS "C" or better No. Intersection Direction Revised 2008 Analysis May 30, 2007 Analysis Scenario A Scenario B Eastbound Rest Chinch Road Westbound 1 and 1-81 SB ramp Northbound - No Improvements - No Improvements - No Improvements Southbound Eastbound Rest Church Road Westbound 2 and 1-81 NB ramp Northbound _ No Improvements - No lmprovements - No Improvements Southbound Eastbound - I left -tum lane` - 1 left -tum lane* - I left -tum lane* Route 11 and Rest Westbound - Fourth Leg* - Fourth Leg" - Fourth Leg* 3 Church Road Northbound Southbound - Entbound 4 Route I I and Site- Westbound _ New Intersection Unsignalized - ri t inhi tout ( ) - New Intersectio (Unsignalized -right-irJrightouQ New Intersection (Unsignalized -right-Wright-ouQ Drive #1 Northbound Southbound Eastbound 5 Route 11 & Site- Westbound - New Intersectio Si aliza[ion gn New Intersection (Unsignalized) - New Intersection Signalization Drive #2 Northbound Southbound Route 11 and Eastbound - 1 right -turn lane* & 1 left -tum lane - 1 left -tum lane- & 1 right -turn lane - f lett-turn lane* & I right -tum lane 6 Hopewell Westbound - 1 right -[um lane* Signalization* - 1 right -tum lane* Signalization* - 1 right -mm lane* Signalmtio* Road/Brucetown Northbound - & Alignment* _ 1 right -tum lane* & Aligmnent* - 1 right -tom lane* & Alignment* Road Southbound - - I right -turn lane* - 1 right -tum lane* Eastbound Hopewell Road Westbound 7 and 1-81 NB ramp Northbound _ No Improvements - No Improvements - No Improvements Southbound Eastbound - 8 Hopewell Road Westbound - Signalization*- No Improvenents - No Improvements and 1-81 SB ramp Northbound - Soutbbound - Improvements mqunea eating Lulu Backgrouna ummuons Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects F�fton Harris Rust & Associates i_ngineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 10212 Governor Lane Blvd., Suite 1007 IJ+ Williamsport, MD 21795 -� T 800.616.8286 HT 301.223.4010 Memorandum F 301.223.6831 To: Lloyd Ingram Organization/Company: From: VDOT Michael Glickman, P. E. Date: Mav 30, 2007 Project Name/Subject: -R=A Project file Number: Response to March 2_2; 2007 VDOT comments regarding the report titled: A Trac Fact_ Analysis of the 1-81 Dirtnbution Cenipr, dated December 1. 2006- 14596-1-0 cc: Tem Short - _)ur request, PHR+A (Patton Harris Rust & Associates) has prepared this memorandum to provide r;rses to the March 22, 2007 VDOT comments regarding the report titled: A Tr_ c I act Anal fis o(the 'I Distribution Center, dated December 1, 2006: ^! Comment #E The applicant used the number of employees for the trip generation, which _-ed one employee per 5000 square feet There is no basis for this assersan and therefore feel that this =anal flaw. The study should use the ITE trip rate based on square footage of the proposed facility. L HR+A Response: PHR+A performed a trip generation stud- h, --ed upon three (3) comparable uses: 1) Home Depot Distribution Center (750,000 square feet), 2) Orli, Inc Dismbution Center ?�J,400 square feet) and 3) Target Distribution Center (1,300,0W sq== reef_ The results of this study (that was submitted to VDOT on April 20, 2007) revealed lower AM and PILI peak hour trip generation volumes than those shown in the December 1, 2006 traffic study_ However, based upon discussion between VDOT/County/PHR+A/BPG (Client) at the Apr.' ' 4, 2007 N'DOT/Engineers meeting in Edinburg, Virginia, a second scenario wM be contemplated that assumes the worst-case Office (ITE Code 710) use of 220,000 square feet which equals/exceeds the peak hour volumes based upon 750,000 square feet of Warehousing (ITE Code 150) using the aforementioned square footage rate. r -DOT Comment #2: Referencing Figure 2, Page 3, please explain why, existing traffic volumes in this gure does not match the traffic counts in the appendix. PHR+A Response: The existing traffic volumes shown in the Figure 2 are greater than the traffic counts due to the balancing of traffic volumes between intersections. Patton Harris Rust & Associates VDOT Comment #3: Referencing Figure 2, Page 3, please explain why the Average Daily Trips (ADT's) in this future are consistently higher the 2005 AADTs, based on VDOT traffic counts. PHR+A Response: The Average Daily Trips shown in Figure 2 are based upon the 2006 PHR+A peak hour traffic counts and "k" factor of 9.2°'O. PHR+A calculated hn factor from 24-hour tube counts. VDOT Comment #4: Referencing Table 1, Page 5, it states "Sempeles Property" and Stephenson Village" will be partial built -out by 2010. Please explain what "partial" means related to the amount of traffic to be generated during background conditions for the subject application. PHR+A Response: The full build -out of the developments of Se es Property and Stephenson `-Mage will be Year 2012 and Year 2015, respecarele. The srlid: scope of the 11,81 distribuuon Center is limited to Year 2010. Therefore, PHR+A has assumed the Phase 1 completion of Stephenson Village and 50% completion of the Sempeles. VDOT Comment #5: Please provide detailed information about bares and conditions trafbc distribution. PHR+A Response: PHR+A will provide Figures showing trip assignments for each background development in the revised TIA. VDOT Comment #6: The Rest Church Road/I-81 `TB Ramps lane config•_irarion in the HCS report does not match Figure 3. Please explain. PHR+A Response: The HCS file contained an iQpur inacc-a acy_ Revls the HCS files, per the Figure 3 lane geometry at the intersection of Rest Church Road/I-81 N7B Ramps, does not result m a change to movement/approach/overall LOS_ VDOT Comment #7: Please provide complete HCS Report for Background Conditions and 2010 Built - Out conditions. PHR+A Response: Complete HCS report will be provided mi the revised TLA. VDOT Comment #8: Referencing Figure 6, Page 9, the applicant has assumed 40% traffic coming from I -81N and another 40% form I -81S. Please explain why half of the vehicles from I -81N use exit 321 and the other half use exit 323. PHR+A Response: The proposed site is located approximately equidistant between Exit 321 and Exit 323 along the east side of I-81. For conservative purposes, PHR+A assumed vehicles from I- 8 1N and I-81 S would utilize both exits to access the property. Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects i. . A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center (Formerly the Clearbrook Dista-bution Center) Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for Berwind Property Group, Ltd.. 1500 Market Street 3000 Center Square Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Prepared by= Patton Harris Rust & Assaciatos, p_c Engineers. Surveyors. Planners_ Landscape Arc`itects. 10212 Governor Lane Blvd. Suite 1007 P P+AT Williamsport, Maryland 21795 301 .223.4010 F 301 .223.6831 May 30, 2007 (Revised from December 1, 2006 submission) OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed I-81 Distribution Center (formerly submitted as the Clearbrook Distribution Center) located along the north side of Hopewell Road, west of Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike), in Frederick County, Virginia. PHR+A has provided analysis for two (2) alternate build -cut conditions. Scena-rio A assumes that the proposed project will include 750,000 square feet of Warehouse. Scenario B assumes the proposed development of 220,000 square feet of office. Access to the site will be provided via two (2) site -driveways along the west side of Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike); the northern entrance is to be "right-in/right-out" only_ The project is to be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the loon of the proposed 1-81 Distribution Center with respect to the surrounchn.m roadway network- Methodology etwori - Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the I-81 Distribution Center were obtained through the following sequence of activities: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the study area, Calculation of trip generation for the proposed I-81 Distribution Center, • Distribution and assignment of the I-81 Distribution Center development -generated trips onto the completed roadway network, v • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the iatcst version of the highway capacity software, HCS+, for existing and future conditions - 14 Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center -R + Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 2007 Page 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike)/Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road, Hopewell Road/ I-81 northbound ramps, Hopewell Road/ I-81 southbound ramps, Route 11/ Rest Church Road (Route 669), Rest Church Road/ I-81 northbound ramps and Rest Church Road/ I-81 southbound ramps. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 9.2 % based on the published Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data Per the VDOT comments for the adjacent development of Clearbrook Properties, PHR+A has balanced the existing traffic volumes proportionately at all the study area intersections. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Trips) and A'l'V� LTpeak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area- Figure 3 illustrates the respective existing lane geometry and levels of sentraffic 1ice- All trac count data and HCS+ levels of sen'ice worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this rrt_ A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center + Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 2 PHP Page 2 No Scale - Q combs Rest' Church Rd ti Ern �c het _ve_,v_ C, Suck P L� 3 -- t, I�3 �J ffIIrr I cedar Hill P i i � Rd - BrucElop ' Rd ----�� I t anjcmtmm S ■-T -.-P+/ \ Figure 1 Vicinity Map - I-81 Distribution Center, Frederick County, Virginia P,-4R+A A Traf is Impact Analysis ofthe I-81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 2007 Page 3 Figure 2 P"R+A Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 2007 Page 4 Q b m 7 O (256)168 1(5S6(2�8) No Scale (35)165' p- ) a � R Q O 'Rest Church (322)134 (54)12 Road p ` (129)73 (174)163 r�Z 98 ) ~� Z jil, _Site give � j SITE Site Dn�e # 2 a c J y )I )< (34)1-9,.*1 NIIB) HoDewe 1 Road (74)76-*(17 SL �y $mcetown O Rpy� (55)67 r~ 85(87)1) (24)29 E 62(47) Bniceloyn O En En (68)6854(52) (41)54 (67)52 = z �h AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) ,TJ ■-T ,P+/A\ r Figure 2 P"R+A Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 2007 Page 4 �)7 (Intersection nalized Z CSignalized F S LOS--B(B) CO q Intersection s t0 LOS=B(B) B No Scale (4),9 �► ) / `"�) E (R)g� m en QP1 44 T ReSt Church Road T z Signalized Intersection LOS --;(B) (B)g i 111 r ]Figure 3 Site Drire 2 SITE _Site Drive—# -2 O Intersection p z L�`b,T unsignarr� 17 *(D`. Intcrsamae c *�� (Djc� �� 1 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Denotes two-way left turn lane Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Trafc Impact Analysis of 1-81 Distribution CenterAnalysis of the 1-81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 2007 Page 5 2010 'TRAFFIC ANALYSES PHR+A has provided analysis for two (2) alternate build -out conditions. Scenario A assumes that the proposed project will include 750,000 square feet of Warehouse. Scenario B assumes the proposed development of 220,000 square feet of office. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data (between years 2002 and 2004) for Route 11 within the vicinity of the site, a growth rate of 3-5 % was calculated and applied to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2010 base conditions. Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation_ Tables A- 1 through A-6 are provided in the Appendix section of this report io show the trip assignment volumes for each background development - Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 2010 Background Developments Trio Generation Summar~' Code Land Use Amount 1e AM P—L- Hour pet Tonal In PM Peak Hour Our Turd ADT Scmpeles Property (Partial Build -oat) 130 Industrial Pari 598,950 5F 336 74 409106 398 5,03 3_719 820 Rmail 49,000 SF 6-1 40 lti. i58 M3 ?91 4_ ! Total 398 113 511 f i ?a3 ti01 894 7_0" Cl—brOnL Properties (Fall Band -oat) 120 GA Her» Irniustriat 120,000 SF 54 i 61 3 :0 23 180 ura 932 H -T Restaurant 8,000 SF 48 44 92 53 34 87 1,017 Total 102 52 1E3 56 53 110 1,197 Retherford's Farm industrial Park (Full Buildout) t 130 Industrial Park 1,400,000 SF 1.022 224 1,246 270 1.018 1,288 9,744 820 Retail 20,000 SF 36 23 60 104 113 216 2-386 Total 1,058 247 1,306 374 1,131 1,504 12,130 North Stephenson TractOMPS Property (Full Build -out) 110 Light Industrial 800,000 SF 752 103 855 118 863 981 5,874 Total 752 103 855 118 863 981 5,874 Stephenson Village (Partial Buildout) 210 Single -Family Detached 429 units 77 232 310 255 144 399 4,290 220 Apartment 240 units 20 103 123 100 49 149 1,573 230 Townhouse/Condo 390 units 26 125 150 127 62 189 3,393 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 266 units 29 51 80 78 44 123 1,064 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 72 units 3 2 5 4 3 7 251 Total 1 155 513 667 564 302 866 10,570 A Trak Impact Analysis of the I -8I Distribution Center PH'�A Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, Pagege 6 6 A Trac Impact Analysis of the I--81 Distribution Center PHR+A Project Number: 14596-1=0 May 30, 2007 Page 7 a q�'ry O� *ftftI Bs No Scale �(55� 8y 1r�2g1(331� b CD 10(47) Re Church68 8!375 0)l$q'� 1pt4� ) Road ♦ (86) / r ^ N u (148)84 Z ,e3 (31613 �� (489 ft%* tiM1l> g> She give - SITE site. give # 2 E n c G Z R` l �2i Hopewell goad 11 (181-79 i� s !76(27_91 _ `sr u� goad tBruceto82(138 �! -121(12) (28)33 7q{56) 1 B�� 46(5 r64(62) (173)183_' I AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) n n n A Trac Impact Analysis of the I--81 Distribution Center PHR+A Project Number: 14596-1=0 May 30, 2007 Page 7 e a Signalized COQ� Intersection O BBi LOS=B(B) r� No Scale (4)4 �� Signalized Intersection LOS--B(B) Res` urch Road Signalized New Intersection" Intersection EB - I Left LOS=QQ I'M _ 1 Thru Fourth Leg W _ Site]' G (C)c_� S a Drive � f 1, j� O� UIntersection SITE p� Dave#2 {� "Suggested _S7 Signalized Improvements" Intersection Sienalaatioo LOS --MR) intersection _lligmneet EB - I Left + 1 Right WB - 1 Ri gbt N%- I Right 11 SB 1 Right HOp�'ell Road 8"-=OvM It r COO d � q 9(q)* Unsignalized *� F Intersection d i m �/] Unsignalized /1(i Intersection 0 Brvicet m*f�F Road Alti1 Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) /� 11 * * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement �T T�+ / \ Denotes two-way left turn lane A Trak Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center Project NumberaPHP A+y 30, 007 1-0 May 30, Page 8 Page 8 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Tables 2a and 2b to summarize the trip generation associated the proposed I-81 Distribution Center for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively . Table 2a Proposed Development: 1-81 Distribution Center Scenario A: Trin Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour In Out Total PM Peak Hour In Out Total ADT 150 Warebousing (750,000 SF)� 150 employees 79 31 110 44 81 124 756 Total 1 79 31 110 1 44 81 124 1 756 .Nssumed a worst -cast of 1 emplovee per 5000 square fe- Table 2b Proposed Development: I-81 Distribution Center Scenario B: Triu Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hoar In Out Total PM PeakHour In outTotal ADT 710 Office 220,000 SF 310 42 352 55 270 325 2,448 Total 310 42 352 1 55 270 325 2.448 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGIVMIENT The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed I-81 Disuibution Center site. Figures 7a and 7b show the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively_ 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The I-81 Distribution Center assigned trips (Figures 7a and Tb) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center -R+A Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 2007 Page 9 40% 10% No Scale Rest Church Road )lll Site _ Drive �: I SITE _ site 11 Ho ewe" Road Brucetown Road 40% 10% ■-T ,P+ Figure 6 PHIS Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis o{the I-81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 2007 Page 10 o. C ti �7 No Scale 16 CO 1� Rest Church a .. G 07)32 `° a1 (I_� « } giSve # 1 o ` SITE l i Site 1 Drive # 2 (57)�2 (tz)S� � I N 4 ^^i n t. D 4 Ho ell Road C �r r O ! Bruccrown L+ *'` 6(J6) r� z •�. 1 A (9)i `'' rr n AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) PT TP'+/ \ Avierage Daily Trips A Trak Impact Analysis o the r Distribution Center PP A+Project Number: 145 96-1 -0 HMay 30, 200 Page 11 1 Figure 7b Scenario B: Development -Generated Trip Assignments PHR+A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 2007 Page 12 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center 17 Project Number: 14596-1-0 uJ May 30, 2007 1 � Page 13 Figure Sb Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions P,__4R+A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 2007 Page 14 No Scale Right in / Right out ,%j G Unsignalizk O Intersection 016 *�`4)A * App- A E Unsignalized Intersection O � r Intersection LOS=B(B) Rest Chu fih Ro d Unsignalized Intersection At&) DnI- SITE t�Road Unsignalized Intersection 4� ce, *�FRoa F(F)* 'l � lip4 _I Staalized Impruveu.eats^ Intersection S.�aai�tioa LOS=6(B) Intr_mii Afigaccu EB - i Let + 1 Right WB -I Right NB - 1 Right s8-1 t qtr AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Denotes two-way left turn lane Figure 9a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Trak Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center R+A Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 20PH07 Page 15 Stnaliz d "'Vow latersecsioo" utmrsectiou EB - 1 Left LOS--C(C) WB - 1 Thn. Fourth L&_- V �l fDC -AMOor � h Staalized Impruveu.eats^ Intersection S.�aai�tioa LOS=6(B) Intr_mii Afigaccu EB - i Let + 1 Right WB -I Right NB - 1 Right s8-1 t qtr AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Denotes two-way left turn lane Figure 9a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Trak Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center R+A Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 20PH07 Page 15 No Scale Right in / Right out / G r Unsignalizec p Intersection �4 Intersection V� cti LOS--B(B) B(73) m Rest Chu`ch Rom S�nnatiled Intersection LOS--B(C) 11 Sknafirrd Improvemems" Intersection oa LOS--QQ' Ione ut EB - I Ldt • I Richt RB - 1 Itignt nB - I Right SE - I MEW I7 Road Brticeto►vn Road `ftftwo u r U Unsignalized Intersection Bnlcrop'n Roo G'� 4 A111 Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) II * * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Denotes two-way left turn lane Figure 9b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596-1-0 PHP May 30, Pagee 7 16 16 w Signalized Intersection G O LOS--B(B) LOS—C(C� AFB -IThra Fourth Lei .6 L Sknafirrd Improvemems" Intersection oa LOS--QQ' Ione ut EB - I Ldt • I Richt RB - 1 Itignt nB - I Right SE - I MEW I7 Road Brticeto►vn Road `ftftwo u r U Unsignalized Intersection Bnlcrop'n Roo G'� 4 A111 Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) II * * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Denotes two-way left turn lane Figure 9b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596-1-0 PHP May 30, Pagee 7 16 16 Si�talized "New Intersection^ EB -1 Le#t LOS—C(C� AFB -IThra Fourth Lei CM) (C)c� �h Sknafirrd Improvemems" Intersection oa LOS--QQ' Ione ut EB - I Ldt • I Richt RB - 1 Itignt nB - I Right SE - I MEW I7 Road Brticeto►vn Road `ftftwo u r U Unsignalized Intersection Bnlcrop'n Roo G'� 4 A111 Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) II * * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Denotes two-way left turn lane Figure 9b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596-1-0 PHP May 30, Pagee 7 16 16 CONCLUSION Assuming the suggested improvements, all the study area intersections will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for both the scenarios. Based upon HCS+ analysis, the following describes the recommended roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections during each scenario: • Route 11 / Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road: Alignment of the intersection, traffic signalization, one (1) eastbound left -tum and one (1) eastbound right -turn lane, one (1) northbound right -turn lane, one (1) westbound right -tum lane and one (1) southbound right -turn lane will be required to maintain levels of service "C" during 2010 background and build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B. Route 11 / Rest Church Road_ Along with the additional westbound leg, this intersection would require one (1) eastbound left -turn lane one (1) westbound thru lane, one (1) northbound right -turn lane and one (1) southbound left -turn lane to maintain levels of service "C7 during 2010 background and build --ata- conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B. • Route 11 / Site -Drive #1: This is a new right in/right out only intersection for Scenario A and Scenario B of 2010 build -out conditions_ Route 11 / Site -Drive #2: This is a new intersection. It will require a southbound right -tum lane in Scenario A and traffic signalization and a southbound right -tum lane in Scenario B of 2010 build -out conditions_ Pedestrian and Bike accessibility will be addressed during Site Plan time. NOTE: The aforementioned improvements have yet to be fnnded- �� A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596-1-0 May 30, 2007 Page 17 E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply The I-81 Distribution Center site exists within the designated SWSA of Frederick County (see Figure 5). The FCSA has confirmed that they will provide water and sewer service to the site. A newly constructed 6 -inch sanitary forcemain has been installed along the easterly side of Route 11. An on-site sanitary pumping station will be constructed for direct connection to the forcemain. There are no known limiting factors for the conveyance of sewage and sewage treatment from this property. Capacity and daily usage will be addressed at the time of site plan submission. Potable water and fire protection will be supplied via the 12 -inch water line located along the easterly side of Route 11. The impact of the additional use created by this rezoning is acceptable and manageable. Figure 6 shows the locations of utility infrastructure planned in this phase of development. ,k TRIAD ENGDEERING, INC. VIND ESTER, VIRGINIA W r� SWSA v19- `6 4;1, Vii► .�.�i�`� �?' i SWSA I-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER TAS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Drawn by Datetl0/24/06 .Job No.07-06-0072 Ptate SWSA DOH Cadd file no.t FIGURE 5 Checked by SWSAMAP.DVG �caletN/A e¢ C TL 4 J® ,k TRIAD ENGDEERING, INC. VIND ESTER, VIRGINIA W r� SWSA v19- `6 4;1, Vii► .�.�i�`� �?' i SWSA I-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER TAS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Drawn by Datetl0/24/06 .Job No.07-06-0072 Ptate SWSA DOH Cadd file no.t FIGURE 5 Checked by SWSAMAP.DVG �caletN/A F. Site Drainage Figure 7 shows the natural drainage pattern that exists on this site. The lack of concentration of the drainage allows the designer to utilize low impact type stormwater management techniques. Design criteria will protect the natural Swale areas to the maximum extent possible. Disturbance will be primarily by right angle road or driveway crossings. Adequate channel, inlet, and culvert calculations will be provided during the design phase of the project to ensure direct runoff is contained within the channel and post development velocities protect the existing ditches along Route 11. iu m p I WINCWSTEP, VIRGM A 1-01 Vka, I MLDU I IUM I -UM I LK DUE DILIGENCE REPORT-CLEARBRODK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TAS Drawn by Date107/19/06 Cadd file no,c SrTEDRAIWAGE.DV"G Job No.07-06-0072 Scaleil'=500' anteFREDERICK Numb �. FIGURE 7 SITE DRAINAGE LAYDUT DOH Checked by G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Approximate designated dumpster locations are shown on Figure 8. During the design process, appropriately screened dumpster locations will be determined. Contractual arrangements will be made with a Waste Management Service to properly dispose of the solid waste. The following table provides an estimate of increase in tonnage presented by this project at build -out. I-81 Distribution Center Rezoning Solid Waste Generation Summary Frederick County, Virginia Unit Type Amount Unit Unit Value Total uanti #/S Ft Warehouse 739,000 Sq Ft 0.01 7,390 Office 11,000 Sq Ft 0.05 550 Total Waste (#'s)/day = 7,940 Estimated Solid Waste = 3.97 (tons)/day H. Historic Sites and Structures A search for historical structures on the subject property was conducted through the Virginia Department. of Historic Resources (DHR). A maps only archives search utilizing the DHR cultural inventory for archaeological sites and architectural structures revealed one potential historical structure, identified as File No. 034-0926 (Nathaniel Branson House), on the subject site. This property was then evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Based upon the criteria established for evaluation of the property for its potential eligibility for NRHP listing, the property was evaluated for its historic and architectural significance. Based upon the NRHP criteria and the information collected from the physical inspection and documented research on the property, the Nathaniel Branson House property is not recommended eligible for listing in the NRNP. The property is NOT: a. associated with an important event in history b. associated with a person significant in history c. reflective of a distinctive character of building type, period or method of construction d. associated with a works of a master or has high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity, or yield important information to prehistory or history Therefore, this property is not recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. I. Impact on Community Facilities The Frederick County Development Impact Model (DIM) has not been run for this project as per E-mail with Ms. Susan Eddy on October 27, 2006. Proffers have been offered which will mitigate the effects of impacts on the county. Monetary contributions for fire and rescue are included in the Proffer Statement. Y Z u Y 1-81 (R/W VARIES) __ _ _ _ •%\ Ste_ - v\RGiN\P UUMP3TER :71 W/PAD • I f TRAILER PARKING (12k55'TYP.) DUMPSTER W/PAD vA I �T^ 2 � N �- 200' TRUCK COURT ' .•(� SIN. I • 'y'n f t I 734,000 S.F. WAREHOUSE 11,000 S.F. SPACEOFFICE 85 SPACES WAREHOUSE WAREH /// c •c 44 SPACES OFFICE SPACE / L PROVIDED= 118 SPACES if I I PROPO ED WA ' Q PROPOSE PUMPSTATION 0 r 200' TRUCK COURT �• N n r♦ ! TTi ' TRAILER PARKING i fi (12k55'TVP.) PFtPOSED SA MJT.111//�hgRYYS&fl .. .. � .. � .. � � .. �... 75 SETBACK .. .. .. � . . r _ LNE _ s � ms— 5j,�-- "FORCE MAIN — U. RT. 11 ( WIDE 12" WATER LIN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA be completed by Planning Staff: Pee; Amount Paid $ iing Amendment ` umf er Date Received Hearing Date /y g 130SBearing Dateg !� Lr The following information shall be provided. -by the applicant, All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division,107 North Kent Street, Winchester. L Applicant: Name:. BPG Properties, Ltd. Telephone:; (703) 680-4664 Address: c/o Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Ste 300, Prince William VA 22192 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Estate of Roy Riley Boyce, Jr. Telephone: (540) 550-5027 Address: PO Box 67 Clearbrook,VA 22624 3. Contact person if other than -above Name; Michael J. Coughlin Telephone. '(703) 680-4664 4. Checklist: Check the following itern that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement. X Verification of taxes paid XFr-offer' Statement X 10 5. The Code of Virenia allows us to request fail disclosure of ow-uership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Estate of Roy Riley Boyce, Jr._. BPG Properties, Ltd. 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural with existing residence B) Proposed Use of the Property-: 750, 000 square feet of warehouse and ancillary uses permitted by the Proffer Statement. 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NIIMBLR USE ZONING 33 -A -86A, 86B, 87B, 111 Residential RA 33-A-87, 108, 112 Agricultural RA 33-12-24 Agricultural RA 33 -A -105B Commercial M-1 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): Approximately 0.61 +/- miles north of the Route 11 intersection with state route 671 (Cedar Hill). Bounded on the west by Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike). 11 9. The. following inforination should be provided according. to. the type of rezoning proposed .Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: NIA Townhome: N/A Multi -Family: NIA Non -Residential Lots: — NIA Mobile Home: N/A Hotel Room S: NIA Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office:. N/A Service Station: N/A Retail- NA h4anufacturing: NIA Restaurant., N/A Warell0mg- 750,0.Uo Other: N/A 10. Signature-, I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make -application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to -change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia, I (we) authorite Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand thatthetign issued when: this application is submitted inust.be plated at the front property fine at.lept seven days prior lo,the Awning -0-oftimiseton public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as -to be visible from the road right�of-way until the hearing. . 4rmg. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and. accurate to the best of m. y (our) "knowledge. Applica..nt(s): Date: 11/1 - t49.44- '), V 1 Owner(s): Date: 10 Date: '12 Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adioining 'Lae land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address NameDMirl Iee praM P O BcK 174 (I-GTtnTk, VA ;n624 Property # 33-A-111 Name Charles W Cif Sr & Joline Stud Properly # 33-A-112 2897 Mardn§airg Pike Cleadmook, VA 22656 NameDcrnM S. Cnirn 4123 Martixdmrg Pike Cieadxtaok, VA 22624 Property # 33-A-108 Name yay m. gt pe P 0 BcK 67 CLeadxnok, VA 22624 Property # 33 -A -86A Name Yay M. Bcym P O B[x 67 Chock, VA 22624 Property # 33 -11 - Name David C. Cook 4030 MntirEg Pike C1ewtodc VA 22624 Property # 33-A 8M Name Cam E. & S. Russell 2619 WDodsicb Plod CWmtwck, VA 22624 Property # 33-A-87 Name Fairfield el r7 Fain Cf FrE d. (b. ILC 2897 Mnt rte, mg pike SbTha=, VA 22656 Property # 33-12-24 Name Martirsbxg Pike Assoc., IAC 4150 NRtirdmrr3 Pike ClearbrookVA 22624 Property # 33,z�-105B 14 IPF = IRON PIN FOUND IRS = IRON ROD SET SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR CURVE TABLE. PARCEL 109 = 18.9306 AC.f PARCEL 110 = 40.1464 AC.f TOTAL AREA = 59.0770 AC.t (A -WREN I OWNER: ROBIN HULL & KAY MARIE MORRISON 10-1 : WI= #0300002.35 11,A 33 ((A)) PRCLS 109 & 110 IIIi' SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A HILE REPORT. THEREFORE, THIS PLAT MAY NOT INDICATE AAI. ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY. III(- EXISTENCE OF VEGETATED OR TIDAL WETLANDS WAS NOT I) TERMINED DURING THIS SURVEY. 1111=: EXAC: i LOCATION OR EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES W/s'S NOT ESTABLISHED DURING THIS SURVEY. 1� LTH of D v DAVID F, SPRIGGS No, 1853 ..'� svR�°., - AUGUST 14, 2006 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY AND ANY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL FIELD RUN SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THERE ARE NO APPARENT ENCROACHMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN OR NOTED. BOUNDARY SURVEY ON THE PROPERTY OF ROBIN HULL & KAY MARIE MORRISON STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: AUGUST 14, 2006 SCALE: 1 " = 500' O RIAD TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. 200 AVIATION DRIVE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA (54-0) 667-9300 FAX (540) 667-2260 MATCH LINE - SHEET 3 OF 3 r / MANHOLE-` ' o FRAME BARN 2 STORY �� = h BRICK r / HOUSE GRAVELl / I D O 6D0 TM 33 ((A)) ,o a7 / z PRCL 110 °' 40.1464 AC.t �o 100"f CO , WIRE ! 2/ . /FENCE. /,Z7 r r IRS IRS 41: " ' ' S183155W Nsy`. FENCE r 3 h, 142.22 POSWIRE T FENCE REMAINS FENCE N/ Af 48 CHARL/SF W. 8c `FENCE DONgLO L/MS'S 84' �c g �E JOLINE S. ORNDOFF POST S,3g IRS 2� 577/694 ``��3g� S67'35' 13"E - 905.20' TO SET STONE FND SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR CURVE TABLE. 200 O 200 400 SCALE: 1--200' 4$NtiTFi OF DAVID F. SPRIGGS No, 1853 SUItVe AUGUST 14, 2006 BOUNDARY SURVEY ON THE PROPERTY OF ROBIN HULL & KAY MARIE MORRISON STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: AUGUST 14, 2006 SCALE: 1 " = 200' 1®�1rLl� TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. 200 AVIATION DRIVE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA (540) 667-9300 FAX (540) 667-2260 SHEET 2 OF 3 CURVE I DELTA ANGLE I ARC LENGTH I RADIUS I TANGENT I CHORD DIRECTION I CHORD LENGTH C1 07'03'33" 1701.03 15690.00 350.96 S13'38'12"W 700.59 / } IPF N28'12'06"W - 2164..80• C2 02.52'17" 285.15 5690.00 142.60 518.36'07"W 285.12 TO SET STONE FND. ::68-0,47,,, /Qf BOARD N F v, o � s )r� FENCE DONALD S. CLINE ' IRS `yy1RE � �WB 97/507 ' � g 1 11 FENCE �\ 504'4' FENCE IPF "E 3T '`_—REMAINS TM 33 ((A)) 2'62' C/L METAL PRCL 109 WIRE IRS r tiTH OF TOWER 18.9306 AC.f FENCE i 1 ` �� °tee C/L METAL \ 00 °�yl ��'� TOWER / DAVID F. SPRIGGS d' 145/306 p� �o C ~L METALt_-, S VEPC R/W - Hc SUR .°' TOWER ` ,308 47 s.,,E -, ►c>/ \ TM 33 ((A)) _ ` AUGUST 14, 2006 \P RC L 110 \� FENCE BOUNDARY SURVEY ON THE PROPERTY OF 40.1464 AC.t REMAINS \ar ROBIN HULL & APPROX. R/W\ KAY MARIE MORRISON WB 33/254 �` MON. FND STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT _SHED , *� FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA FENCE ' ` WELL N7 97 47' ecu �Q 4l DATE: AUGUST 14, 2006 SCALE: 1 " = 200' REMAINS IRS"-,* 0 MATCH LINE - SHEET 2 OF 3 �� \�IRS• N 'allb CRIAD /Joy% (ij TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. o 200 AVIATION DRIVE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA aoo o zoo n oo eoo o,/ J `-- (540) 667-9300 FAX (540) 667-2260 SCALE: 1 ••-200• SHEET 3 OF 3- 07—n6—nn7g i i • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 - FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation RE: Six Year Road Improvement Program Public Hearing DATE:July 21, 2008 This is a public hearing item to consider the updates of the Interstate, Primary and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. The Transportation Committee will be reviewing this item on July 28, 2008 and forwarding a recommendation. Attached please find the current drafts for your consideration. You will find that there are no significant changes to the Interstate and Primary plans. In the Secondary Road Improvement plan, a number of projects have been added or removed due to completion or in recognition of County priorities. There has been no need to reprioritize the Rural Hard surfacing projects this year due to a lack of funding for new projects. Staff is seeking a recommendation for the Board of Supervisors on these road plans. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2009-2010 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT Frederick County Transportation Committee: Frederick County Planning Commission: Frederick County Board of Supervisors: I-81 Improvements: Provide additional travel lanes on the main line, collector -distributor lanes adjacent to the main line, modifications to existing interchange areas, and develop new interchange areas and bridge crossings of the main line as recommended by the WinFred MPO Long Range Plan. In addition, as the State continues to work toward an ultimate plan for the I-81 widening the County of Frederick continues to support the study of Eastern Route 37 as a potential corridor on new location as an alternative for that effort. Mor( -,over, the County of Frederick supports exploration of the potential for rail transportation as a component of the Interstate 81 Corridor improvements. A) Make Safety and Operational Improvements at Exit 310 (as illustrated on map as priority A) B) Widen I-81 from Fairfax Pike to Route 37 North. This should include the relocation of the 277 Interchange, Exit 307, further south to alleviate existing and future congestion on Fairfax Pike. Frederick County would also request continued VDOT assistance and support in the effort to relocate exit 307. From: Route 277, Exit 307 To: Route 37 North, Exit 310 (as illustrated on map as priority B) C) Widen Remainder of I-81 in Frederick County From: West Virginia line To: Warren County line (as illustrated on map as priority C) D) Spot Improvements on I-81 in Frederick County. Provide spot improvements at various interchanges and rest area ramps to increase capacity and/or enhance safety for the motoring public Winchester ,r A'. - ')0040- - 2009 Interstate Road Improvement Plan Priflrit A m}Yar t at Ba- 3 0 Prinr�ily B Priority C FiS�� ear�r.,�r of esa 2009-2010 PRIMARY ROAD n1FROVFMFNT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Frederick County Transportation Committee: Frederick County Planning Commission: Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 1) Route 37 Bypass A. Route 37 - Phase 1 Initiate final engineerimgand design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the southern segment of the Route 3 7 Eastern Bypass from Interstate 1-81 to Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South). (As illustrated on map as priority IA) B. Note: It is intended that the first phase of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), as identified under item 92, shown below, be programmed for construction following the completion of Phase I of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass. (As illustrated on map as priority IB) C. Route 37 - Phase 2 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the preferred alternative between existing Route 37 around Stonewall Industrial Park and Route 7. (As illustrated on map as priority 1 C) D. Route 37 - Phase 3 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the preferred alternative between Route 7 and Route 522. (As illustrated on map as priority ID) 2) Route 277 (East of Stephens City) From: I-81/Route 277/Route 647 Intersection (East of Stephens City) To: Route 340/Route 522 South Intersection (East of Double Toll Gate) Phase l: From the 1-81/277 Interchange to Route 636 (As indicated under note for priority IB) Phase 2: From Route 636 to Route 340/Route 522 (As indicated on map as priority 2) Improve to a four lane divided roadway with County staff to work with site developers to acquire dedicated right-of-way and achieve grading, drainage, and construction improvements in conjunction with development projects which occur along the corridor until such time that funding is available for construction. Establish a construction schedule for the phased improvement of Fairfax Pike (Route 277). Program funding for the completion of right-of-way acquisition and construction of each phase as described above. 3) Route 11 (North and South of Winchester) A) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System From: Southern limits of the City of Winchester To: 0.4 miles south of intersection of Route 37 South, Exit 310 (As illustrated on map as priority 3A) B) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System From: Northern limits of the City of Winchester To: Intersection of Route 761 (As illustrated on map as priority 3B) C) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System From: Intersection of Route 761 To: West Virginia line (As illustrated on map as priority 3C) 4) Commuter Park and Ride Lots Establish a new park and ride facility along the Berryville Pike (Route 7) corridor. Work with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to determine appropriate locations for park and ride facilities at other strategic locations within the County's Urban Development Area. For Park and Ride locations in Frederick County the primary goal should be that they are situated in such a manner that they reduce traffic in Frederick County in addition to adjacent localities. (As illustrated on map as priority 4) m 322. a Winchester Primarv, Road f. --ement iipro 37 - - Plan Rt37 Bypass Phases 0'A6,,O Priority 1A **%.OPriority 1c R1277 East of SlephensCity Priority 1 B 02%oPriority 2 Stephens City Rill Noilli & Somh Pr io rity 3A T" ��Priority3B Priority 3c Commutes - Park & Ride Lots Pr io rdy 4 2009-2010 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Frederick County Transportation Committee: Frederick County Planning Commission: Frederick County Board of Supervisors: FREDERICK COUNTY MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2009/2010 through 2014/2015 Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to enhance public safety. Improvements required for road width, road alignment, road strength, and road gradient are considered major road improvements projects. 2 WLLI 1 9 1 :.. z >u.. E :n i 4 IU. 9?, i v z til 1 W.. �. tnt�-- tIL - :T I IV j{{ > i U. r a k ! I LUQ 1) 655 Sulphur Springs Route 50 0.30 M.E. 5700 1.1 miles SH $9,278,DD0 2011/12 Road Rt. 656 2) 672 Brucetown Rd Route 11 0.35 M. 3200 0.35 miles ST pending East 3) East Tevis Street 0.2 Miles Route 522 NIA 0.2 miles SH Revenue UNISH Feasibility west of Rt. Sharing Phase 522 Potential 4) 657 Senseny Road Rt. 656 Clarke Co. 6800 2.07 miles SH/RB Revenue UNISH Feasibility Line Sharing Phase 5) Warrior Road Rt. 1012 Rt. 277 NIA OF $200,000 UNISH Feasibility Phase 6) Spine Road Rt. 657 Haggerty N/A 0.7 miles RB $200,000 UN/SH Feasibility Connection Track Phase 7) 1520 Iverlee Way Rt. 50 Rt. 657 �Nl1.06 miles SH Revenue UN/SH Feasibility Sharin Phase 2 FREDERICK COUNTY HARDSURFACE ROA^ L� PROVEME T PROJECTS 2009/2010 through 20/4/2015 Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction ofnon- hardsurfaced secondary roads. Hardsurface improvement projects are prioritized by an objective rating system, which considers average daily traffic volumes; occupied structures; physical road conditions including geometrics, drainage, and accident reports; school bus routing; and the time that project requests have been on the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. t IW L. F `-� H U1 j z < Z 1LU p pF d viLU LU I Z ii Clea c_ a � ; W Q v3E O12 �.. >. 1 Q 0. LLI O Q j a ( to {� Lu p 1 705 Ebenezer Church Road 0.25 miles 2.0 miles 170 2.0 miles GA $288,590 07108 east of Rt. West of Rt. 703 522 0.50 miles 2) 681 Chestnut Grove Road north of Route 608 270 1.62 miles GA $298,044 03109 Rural Rustic Rt. 805 I 3a) 679 Indian Hollow Road 0.3 miles 1.5 miles 140 1.20 mites GA $221,380 03/10 Rural Rustic west Rt. west Rt. 608 608 3b) 679 Indian Hollow Road 1.5 miles 0.50 miles 140 1.30 miles GA $223,479 03/11 Rural Rustic west Rt. east Rt. 600 608 4a) 709 Ridings Mill Road Rt. 735 1.30 miles 160 1.30 miles OP $200,606 03/12 Potential Rural south Rt. Rustic 735 4b) 709 Ridings Mill Road 1.30 miles Rt. 636 160 1.40 miles OP $250,000 UN/SH Potential Rural south Rt. Rustic 735 671 Woodside Road Rt. 11 0.4 East of 50 0.4 miles ST Funding By UN/SH Potential Rural Rt. 11 Others Rustic 5) 676 Warm Springs Road Rt. 677 0.83 miles 225 0.83 miles ST $268,000 UN1SH Potential Rural north I Rustic 6) 671 Woodside Road Rt. 669 M line 247 0.30 miles ST $150,000 UN/SH Potential Rural Rustic FREDERICK COUNIFY UNSCHEDULED HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RATINGS UPDATED June 2007 2009/2010 through 201412015 �- 3 LU a1 � o ,o�a Ito If Wc , ¢�v oa Oo. 1) 644 East Parkins Rt. 50 East Clarke County 260 0.81 SH 76 Mill Road miles 2) 707 Hollow Road WV Line Rt. 610 200 1.6 BC/GA 73 miles 3) 734 North Sleepy 1.27 Mi. S. W. 2.27 Mi. S. W. of 140 1.0 GA 73 _ Creek Road of Rt. 522 Rt. 522 mile 4) 692 Pack Horse 1.2 Mi. N. E. Rt. 671 200 1.4 GA 71 _ Road of Rt. 600 miles 5) 629 Carter Lane Rt. 631 Rt. 625 290 1.8 BC 71 miles 6) 733 Fletcher Road Rt. 50 West Rt. 707 120 1.3 GA 70 miles 7) 638 Clark Road Rt. 625 Rt. 759 70 0.8 BC 69 miles 8) 607 Heishman Rt. 600 End of State 100 0.78 BC 68 Road Maintenance miles 9) 695 Middle Fork 2.3 Mi. N of WV Line 30 0.9 GA 68 Road Rt. 522 miles 10) 677 Old Baltimore Rt. 676 Rt. 672 200 1.2 GA 68 Road miles 11) 634 Cougill Road Rt. 635 Rt. 11 130 0.25 BC 67 miles 12) 612 Fishel Road Rt. 600 Rt. 600 30 1.6 BC 67 miles 13) 629 Laurel Grove Rt. 622 2.5 Mi. W. of 180 2.5 BC 63 Road Rt. 622 miles 14) 636 Canterburg Rt. 640 Rt. 641 130 1.5 OP 63 Road miles 15) 811 Timberlakes Rt, 671 End of State 180 0.25 ST 63 Lane Maintenance miles 16) 661 Wright Road Rt. 669 WV Line 140 1.84 ST 61 miles 17) 636 Huttle Road Rt, 709 Rt. 735 150 1.1 OP 60 miles 18) 730 Babbs Rt. 654 Rt. 677 50 0.9 GA 59 Mountain miles Road 3. d 0 Q LL11j' F- LLI a �i D aW 3 1 LL to 19) 696 South Timber Rt. 522 Rt. 694 130 1.3 GA 56 Ridge Road _ miles 20) 616 McDonald Rt. 608 Mid- 0.44 Mile N. Rt, 85 0.45 BC 41 Road Int. 608 miles 21) 682 Glaize Rt. 608 Rt. 671 200 1-54 GA NA Orchard Rd Miles ;W 2009/2010 through 2014/2015 Incidental construction projects are defined as minor construction projects. Examples involve drainage improvements, site distance improve,, cnts, spot widening, r cplacing overflow pipes with box culverts, and the application of plant mix on existing road surfaces. The Virginia Department of Transportation determines if a proposed project qualifies for Incidental Construction based on the overall scope of the improvement. 6 i O_ ] I w i tom- a i p ❑ vri �O ' CO j C] rn { 3 l LL �- o uu)i 1 W .Q U Ir 1) 664Stephenson 0.06 tulle east of Rt. 11 Drainage Improvement ST $125,000 2007/08 VDOT/Fred Road Co. Cooperative Pro ect 2) 739 Fox Drive From: 400 ft south of Rt. Construct right turn GA Revenue �I 522 lane Sharing To: Rt. 522 3) 815 Blossom Drive From: 250 ft south of Rt. 7 Construct right turn ST Revenue i To: Rt.7 lane Sharing 4) 1400 Apple Ridge Various roads Plant Mix RB $100,000 2007/08 Subdivision 5) 642 Tasker Road From: 0.10 miles west Rt. Install left turn lanes OP $200,000 2008/09 636 To: 0.10 miles east Rt. 636 White Oak Road 6) 642 Tasker Road From: 0.10 miles west Rt. Install left turn lanes OP $200,000 2008/09 719 To: 0.10 miles east Rt. 719 Warrior Road 7) 1364 Opequon Various Roads Plant Mix ST $70,000 2010/11 Estates 8) 991 Regency Various Roads Plant Mix ST $125,000 2010/11 Lakes 9) 823 Jackson Various Roads Plant Mix BC $60,000 2009/10 Woods 10) 692 Pack Horse Rd 2 Miles North of Rt 600 Install Box Culvert to GA $120,000 2009/10 Improve Drainage 11) 1304 Merriman Various Roads Plant Mix SH $80,000 2010/11 Estates & Westside Station 12) 723 Carpers Valley At Clarke County line Rehabilitation of bridge SH Beyond Bridge Road over Opequon 2013 Funding by VDOT 6