HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 11-19-08 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
November 19, 2008
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
TAE
1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting................................................................ (no tab)
2) October 1, 2008 Minutes.................................................................................................. (A)
3) Committee Reports .......................................... .:...................................................... (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC MEETING
5) Rezoning #04-08 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-11 02A
Mr. Ruddy.................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Other
FILE COPY
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at i07 worth Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on October 1, 2008.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon
District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud
District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek
District, Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District, H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett,
Gainesboro District; Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison.
ABSENT: George J. Kriz, Gamesboro District; and Cordell Watt, Back Creek District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation;
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
Ours and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the
October 1, 2008 meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Transportation Committee — 09/29/08 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee discussed four items: 1) the
Stoplight Camera Enforcement Plan will be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation
after much information gathering and discussion over the previous several months; 2) the Route 37 Revenue
Sharing Project for additional lanes and enabling hospital access on the west side of Route 37, between Routes
522 and 50, will be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation. The project will require
several million dollars and will take 4-5 years to obtain necessary funds. 3) the Enhancement Grant Application
for the Pedestrian and Bike Trail on Senseny Road; 4) update on the East Tevis Street alignment currently in the
approval process.
Frederick County Planning CommissionDo
W
V
Page 2342
Minutes of October 1, 2008
-2 -
Route I I North Working Group — 09/26/08 Mtg.
Commissioner Mol'.: reported that the Route 11 North Working Group worked on refining the
land use designations. He said the group will meet again on October 10, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the Planning
Department to continue work on refining land use designations with particular focus on the infrastructure
requirements.
Stephens City Joint Land Use Committee — 09/25/08 Mtg.
Conunissioner Thomas reported the Stephens City Joint Land Use Committee reviewed the
original joint land use annexation plan and discussed the intent of the density in the plan to get clarification for
future development in Stephens City in relation to traffic generation and density of development. He said there
will be additional meetings over the next two to three weeks in order to arrive at a common set of terms for
density and development between Frederick County and the Town of Stephens City.
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee - 09/30/08 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported the DRRS discussed a brand new district for the County, New
Traditional Neighborhood Design. He said the new district is for mixed-use housing with some commercial. He
noted that greater density would be allowed and the DRRS discussed the types and numbers of houses that could
be placed within the new district, which is generally aimed for 20 acres or more. Commissioner linger said the
group discussed parking, a central community center, and a master development plan_
Board of Supervisors' Rural ureas Working Group
Chairman Wilmot reported the working group discussed the kinds of public and private systems
that could be used in the rural areas for sewage disposal. She said land use taxation was also discussed as a tool
to be used in the rural areas.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's agenda
for this evening. No one came forward to spPeA.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2008
Page 2343
-3 -
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #11-08 of Diana and Andrew Hirshfeld for a campground on two parcels
containing 22+ acres, zoned RA (Rural Areas) District, which are located off Route 602 on Paddy's Run.
Road. The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 80-1-9 and 80-1-10 in the Back CreekMagisterial
District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that campgrounds are
permitted in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved conditional use permit. Mr. Cheran said the
proposed campground will be constructed in two phases. He said Phase I will contain the primary recreation and
dining building which will sleep a maximum of 30 people; this phase will also include the septic system, well,
soccer pitch, basketball court, possibly a swimming pool, and a parking area. Phase 2 will include three cabins
with a capacity of 12 people per cabin and a main office; the recreation and dining hall will not be used by
campers for sleeping. Mr. Cheran stated that an engineered site plan for the expansion of the parking area and
access to the site shall be approved by Frederick County and the improvements completed prior to starting this
use. Mr. Cheran read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate.
Mr. Benjamin Butler, attorney, was representing Diana and Andrew Hirshfeld in this conditional
use application for a sports camp for young people. Mr. Butler noted that the Hirshfelds met with the neighbors
in this area before they filed their conditional use permit application; he said as a result of that meeting, the
Hirshfelds downsized to 40 maximum people including campers and staff total_ Mr. Butler said there will be no
tournaments whereby teams from other areas are brought in; this will be strictly for the use of campers. Secondly,
he said the applicants tried to mitigate any perceived impacts by meeting with the neighbors and by utilizing
phasing in the development of the campground. He said the first phase would be limited to 30 people and
through the second phase, it would increase by a maximum of 40 people. Mr. Butler noted that the septic system
will be designed for 40 people only; he pointed out the operation will be self-limiting due to the septic system.
Furthermore, Mr. Butler stated that an engineered site plan is required for improvements to the site. In addition,
Mr. Butler said there will be no games at night and, therefore, there will not be lighted soccer fields or a lighted
swimming pool; he said there will be no after -dark activities.
Mr. Butler read from Section 165-39 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance dealing with
campground requirements. He said the minimum lot size is five acres, which they far exceed; the maximum
allowed density is 10 campsites or cabins per acre and they are asking for a maximum of three cabins, a
recreation/dining hall, and an office. Mr. Butler said this is only two percent of what the applicant could ask for.
He did not think the Hirshfelds proposed operation would have a great impact on the community. He said the
parameter setbacks are 100 feet; although permitted, they will not have a residence; and all the improvements will
need to be in place before operation and this includes a VDOT-approved commercial entrance. He said there will
be 30-32 campers, ages 16 and under, and eight counselors. Regarding noise, Mr. Butler said quiet hours will be
10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
Commissioner Ours inquired if the camp will be affiliated with any organization and Mr. Butler
replied no, it was strictly private. Commissioner Ours asked how the applicant will find prospective campers.
Mr. Butler replied that the applicant will have a site on the internet. Commissioner Thomas asked if campers
would be recruited from other countries through the internet and Mr. Butler replied that was possible.
Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2008
Page 2344
-4 -
Mr_ John Kline, a resident of Star Tannery, said he owned the property that borders to the west of
the proposed campground. Mr. Kline said he was the appointed spokesperson for the Star Tannery community.
He said the neighbors told the Hirshfelds this campground was not desired and would continue to be an issue; he
said they invited the Hirshfelds to live in their community, but did not want a campground. Mr. Kline said no
work was to be started on the property until permits were issued; however, excavation is taking place over the
past several days and no permits are posted. He mentioned the adjoining Hampton Cemetery, which is a historic
cemetery on a 1'4 --acre parcel. Mr_ Kline stated that all the local property owners are hunters and use the land for
hunting; there is also horseback riding and four-wheeliig. He also noted that Route 602 is a dirt road, about 1'/2
cars in width, with farm equipment frequently moving along the road; he said the road does not hold up well under
current traffic conditions. The 160 drop-offs and pick-ups indicated in the application will create increased traffic
on Route 602, impeding the local residents and creating safety issues, as well as dust. In addition, he said there
will be mcreased pressure on the local fire and rescue department, the infrastructure in Star Tannery is not large
enough to support the influx of large numbers of people; the landscape of the neighborhood will be impacted by
the removal of trees in an area the size of a football field for the proposed drainfield; the potential contamination
and depletion of ground :eater supplies was a concern; and the increased water run-off puts neighboring
properties downstream at risk and increases the potential to wash out the road during heavy rainstorms.
Ms. Dottie Kline, a resident of Star Tannery, raised issues regarding campers trespassing on
others' property and children getting into mischief. Ms. Kline questioned the quiet time suggested by the
applicant; she said most of the local residents go to bed at 9:00 p.m. and rise about 5:00 a.m. She said it will be
difficult to get children to quiet down at a specified time. She expressed concern about light pollution from
security lights at night and athletic lights around soccer fields and basketball courts. Other issues raised by Ms.
Kline included concerns that the campground would not fit in with the local environment; the campground will
stress local infrastructure and services; the campground will present an aggravation to the local residents and will
be a constant problem for the County, VDOT, and the Sheriff's department; the potential for contamination or
depletion of well -water supplies; and the potential risk of litigation, if a camper is hurt on neighboring properties.
Mr. Michael Nelson, President of Hampton Cemetery, Inc., said the historic Hampton Cemetery
is located adjacent to the proposed campground. Mr. Nelson said this is a quiet, tranquil area and the history of
Star Tannery is represented in this cemetery. He said the first marked grave is dated 1814; in addition, two
veterans of the Civil War are at rest in the Hampton Cemetery, along with veterans of other conflicts fought for
this country. He said the citizens of Star Tannery will not tolerate desecration whether by noise, vandalism, or
pollution of any kind from intrusion. Mr. Nelson asked the Commission to recommend denial of the conditional
use permit.
Ms. Micki King, a neighborhood resident, said Star Tannery already has a 300 -acre campground,
Camp Paddy Run, located in the community for many years. Ms. King was concerned about the impacts to their
water, the noise, and increased traffic on local roads. She said Paddy Run Road is only wide enough for one
vehicle and there are numerous curves. Ms. King said VDOT's comments indicate will be a measurable impact
on Route 602, Paddy Run Road.
Mr. Richard VanNorton said he spent 25 years looking for a secluded, serene property he could
retire to after the Marine Corps. He said after he retired from the Marine Corps, he worked for the boy scouts and
his first job was as a reservation director for Camp Rock Enon, where he became familiar with campgrounds. Mr.
VanNorton said he has a $10,000 investment in his well; he was concerned how his well would be affected by the
campground. Mr. VanNorton spoke about the fire danger posed by young campers; he was also concerned about
the loss of rural environment and wildlife. Mr. VanNorton said he was opposed to the campground.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2008
Page 2345
-5—
Ms. Pat King, a neighborhood resident, said this is not simply a campground, but a sports
complex with soccer fields, basketball courts, and a swimming pool. Ms. King said she was surprised to hear that
campers would be recruited from the internet and not solely from the Washington, DC -Metropolitan area. She
had concerns about increasing the water runoff, she said the culvert under Paddy Run Road floods during heavy
rains. Ms. King said the applicant's proposed drainfields will be located directly behind the pond which has a
creek below it that flows onto her property and then into Cedar Creek; she was concerned about sediment and
debris flowing into Cedar Creek. Ms. King showed a map with 21 houses that will be impacted by the proposed
campground. She expressed concerns about noise, trespassing, and vandalism. Ms. King said the residents
wanted to keep their nice quiet, rural community.
Mrs. Mary Lee Nelson, a resident on Paddys Run Road, was opposed to the proposed
campground. She said she and her husband built their dream home here and she was concerned how the
campground would impact their biggest investment_ She was concerned about the community's water supply and
pollution. She commented that the Hirshfeld's dream is nothing more than a business for hire and they chose Star
Tannery because they will not have a water bill, a sewer bill, the taxes are lower, and there are much fewer
restrictions than they would have in Reston, Virginia. She said the Hirshfelds will be using and draining every
resource in Star Taimery. She added that the Hirshfelds will continue to reside in Reston, not Star Tannery.
Ms. Joan Johnson, an adjoining property owner, was concerned about the impacts this business
will have on the enviromnent and lifestyles in Star Tannery. Ms. Johnson said her family has invested 18 years of
money, time, and work into their property_ She was concerned how the campground may affect the solitude and
relaxation they enjoy. Ms. Johnson said that Route 600, a designated Virginia Byway, runs in front ofher home.
She was concerned about trespassers and if their horses and animals will entice children onto their property. She
said her backyard is a Certified Wildlife Habitat and her family enjoys seeing wildlife on their property.
Mr. Robin Plow, a member of the Ruritan Club, had concerns about the increased amounts of
trash and litter that will be generated by the proposed use. Mr. Plow also mentioned that Star Tannery Rescue
Squad recently had their boundaries changed; he said the rescue personnel and fire fighters have a larger area to
cover than previously. He said Star Tannery used to run as far north as Duck Run on Route 600, but now it goes
almost to Mt. Falls. Mr_ Plow added that Paddy Run is one of the few remaining streams with native brook trout
and Mt. Falls has the second highest water falls in the State of Virginia.
Ms. Linda Sibert, a retired school teacher and resident along Zep Road, said her property backs
up to Camp Paddy Run. Ms. Sibert was concerned about noise; she said it's one thing to hear noisy children at
7:00 or 8:00 p.m_, but she did not want to listen to noise until 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. She said none of the
neighborhood children would benefit from this camp because they will not be able to afford it. She was also
apprehensive about who would be coming into the camp. Ms. Sibert was opposed to the proposed use and
wanted her neighborhood to remain unchanged.
Mr. Brian Stonesifer said he will look directly down onto the campground from his residence; he
said this is an agricultural area, not a commercial one. He asked the Commission members if they would like this
sports complex in their backyard. He was opposed and asked the Commission to recommend denial.
Mr. Wesley Rudolph said he lived approximately one mile north of the proposed camp and he
asked the Commission to recommend denial of the conditional use permit. Mr. Rudolph agreed with all of the
comments made by the previous speakers_ He said most of the residents have been living in Star Tannery for 15-
20 years; he has lived here for 27 years. Mr. Rudolph asked the Commission to protect the community's way of
life with the wilderness and wildlife, in a quiet and peaceful setting.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2009
Page 2346
sm
Mr. Raymond Siver, Jr., a resident on Jep Road in Star Tannery, said he was not contacted by the
Hirshfelds. He wanted to know which neighbors were contacted by the Hirshfelds.
Mr, Danny Pitcock, a 27 -year resident of Star Tannery, said he raised four children in Star
Tannery. 'Mr. Pitcock said up until recently, Frederick County had forgotten about Star Tannery; he said
telephone calls to "A"inche ter from Star Tannery are long-distance calls. Mr. Pitcock spoke about the amount of
farm equipment that he, the MaeIlwees, the Orndorffs, and other farmers drive along local roads during the
s»mmer months pulling hay bines and hay wagons. He said when two cars pass on Route 600, both tires of both
vehicles are on the shoulders of the road; he said this will be an issue when people from the City come through
who do not know how to pass tractors on the turns. He believed the proposed campground will cause a major
impact.
Mr. Kirk Little said he and his wife live about a half mile from the proposed campground. He
said he first understood the proposal to be simply a campground, but realized it was somethir_g more with the
predominant feature being a soccer field with supporting infrastructure_ Mr. Little said he did some internet
research and this type of venture is a multi-million dollar business marketed on the internet for those seeking
student scholarships or to parents whosse children have professional aspirations. He said his research indicated
that 25 years ago, these were sleepy little camps your child attended to canoe, but now campers come from all
over the world. There is an organization called the Sportscamp Federation with 20,000 sports camps and schools
in the United States. He said Virginia has 78 soccer camps listed; almost all of these are associated with a school
or university and utilize pre-existing infrastructure. He said the few private facilities he found had enormous
acreage. Mr. Little said this proposed camp is a different concept than what is typically out there. He asked why
this particular camp is going into a neighborhood.
Mr. Lee Turner, a property owner along Paddy Run Creek, said he was the president of a 105 -
member hunting club located `/ mile from the proposed soccer camp. Mr. Turner said the noise and
environmental disruption caused by clearing for the campground will change the path of wildlife. Mr. Turner said
he was not anti -youth; be was a volunteer at two 4-H camps every summer_ He was concerned about keeping 40
children on 20 acres; he predicted the children will be all over the place. He said his hunting club sponsors boy
scouts and they have a shooting range to instruct children how to shoot safely with qualified NRA instructors.
Mr. Turner said the soccer camp will be I/4 -mile over the hill behind Mr. Stonesifer's house; he said the children
will be over there when they hear the noise from the shooting range. He said a soccer camp does not belong here
and he asked the Commission to vote no.
Mr. Gilbert Pennwell, a neighborhood resident, said he has dogs that are very territorial and do
not stay on his property. He was concerned that children wondering on someone else's property nught get bitten
by his dogs. Mr. Pennwell asked the Commission to recommend denial of the sports complex.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
meeting. She asked Mr. Butler if he would like to respond to any of the public continents.
Mr. Butler said that the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows campgrounds in the Rural
Areas of Frederick County. Mr. Butler believed this request was reasonable because the Hirshfelds were only
asking for two percent of what they are allowed under the zoning ordinance.
Commission members had questions regarding the amount of traffic that would be generated and
Mr. Butler introduced Mr. David Atwood, traffic engineer with Racey Engineering in Luray, to discuss the traffic
tabulations. Mr. Atwood said the trip generation is based on 40 campers; specifically, 40 coming in and 40 going
out each week on a designated pickup/drop-off day. Mr. Atwood said four lots could be subdivided on this
property by right; he said this would be equivalent to having four, three -to -four-bedroom houses. Regarding the
water usage, he said a three-bedroom house uses 450 gallons per day and a four-bedroom house uses 600 gallons
Fredenck County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2008
Page 2347
per day. Mr. Atwood stated that with four homes, there could be 1800 -to -2400 gallons of water used per day.
Mr. Atwood said the applicant is proposing 2500 gallons per day, which is slightly above four four-bedroom
houses. He said if this acreage was subdivided for permanent residences, there would be more water usage in.. a
year's time than with this facility because the campground is just a summer facility. Mr. Atwood said the same
calculations are used for traffic. He said 160 trips are proposed per week for this campground; the 1TE for an
average household is ten trips per day. Mr. Atwood said that once again, considering trips per year and vehicles
on the road per year, there could be more damage to the roadway with houses than the campground. He said the
septic will be governed by the local Health Department and since itis a mass drain veld, samples will be sent to
Lexington and reviewed by the State Office. Regarding culverts and stormwater, he said the site plan for this site
will also have an E&S Plan, providing protection for the waterway downstream.
Commissioner Thomas asked Mr_ Atwood if there would be any irrigation of soccer fields and
Mr. Atwood said no. Commissioner Thomas also inquired if the calculations of 60 gallons per day ofwater usage
per person includee: toilets, washing, and laundry. Mr. Atwood said 35 residents of the camp at one time would
not have laundry; he said the campers won't be washing their clothes during the week; therefore, the calculations
show five with laundry, the five permanent staff, which totals 75 gallons per day.
Coninussioner Ruckman noted the site plan will be reviewed by VDOT because of the
commercial entrance. He said since VDOT has already commented there will be a measurable impact on Route
602, did the applicant anticipate any off-site improvements that would need to be made. Mr. Atwood said that
would have to be VDOT's determination_
Commission members next discussed with the staff the definitions and differences between the
terms sportsplex, sports camp, camp, and campground.
Supervisor Gary Lofton raised a question for the staff. He said Mr. Butler commented that the
first phase will have enough sleeping facilities for 30 people, but when Phase 2 came in, those sleeping facilities
would go away. Supervisor Lofton asked what assurances the County had that this would occur. Mr. Cheran
replied this will be controlled by the site plan and building permits as the phases are constructed. Mr. Cheran said
a mechanism would need to be in place guaranteeing that after the cabins are built, the 30 sleeping facilities
created in Phase 1 would be eliminated.
Commission members requested that the VDOT representative come forward to answer
questions. Mr. Greg Hoffman with VDOT came forward. Commissioner Unger asked Mr. Hoffman for
comments about putting a commercial entrance on a dirt road, Paddy Run Road. Mr. Hoffman said there are
commercial entrances on secondary roads similar to this one throughout the county. Mr. Hoffman said the owner
will be required to have site distance and a commercial entrance, which includes paving, but no curb and gutter.
Mr. Hoffman noted that proper drainage at the entrance location will also be required.
Some of the Commission members questioned whether the proposed use could be classified as a
campground because it didn't fit with the idea or definition of a traditional campground. Other Commissioners
felt that most youth campgrounds will have a basketball court, a soccer or football field, or swimming for kids to
recreate while they are in a campground. If the children don't have any place to recreate, then the possibility is
greater for them to get into trouble. They believed the 22 acres might be considered small if the applicant was
requesting a couple hundred kids, but this acreage could be adequate for 40 people. Commissioners were
concerned about the intense negative feelings by all of the neighbors; they questioned whether the perception of
the proposed use may have become more intense than what the use would actually become. One of the
Commission members said typically, when the Planning Commission has this many neighbors attend a public
hearing who are in opposition to a proposed use, it is a good indication for the Connnission of what the people
being represented want in their community. Another Commissioner mentioned his concern that this will be an
absentee owner who will not experience any potential impacts to the community and he thought it was asking
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2009
Page 2348
much from the surrounding property owners. Another view was that with a conditional use permit, compatibility
of the use is very much a focal point. The Commissioners talked about placing additional restrictions on the use
to make it more palatable to the community residents.
A motion was made by CoMMaissioner Unger to recommend approval with additional conditions
including restricting the hours of operation to 10:00 p.;- III
gh*ly; no recreational vehicles allowed on the
premises; no operations during hunting season, typically October 1 through January 31; and no lighted athletic
fields. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit # 11-08 of Diana and Andrew Hirshfeld for a campground on two parcels containing 22±
acres, zoned RA (Rural Areas) District, located off Route 602 on Paddy's Run Road, with the following
conditions:
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
An engineered site plan showing all improvements shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick
County prior to operation of this use.
One non -illuminated monument business sign shall be allowed on the property; sign shall be limited to
25 square -feet in area. The sign shall not exceed ten feet in height.
4. All athletic and event facilities are for campers use only.
Campground shall be limited to 40 people at any one time.
6. Any expansion or modification of this use shall require approval of a new conditional use permit.
7. No organized outdoor activities after 10:00 p.m., nightly.
No recreational vehicles allowed on the premises.
No operations during hunting season, typically October 1 through January 31.
10. No lighted athletic fields.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (REC. APPROVAL): Unger, Ambrogi, Manuel, Oates, Wilmot, Ours
NO: Ruckman, Thomas, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn
(Note: Commissioners Watt and Kriz were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2008
Page 2349
Rezoning Application #08-08 of Botanical Square, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 4.15
acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for commercial use.
The properties are located on Route 50 v.'est, at the northwest corner of the Route 50 and Botanical Drive
intersection, approximately'/e mile west of Route 37. The properties are further Mentified with P.1.N.s 53-
A-74, 53-A-75, 53-A-76, and 53-A-77 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this property is within the County's
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and within the area covered by the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Mr.
Ruddy stated this connnercial zoning classification request is considered to be supportive of the land uses
identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan with particular care being taken to sensitively integrate the
development of the site and the corridor appearance along Route 50 and Botanical Drive. Regarding the proffer
statement, Mr. Ruddy explained the applicant has stated they intend to develop the property with up to 36,000
square ect of commercial uses. He said this proffer language should be clarified to verify the maximum floor
area and must eliminate the discussion on additional TIAs (Transportation Impact Analysis) and development. In
addition, the applicant has proffered improvements within the Route 50 and Botanical right-of-ways which may
be necessary to support the proposed development, along with signalization of the site access and Botanical
Drive. Mr. Ruddy pointed out that the dollar value of this improvement for the construction of a signal should be
available for use on other transportation improvements in the general area. He said it may be prudent to establish
a dollar value for this improvement and contribution.
Mr. John Lewis of Painter -Lewis was representing the applicant, Omni Design Build, Inc_, and
the property owners, Nancy Renner Johnson and Carolyn R Turner. Mr_ Lewis believed the applicant had met
the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He said this property is approximately four acres among
about 200 acres recently rezoned to B2 (Business General) Zoning. Mr. Lewis said they are willing to commit to
the 36,000 square -foot cap and are also proposing a 50 -foot landscaped buffer in the front which is consistent
with the other properties developed along the Route 50 corridor_ In addition, Mr. Lewis said the applicant has
committed to constructing the traffic signal at the intersection; however, in the event they do not spend the money
on the signal, they will commit to $150,000 towards Frederick County when the site is developed. Mr_ Lewis said
the applicant can and '"1111 address all of the County Attorney's comments.
Commissioner Ruckman asked if Echo Lane, along the west side of the property, was aright -of -
way or an access easement across the properties. Mr. Lewis replied that Echo Lane, a dirt path, was a private
access easement which runs along the property line serving numerous properties, including the Huffman property.
He said the applicant has made provisions to continue maintaining an access for the Huffmans, not through Echo
Lane, but through a signalized intersection.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak_
Conunissioner Triplett made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the
icant will commit to a $150,000 contribution to Frederick County for other
stipulations that the appl
transportation improvements, should the money not be used for the traffic signal at site access and Botanical
Drive; and with the clarification that the maximum floor area shall be limited to 36,000 square feet. This motion
was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Rezoning Application #08-08 of Botanical Square, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone
4.15 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District for commercial use with revised
proffers including the applicant's commitment to a $150,000 contribution to Frederick County for other
transportation improvements, should the money not be used for the traffic signal at site access and Botanical
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2009
Page 2350
-10 -
Drive; and with the clarification that the maximum floor area shall be limited to 36,000 square feet.
(Note: Commissioners Watt and Kriz were absent from the meeting.)
Rezoning Application ##06-08 of Route 50 Assisted Living Facility, submitted by Bowman Consulting, to
rezone 10.47 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers. The
properties are located at the intersection of Ward Avenue and Route 50 to the east and Round Hill Road
and Route 50 to the west. The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 53-A-81, 53-A-82, 53B-3-24,
and 53B-3-25 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Denial
Commissioner Mohn said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning, due
to a possible conflict of interest.
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported this item was tabled by the Planning
Commission for 45 days at their meeting of August 20, 2008 to allow time for the Commission, the staff, and the
public to review revised proffers. Mr. Ruddy said the most significant change to the application is the inclusion
of Parcel 53B-3-24 owned by United Bank. He said the primary purpose of this addition is to provide for
sufficient area to implement the proposed Ward Avenue access road to the facility as identified on the GDP
(Generalized Development Plan)_ He said the proffers for this rezoning have been crafted to apply to the five-foot
area to be adjusted into the Assisted Living Facility for the United Bank; the balance of this parcel is to be
retained by United Bank and would not be subject to the proffers.
Mr. Ruddy said the next significant modification is the clarification that the land use for this
property shall be only for an assisted living care facility of up to 75,000 square feet. All other B2 uses shall not
be permitted on this site. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has included an exhibit which would guide the
architectural elevations of the buildings construction and, in addition, he has broadened the potential use of the
$25,000 transportation proffer to the general vicinity of the project, rather than directly to a speck
improvement.
Mr_ Ruddy continued, stating that in addition to those concerns previously identified in the staff
report, several concerns remain regarding the trigger points in the proffer statement, including the timing of the
$25,000 transportation contribution, the timing of the site improvements, and the sunset clause for the dedication
of right-of-way to the rear of the property for the Round Hill Road extension. Mr. Ruddy said the importance of
this future road connection, dedication of the necessary right-of-way, and potential construction should continue
to be stressed. He added that the proposed entrance onto Route 50 has been modified, but has not been removed
at this time.
Mr. Thomas (Ty) M. Lawson of Lawson & Silek was representing the applicant. Mr. Lawson
reviewed the revised proffers and answered questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Manuel pointed out the current deed indicates that Darla Poe Funkhouser and
Sharon Poe own one-quarter interest; he said if someone else owns 50 percent, they need to be a part of the
proffer statement. Mr. Lawson said there are two deeds and two daughters; he said Mr. Poe confirmed he gifted
two quarters in December of one year and the other two quarters in the next calendar year. Mr. Lawson said they
have prepared a confirn-ung deed which clarifies for the record that Mr. Poe did, in fact, gift one half in one
calendar year and the other half in the other year, thereby conveying his 100 percent interest.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2008
Page 2351
Conunissioner Unger asked Mr. Lawson to provide further explanation regarding the entrance on
Route 50. Commissioner Unger was opposed to regular vehicular traffic exiting here for safety reasons.
Commissioner Unger asked the applicant if there was some other access point Allegheny Power Company could
use because of their infreauent use. Mr. Lawson said the applicant has agreed to erect signage to the effect that
patrons/visitors are not permitted to exit at this iocation; however, it will allow Allegheny Power Company trucks
to exit here. Mr. Lawson commented that it was not a very attractive right -out for vehicles because there is an
immediate traffic signal; he said the better route of least resistance is to go down Ward Avenue because there is a
traffic signal that will allow vehicles to go west or make a right turn on red.
Commissioner Unger also had questions regarding the sunset clause within the proffer statement
and why the applicant thought it was necessary. Mr. Lawson replied that someone needs to take over the property
after a period of time. Mr. Lawson said they were not committed to the ten-year time frame; the comment they
received was that five years was too short and so they extended it to ten years. Mr_ Lawson said if the
Commission would like to recommend something else, the applicant is amenable to that. He believed everyone
would agree there needed to be some period of time beyond which someone has got to take over the responsibility
for the road.
Conunissioner Oates suggested alternative language for the Sunset clause. He suggested the
applicant ask the County to relinquish their rights to the road, if it ends up in another location; he also suggested
that the applicant let the County decide on the time frame for the sunset. Commissioner Oates did not think the
signs proposed by the applicant would be effective in keeping motorists from exiting on Route 50; he suggested
the applicant install a gate with an Allegheny Power Company lock to restrict access. Mr. Lawson had concerns
about installing a gate because it would restrict an access not currently restricted; he did not believe the court
would allow it. Commissioner Oates disagreed, especially since this was rural property and the owner could at
any time put cattle on the land. Commissioner Oates didn't see how Allegheny Power could prohibit a gate as
long as they have a key to the gate and can access it.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak.
Commissioners asked for the staff's comments regarding the gate and commercial entrance. Mr.
Ruddy believed a whole new commercial entrance was probably more than what was needed here, merely to
accommodate an existing easement and occasional use by Allegheny Power; he thought a gate would be
problematic with a commercial entrance. He said some other mechanism would be more appropriate, such as
curbing and a travel way to ensure that the circulation of the site and facility could occur, while stili maintaining
access for the power company and others who may have a right-of-way through the site and Ward Avenue. Mr.
Ruddy felt the money would be much better spent by putting transportation in place that improves the County's
transportation plan in the area of Ward Avenue and the road to the rear.
Commissioner Thomas stated it wasn't the applicant's idea to install the commercial entrance,
but it was a requirement of VDOT. Commissioner Thomas believed that because of the nature of the proposed
use, it should have two entrances in and out. Mr. Ruddy interjected that any commercial entrance onto Route 50
is problematic; he said there are other ways to accomplish what's needed. He said in the long run, there will
ultimately be multiple access points to this site.
Commissioner Oates said he could not support another entrance onto Route 50 because it would
set a precedent for future additional access points on Route 50. He commented about the successful previous
rezoning for Botanical Square; he said the applicant addressed everything the Commission was looking for, plus
they had proffered $150,000 on their four -acre site. Commissioner Oates said this is an eight -acre site offering
$25,000; he said he didn't see this proposal mitigating the traffic impacts. Commissioner Oates said his biggest
concerns were the applicant's access and traffic.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2008
Page 2352
Commissioner Unger agreed with Commissioner Oates and said he could not support the
application because he was not in favor of vehicles exiting onto Route 50, although he didn't mind the right -in.
He said the applicant may have tO dedicate another right-of-way on the property for Allegheny to exit.
Commissioner Unger made a motion to recommend denial. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates
and passed by a majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Rezoning
Application #06-08 of Route 50 Assisted Living Facility, submitted by Bowman Consulting, to rezone 10.47
acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (REC. DENIAL): Unger, Ambrogi, Manuel, Ruckman, Oates, Wilmot
NO: Thomas, Ours, Triplett, Kerr
ABSTAIN: Molm
(Note: Commissioners Watt and Kriz were absent from the meeting.)
Conditional Use Permit 909-08 for Shenandoah Mobile Company for a commercial telecommunications
facility at 1203 Redbud Road (Route 661). This property is identified with P.I.N. 55 -A -129A in the
Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 30 Days
Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this particular
application, due to a potential conflict of interest.
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that the Planning Commission
previously considered this conditional use permit (CUP) at their August 13, 2008 meeting. He said the
Commission believed the proposed tower location was too close to a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) and
a Designated Virginia Byway and they were in agreement with the recommendations provided by Frederick
County's Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) that the benefits, in terms of additional coverage levels,
did not warrant the cost of the tower's impact on the area's view shed. The Commission also agreed with the
Planning Staff's position that the proposed CUP was not in conformance with Frederick County's 2007
Comprehensive Policy Plan and the impacts could not be mitigated. Mr. Cheran said the Commission informed
the applicants they had not provided convincing evidence that the telecommunications facility was necessary at
this proposed location. He said the Commission tabled the CUP for 45 days in order to provide time for the
applicant to gather further information.
Mr. Lynn Griez, the Acquisition Manager for Shentel, introduced himself and members of the
Shentel team. Mr. Griez provided a presentation on why the applicant believed this site was important for
seamless coverage and service performance for their Sprint Network customers.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2008
Page 2353
-13 -
Chainnan Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons stepped forward to
speak:
Ms. Trudy Dixon, a resident on Redbud Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District, came
forward to speak in opposition to the conditional use permit for the proposed telecommunications facility. She
said there were five properties between her home and the proposed tower site and the tower will impact the view
from her home. She said Shentel's in -vehicle and in -building coverage maps indicate her home has no coverage;
however, she said she cei <ainly does have cell phone coverage, even within her basement. Ms. Dixon said it
appeared the applicant is only providing information as it pertains to the coverage of their own arrays and not
other service providers; she said while they are well within their rights to capture as much of the market as they
can, they are providing incomplete information. Ms. Dixon did not believe Shentel had exhausted all possibilities
for alternative sites; she said Shentel representatives did not state which sites they had investigated and why they
were not acceptable. She mentioned several sites along major transportation routes she thought would be more
appropriate than a new structure on a scenic byway. Ms. Dixon said she was disheartened that those responsible
for making planning decisions within the County are willing to disregard rural and scenic areas in favor of
providing infrastructure for development at the expense of the people who enjoy living in and driving through
these open spaces. Ms. Dixon asked the Commission to preserve one of the few remaining scenic areas in this
part of Frederick County and to support the HRAB's recommendation for denial.
Mr. Bill Myer said he is currently building a home in Woodsmill. He said the deck on his new
home will be 200 feet away from the proposed tower. Mr. Myer said he thought this additional meeting was to be
about how the proposed tower was going to provide better service; however, he just heard a 45 -minute sales pitch.
Mr. Myer did not believe a tower site was appropriate within an Agricultural and Forestal District and he
questioned whether the Code of Virgi„ia was being violated by placing the tower within an agricultural district.
Mr. Bernie Schwartzman, a resident of Redbud Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District, spoke
in support of this CUP for a proposed telecommunications facility_ Mr. Schwartzman said that on Redbud Road
where he lives, there is no access to DSL, there is no FIRS, or cable because he is within the agricultural district.
He said the owners of the property, who could not attend this meeting, had satellite internet coverage and found it
very expensive and not very reliable in inclement weather. Mr_ Schwartzman said he sometimes has coverage at
one end of his house, but not at another area. He said he agreed with all of the issues raised by the Shentel
representative and he believed it was important for all the citizens in this area of Frederick County to have
adequate internet coverage and 911 service.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
hearing.
Chairman Wilmot announced that the Commission was rapidly approaching the 11:00 p.m.
adjournment time stipulated in the Planning Commission's Bylaws.
Commissioner Ruckman expressed the following concerns: the proposed location of the
telecommunications tower was within an Agricultural and Forestal District, the proposed location was not in
conformance with the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan, the impacts of the tower cannot be mitigated, and the
County has higher expectations for land uses within the rural areas along Scenic Byways and within
Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSAs).
Due to the 11:00 p.m. adjournment time stipulated in the Planning Commission's Bylaws,
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to table CUP #09-08 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for 30 days. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours and was passed by a unanimous vote.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2008
Page 2354
-14 -
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table Conditional
Use Pen -nit 909-08 for Shenandoah Mobile Company for a commercial telecommunications facility at 1203
Redbud Road (Route 66 1) for 30 days.
(Commissioner Oates abstained from voting; Conunissioners Watt and Kriz were absent from the meeting.)
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting
adjourned at 11:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote_
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
�j%
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 2008
Page 2355
•
•
J
REZONING APPLICATION #04-08
RED HAWK ESTATES
Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors
Prepared: November 3, 2008
Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE FOR THE 11/19/08 MEETING:
On November 3, 2008 a letter dated October 30, 2008 was received from the Applicant which
requested that the rezoning application be scheduled for an indefinite period.
As the Commission is aware, this Application was tabled for 45 days by the Planning Commission at
your August 6, 2008 meeting following a failed motion to deny this rezoning request. Subsequently, the
Applicant, in a letter dated August 29, 2008 requested that this application be tabled until the Planning
Commission meeting scheduled for November 19, 2008. The Planning Commission, at your September
17, 2008 meeting endorsed the Applicant's request which brings us to the November 19, 2008 meeting.
Pursuant to the Commission's Bylaws, it is Staffs and the County Attorney's opinion that it is
necessary for the Commission to take action upon this rezoning request at this time. The
Commission first tabled the request pursuant to Article 8-3-9-1 of the Commission's bylaws, and then
pursuant to Article 8-3-9-2 of your Bylaws the Commission acted upon the Applicant's request to table
their application.
This latest request for an indefinite tabling of the Application is unfortunate. It would appear as though
there has been ample opportunity for the Applicant to present the Planning Commission with a thorough
and complete application. This application was first presented to the County for review in early 2005.
The Application was submitted to the County on October 10, 2006. Since that time the Applicant bad
been working to provide the Commission with as complete of an application as possible. The result of
this effort was presented at your August 6, 2008 meeting. Staff has not been provided any further
changes to this Application since your August 6, 2008 meeting.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/19/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
It is necessary for the Commission to take action upon this rezoning request at this time.
While the property is located in the UDA, 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 are not fully
addressed, and the proffered transportation improvements aimed at mitigating the impacts are not
sufficient to mitigate the anticipated impacts. Transportation improvements have not been provided in
the same scale as the proposed development. Transportation issues remain a primary concern for the
Commission. Of particular concern is the lack of agreement with the adjoining property owners to
provide for a Channing Drive Connection and access to Route 50.
HARRISON & OHNSTON, PLC
21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601
P.O_ Box 809 Winchester, Virginia 22604
Telephone 540.667.1266
October 30, 2008
VIA ENIAIL
Mr. Michael T. Ruddy
Deputy Director
The Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street, 2nd Floor
Winchester, VA 22601
In Re: Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application 904-08
Dear Mike:
Stephen L. Pettier, Jr.
Facsimile 540.667.1312
pettier@hanison johnston.com
Mobile 540.664.5134
As you know, the Planning Commission, on its own motion, tabled consideration of the above
referenced application at its August 6, 2008 meeting. By letter dated August 28, 2008, I, on behalf
of my client, Turner Enterprises, LLC requested that the period during which the Planning
Commission tabled the application be extended to November 19, 2008 to allow time for Turner
Enterprises, LLC and Arcadia Development Company to elaborate on a number of items relating to
the agreement between them for the construction ofproposed Channing Drive by Turner Enterprises,
LLC on the Arcadia property. The Planning Commission graciously extended the tabling until
November 19, 2008, and my client appreciates this.
The discussions between Turner Enterprises, LLC and Arcadia have evolved considerably, however,
they are not yet finalized. Accordingly, please consider this letter to be the request of Turner
Enterprises, LLC to table the above referenced rezoning application currently scheduled for
November 19, 2008 for an indefinite period. Turner Enterprises, LLC hereby waives the requirement
that the Planning Commission review its application within ninety (90) days as required by the
Frederick County zoning ordinance, § 165-10 of the Frederick County Code.
Thank you for your courtesy and attention to my client's request. With kind regards, I am
Vere truly
L. Pettler„ lTr.
SM'/1'nag
Enclosures
cc: Turner Enterprises, LLC
John Lewis, Painter -Lewis
Barry Carpenter, Sympoetica, LLC
Mike Ruddy
From: Grillo, Maureen [maureen(§harrison johnston.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:55 PM
To: Mike Ruddy
Cc: J. Barry Carpenter; John Lewis; Pettier, Steve
Subject: Red Hawk Estate
Attachments: Letter to Mike Ruddy Re Red Hawk 081030.i)df
Attached is a letter from Mr. Pettler in the above -referenced matter.
Regards,
Maureen A. Grillo
Executive Assistant to
Stephen L. Pettler, Jr.
Harrison & Johnston, PLC
Telephone: 540.667.1266
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message from the law office of Harrison & Johnston, PLC is for the sole use of the intended recipient or
recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or other dissemination of
ibis e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Rezoning 404-08 — Red Hawk Estates
November 3, 2008
Page 2
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 Recommended 45 day tabling (PC)
Planning Commission: 09/17/08 Recommended tabling to 11/19/08
(Applicant's Request)
11/19/08 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 12/10/08 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 404-08 — Red Hawk Estates
November 3, 2008
Page 3
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.
Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates
November 3, 2008
Page 4
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
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.
Furthermore, 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 fixture 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
Rezoning 904-08 — Red Hawk Estates
November 3, 2008
Page 5
units that this development will contain will house 28 high school students, 25 middle school students
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 Ridge 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
November 3, 2008
Page 6
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. I-]]
Land Use
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 properly 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 desi n.
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
November 3, 2008
Page 7
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 Suitability/Environment
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) PotentialIm.nacts
A. Transportation
Traffic Im act Anal sis.
The TlA 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.
Trans ortation Pro am.
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
November 3, 2008
Page 8
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
Staffs 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.
1. 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 Sherrill 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 404-08 — Red Hawk Estates
November 3, 2008
Page 9
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 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.
Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates
November 3, 2008
Page 10
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 9810-6108 MEETING:
One citizen spoke during the public comment portion of the hearing. This citizen, a resident along
Greenwood Road, was concerned about roads and safety; he believed the priority should be focused on
improving roads and constructing crossover roads between Route 7 and Route 50.
Transportation issues were a primary concern for the Con-u-nission. Commissioners stressed the
importance of completing road infrastructure improvements before the construction of housing,
especially the Channing Drive connection through the applicant's property and the adjoining Arcadia
property, in order to get the traffic out to Route 50. Without a written agreement between the owners of
Red Hawk Estates and the Arcadia property regarding which party was responsible for their particular
transportation component, members of the Commission believed there were no guarantees the road
would be completed satisfactorily. In addition, they were not comfortable with tying the completion of
the road to building permits and suggested the applicant use a date for completion or coincide it with the
Sulphur Springs Road improvements. Commissioners said a number of presumptions were taking place
by this applicant with regard to Arcadia, particularly, when Arcadia would develop and what type of
development would take place. Commissioners also commented they had trouble visualizing this
project as anything other than a typical residential subdivision because it seemed to be relying on the
Arcadia project for the commercial/business component of a new urbanism development. Furthermore,
no improvements along Sulphur Springs Road or the intersection of Route 50 were planned by the
applicant. Another issue of concern for the Commission involved the appropriateness of a residential
development next to an outdoor shooting range and the need for a disclosure to future home buyers.
The monetary contribution by the applicant towards a new indoor facility appeared to be wholly
inadequate. Commission members believed it was premature to send this application to the Board of
Supervisors because so many of the underlying critical components of this project were not yet solidly
in place.
Members of the applicant's design and engineering team provided comments. A representative from
VDOT, the Deputy Director -Transportation, and the Planning Staff were available to answer questions
and to provide analysis.
A motion was made and seconded to recommend denial of the rezoning; however, the motion was
defeated by a majority vote. A new motion was made and seconded to table the rezoning for 45 days to
allow the applicant additional time to coordinate with representatives of the Arcadia project and to work
on the issues raised. This motion was passed by the following majority vote:
YES (TO TABLE): Unger, Watt, Ambrogi, Wilmot, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Mohn
NO: Manuel, Oates
(Note: Commissioners Ruckman, Triplett, and Kerr were absent from the meeting.)
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE FOR THE 11/19/08 MEETING:
On November 3, 2008 a letter dated October 30, 2008 was received from the Applicant which
requested that the rezoning application be scheduled for an indefinite period.
Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates
November 3, 2008
Page 11
As the Commission is aware, this Application was tabled for 45 days by the Planning Commission at
your August 6, 2008 meeting following a failed motion to deny this rezoning request. Subsequently, the
Applicant, in a letter dated August 29, 2008 requested that this application be tabled until the Planning
Commission meeting scheduled for November 19, 2008. The Planning Commission, at your September
17, 2008 meeting endorsed the Applicant's request which brings us to the November 19, 2008 meeting.
Pursuant to the Commission's Bylaws, it is Staff's and the County Attorney's opinion that it is
necessary for the Commission to take action upon this rezoning request at this time. The
Commission first tabled the request pursuant to Article 8-3-9-1 of the Commission's bylaws, and then
pursuant to Article 8-3-9-2 of your Bylaws the Commission acted upon the Applicant's request to table
their application.
This latest request for an indefinite tabling of the Application is unfortunate. It would appear as though
there has been ample opportunity for the Applicant to present the Planning Commission with a thorough
and complete application. This application was first presented to the County for review in early 2005.
The Application was submitted to the County on October 10, 2006. Since that time the Applicant had
been working to provide the Commission with as complete of an application as possible. The result of
this effort was presented at your August 6, 2008 meeting. Staff has not been provided any further
changes to this Application since your August 6, 2008 meeting.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/19/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
It is necessary for the Commission to take action upon this rezoning request at this time.
While the property is located in the UDA, 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 are not fully
addressed, and the proffered transportation improvements aimed at mitigating the impacts are not
sufficient to mitigate the anticipated impacts. Transportation improvements have not been provided in
the same scale as the proposed development. Transportation issues remain a primary concern for the
Commission. Of particular concern is the lack of agreement with the adjoining property owners to
provide for a Channing Drive Connection and access to Route 50.
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.
MEMORANDUM
UM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
RE: Rezoning Application RZ#04-08, Red Hawk Estates
DATE: September 2, 2008
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
The Applicant for this rezoning application has requested that the application remain tabled until the
Planning Commission meeting scheduled for November 19, 2008, or until the next scheduled
Planning Commission meeting which may occur after that date. Please see the attached letter.
As you will recall, the Planning Commission at your August 6, 2008 meeting and following the
Public Hearing, tabled the rezoning request for 45 days to allow the applicant additional time to
coordinate with representatives of the Arcadia project and to work on the issues raised during the
Planning Commission meeting. This Rezoning Application was scheduled to return to the
Commission at this meeting, September 17, 2008.
This request from the Applicant would satisfy the Planning Commission Bylaw which states that the
applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from a scheduled Planning
Commission one time. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine if it is appropriate to satisfy
the request of the Applicant.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
MTR/bad
Attachments
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
HARRISON &JOHNSTON) PLC
21 ,,,ouin I.nudmw Suet 1% wchcslrr, virg-ima 22601
p.0, Box 809 Winchester, Virginia 22604
T.lephone 540.66T 1266
August 29, 2008
VIA E11IML
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director
Frederick County Department of Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
mruddy(ii�co_firederick.va.us
In Re: Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application 404-08
Dear Mike:
Stephen L. Pettler, Jr_
Facsimile 540.667.1312
petfler'.c?_harrison johnston.eom
Mobile 5.40.664.5134
On behalf of my client, Turner Enterprises, LLC, I request that the above referenced rezoning
application remain tabled until the rianni ng Commission meeting scheduled for November 19, 2008,
or until the next scheduled Planning Commission which may occur after that date.
The applicant has made a number of revisions to the proposed proffer statement and is in the process
of discussions with Arcadia Development Company to finalize the agreement to permit Turner
Enterprises to construct proposed Channing Drive across the Arcadia Development Company parcel
to connect Red Hawk Estates to Route 50. Turner Enterprises and Arcadia Development Company
met yesterday, August 28, 2008, and due to a numiber of site planning and engineering issues which
must be addressed by each parties' respective engineers, they have determined they can come to a
final agreement to be submitted to the Planning Commission ifthe application is continued until late
November. Accordingly, this letter serves as that request.
If I can provide any f irthcr information or assistance vvith regard to this application and the
continuance of its being tabled; please do not hesitate to contact me. With best regards, I am
F
;r
Veriviruly yours—
J
Stet L. Pettkf , Jr.
S �.P Jsp
cc: i 1:x-1 e E-me-pnsit,s,1,1 r,
Mik- Ruddy
From:
Sheriff Robert Williamson [rwilliam@co.frederick.va.us]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:38 PM
To:
mruddy@co.frederick.va.us
Cc:
pettier@harrison johnston.com
Subject:
Proffer statement for Red Hawk Subdivision
Dear Mr. Ruddy,
I have reviewed the proffer statement for Red Hawk Subdivision as it pertains to the relocation of the existing Frederick
County Sheriffs Office Range and Impound Lot.
The proffer for the range of $650,000.00 is by no means sufficient to construct an indoor shooting range. However, it
should be noted that the County's investment, in the current, range is significantly less than the proffer offer. It is noted in
the proffer statement that this is one of the last outdoor ranges in Virginia. I'm not certain that this is accurate but the
current trend is to build indoor ranges. With the growth that Frederick County has experienced, my staff has been for
sometime discussing the need to look into the feasibility of replacing the current range with an indoor facility. This would
provide some protection from civil liability as well as enhance training opportunities for our staff.
There is currently no provision, in the proffer statement, for relocating the impound lot. I'm not certain that there is a need
associated with this request to relocate the impound lot. Certainly the liability issues associated with the range are not
present with the Impound lot.
in summary, I am not opposed to the proffer of $650,000.00 for relocation of the range provided the County is able to
provide acreage for such relocation. —
Sincerely,
Sheriff Robert T. Williamson
Frederick County Sheriffs Office
1080 Coverstone Dr.
Winchester, Virginia 22602
540-662-6168
rwilliam .co.frederick.va.us
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 — PrelimiaM Rezoning 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 fixture
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 analvsi_s 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.
I
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: 540/678-0682
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 Pcrny parcel ofa 7ld
(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 dent 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.
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- Rr er to C. Sewage Conveyance and D. Water Supply, Page 9 of 12: Defer to comment
number one to clarify the easement issue through the Perry property.
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.
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 beer. 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,
tHarvetytrawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director of Public Works
HES/rls
cc: Planning and Development
file
CAProgram FilesMordPerfect Office X3\Rhonda\TEMPCOMMENTS\REDHAWKREZCOM.wpd
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
June 12, 2006
Turner Enterprises, LLC
297.1 Valley Avenue
Winchester, Virginia 22601
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 Report, 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,
Candice E. Perkins
Planner II
CEP/bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972)
7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET
9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET
THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999)
SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050
TELEPHONE 540-662-3200
ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR.
FAX 540-652-4304
JAMES A. KLENKAR
E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com PLEASE REPLY TO:
STEVEN F. JACKSON July 18, 2008
HAND-D7EL117ERED
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director
Frederick County Department of Planning &
Development
107 North Dent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Re: Red Hawk Estates (Turner Enterprises, L.L.C.)
Proposed Proffer Statement
Dear Mike:
P. O. Box 848
WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22604-0848
I have reviewed the above referenced Proposed Proffer Statement dated May 1,
2008. It is my opinion that the 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. Proffer 1.1 does not seem to me to be a proffer. The Property is
sought to be rezoned to the RP zoning district, and the proffer essentially says that the
development shall be in conformity with the regulations of the RP zoning district.
That is required in any event, and the clause at the end of the proffer, "or as may be
approved by Frederick County", seems to suggest that Frederick County may approve
developments that do not comply with the RP zoning district regulations.
2. In Proffer 1.2, it should be noted that the conformity with the GDP is
limited to "locations for residential dwelling units, open spaces, improvements and
roadways". Therefore, any other elements of the GDP, if any, would not be subject
to this proffer.
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
July 18, 2008
Page 2
3. In Proffer 1.6, staff should note that the preservation of steep slopes
is limited to slopes in excess of 50%, and that the Applicant reserves the right to
install "recreational facilities" in the floodplain and steep slopes areas.
4. In Proffer 3. 1, it is not clear to whom the 20 -foot wide easement for
the bicycle and pedestrian trails shall be dedicated. The use of the term "dedicate"
would indicate that the easement will be conveyed to the County. With that
assumption, looking at the first and last sentences of this proffer, it appears that the
easement would be dedicated to the County, but with the obligation of the property
owners' association to maintain the easement. If that is what is being proposed, the
first sentence of proffer 3.1 should indicate that the Applicant shall dedicate "to the
County" the subject easement. If the foregoing is the proposal, then changes need to
be made to proffers 12.1 and 12.2, which limit the property owners' association
obligation for maintenance and repair to those areas "not dedicated to the County" or
"not otherwise dedicated to public use".
5. In Proffer 8.3, I would recommend changing the word "in" in the fifth
line to "by"
6. The County should note the time limit of ten years in Proffer 10.3 with
regard to the proffer of $650,000.00 toward the construction of an indoor shooting
range.
7. Changes may be called for in Proffers 12.1 and 12.2, as noted in
paragraph 4 above.
8. I would recommend the Applicant adding a proffer as 12.4, which
provides as follows:
"The organizational documents of the POA and all deeds of
dedication or declarations recorded for the development shall
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN cox MITCHELL
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
July 18, 2008
age i
expressly provide that, and will be in a form so that, the POA is
subject to the Property Owner's Association Act (Virginia Code
§55-508, et seq.)"
9. Proffer 14.1 should include a timing factor as to when the right-of-
way would be dedicated for Greenwood Road and Channing Drive. I would suggest
that the dedication would occur within a specific period of time from notice by the
County, perhaps 60 days.
10. I would recommend the Applicant reword the beginning of Proffer
14.3 to read as follows:
"The Applicant shall contribute an amount up to $180,000.00 to
the County for the cost of construction ..."
11. There should be a timing provision in § 14.4 as to the construction
of Channing Drive. It is presumed that this proffer is addressed to the portion of
Channing Drive located on the Applicant's Property, although that is not specifically
stated in the proffer.
12. There is a significant legal question as to the enforceability of Proffer
14.5. The Applicant's proffer to construct the proposed Channing Drive on the
property owned by Arcadia Development Co. is dependent upon a construction
easement being granted from Arcadia Development Co. to the Applicant to go onto
the property to construct the road, and further, is dependent upon Arcadia
Development Co. agreeing to dedicate the road right-of-way to the County or VDOT.
Arcadia Development Co. is not a signatory to this proffer statement, and even if it did
join in this proffer statement for this purpose, it may not constitute legal notice to a
subsequent purchaser of the Arcadia Development Co. property. It is further noted
that the Applicant only represents that it has a "memorandum of understanding" with
Arcadia to "agree to enter a definitive agreement". In order to make this proffer
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
July 18, 2008
Page 4
enforceable, the Applicant would need to have an executed declaration of restrictive
covenant on the Arcadia property under which the temporary easement would be
granted and the dedication agreed to be made, or, in the alternative, there would need
to be a proffer to that effect on the Arcadia property. I assume that there is not a
rezoning application pending for the Arcadia property, so the proffer option may not
be feasible. Also, the dedication of the road right-of-way should occur before the
construction of the road, not after.
13. The staff should note that while the GDP shows Sulphur Springs
Road running across the Applicant's property, there are no proffers related to any
improvements to or associated with Sulphur Springs Road.
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 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.
ery -uly yours,
Robert T. Mitchell, Jr.
RTM/glh
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 (1892-1972)
THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999)
7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET
SAMUEL D. ENGLE
LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA
O, LELAND MAHAN
TELEPHONE 703-777•1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200
ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR.
FAX 540-662-4304
JAMES A. KLENKAR
lawyers@hallmonahan.com
STEVEN JACKSON
F
(E-MAIL
January 29, 2007
J
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 2 .....
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 subj ect 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, ENG F, 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.
RTM/ks
BA
truly yours,
Robert T. Mi
Red Hawk Estates
ReZoning
RE<Z 04 - 08
PIN: 65-A- 86, 65 a A - 8613, 65-A- 98,
QAPPBoat)on
- - Future Rt37 Bypass
\ � e Urban Dc,clopinent Arca
S WSA
0 250 500 1,000 Feet
w t f , f
Zoning
M2 (Industrial, Qcncral District)
`i BI (Business, Ncighborhoed District)
4� MH I (Mobiic Honre Coma -M) District)
B3 (Bu lim, Gomral DistrisU
+ MS (Medical Support District)
• B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
R4 (Rcsidcntial Planned Communily District)
4W EM (Esuactirc Mmmfacmnng Dismci)
'; RS tResidoutlal Recreational Community Dislric[)
4W HF (Higher Education Dislnct)
`�') RA (Rural Arca District)
410 MI (Industrial. Light Distria)
RP(Rcsidential Peribnnancc District)
REZONING:
PROPERTY:
RECORD OWNER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
PROFFER DATE:
PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT
RZ# d 14 ` 09 RA to RP
85.3 Acres
Tax Map Parcels 65-A-86, 65 -A -86B,
65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65 -A -102A
Turner Enterprises, L.L.C.
R.J. Turner, Manager
Turner Enterprises, L.L.C.
Red Hawk Estates
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 ("ISP") 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 (100`h) 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.
-4-
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 1240 = $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.
11
12.
PUBLIC SAFETY
10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $875 per single family
detached residential unit for the Sheriffs Office upon issuance of a unit's building
;+
perm.L.
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.
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.
CREATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
12.1 The residential development shall be
Association (hereinafter "POA") that
M
made subject to a Property Owners'
shall be responsible for the ownership,
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 traf c sig al and;lor 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
-8-
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 ENTE&PRISES, LLC
Manager /
STATE OF)MRGINIA, AT LARGE
FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this U day of 2008, by R.J.
Turner, as Manager for and a Member of Turner Enterprises, LLC.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires: /ad/ 1
Jr L MAUREEN A. GRILLO
NOTARY ID # 7123235
NOTARY PUBLIC
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 2011
Q
<
Key:
fTo
Senseny
Road
stin
'"Old Greenwood
Single -Family
1, 1 1", Single Family
\Remi
n as Local Residential i
Detached Homes Detached
Ir! *, \�, arolmo . J}Street
Cluster Homes
Extended & Improved
-x-ii 0
Channing Drive
X"
A -I., JP.r Eastern Road Plan
Th NO- -Z
rgencyAc
& Interim Access to,_ Z
.......
It Shooting Range 1
Iti Isting outparcels�
-Via Brimstone Townhomes
r Land"
\x Improved
AV
i
ulphur Springs Road
(80' R.O.W. With
Community tcomrn
unIty ti PUffqp & $e
Open Space OpenSoacq
(Typilical)x Z Community
§
Open Space
A
M"i"
A. ]r nate Umlts of
4
rum;
A
Beecher Pottery Shop
twel-prou
_)kA in
1, , + "." �.� I % , Futuro =M-purpm
t-11 to be conmotoo
P,
X%\\ Powntial Future
lrtir-parcel*�
0c.recticrt tModem
40C
r/i
Vehicular
'Ygg
"-undabout
o
i ist
`Pow U-
7 j I Red Hawk
A, tw j". if ljtq� I
on I
Estates
M.
Q
lt�, Generalized
WeirV,
Single I 11y,,
,`Detach cities
Futum, 7
Development
(TYP
Z:
0
T
N. Plan
ire
AV
. f Frederick Count,
% yVirginia
j". if
X
Turner Enterprises, LLC
Extended& Improved PIV..d by:
Cha iDrive
N
0 0
a Road P Synpoetica
I f Per Daae: Aprfl 17,2008 Coemon
Note: See Illustrative CrOsS-Sectlon 'Y=
for Road Efficiency Buffer Treatment
i'W"
Futurie
At -G Mic a
n Mo
Independence
Drive
A
HARRISON & JOHNSTON, PLC
21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Stephen L. Pettler, Jr.
P.O. Box 809 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Facsimile 540.667.13 12
Telephone 540.667.1266 pettler@harrison-johnston.com
Mobile 540.6645134
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 signalization at the Route
50 / Sulphur Springs interchange. It was discussed that signalization 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 of the 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 90' right 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,.ATEMENT
RED HAWK ESTATES
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
section
n7lYC
i. r
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,_ ATEMENT
RED HAWK ESTATES
L INTRODUCTION
Turner Enterprises (the Applicant) proposes to rezone adjoining parcels of land along
Sulphur Spring Road, VA Route 655, in Frederick Countv. 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
rea:
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 �_ . ATEMENT
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 PLAW
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 (USACE) 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 �,- , ATEMENT
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: 1B (2-7%) and 1C (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-1 3B, 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 -1 00A, 65-A-101, 65-A-1 03A, 65-A-1 03B, 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 ` . ATEMENT
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 ,-, ATEMENT
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. While public 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- ilde strew I valley, promo-ing environmental SuSLainCIUMLY.
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.
Syrnpoetica 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 . ATEMENT
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/Su! hur Spring Road
B, C
2
3
Sul hur Spring Road/Greenwood Road
Greenwood Road/Senseny Road
A, C
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 RoadB,
C
2
-Sulphur Spring Road/Greenwood Road
B. B
3
Greenwood Road/SensenyRoad
C, D, E, F
4
Sulphur 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,— ATEMENT
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 b. ATEMENT
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, weii, 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 � , ATE MENT
RED HAWK ESTATES
1. OOMMUNITY FACILITIES
EMERC=FAJCY 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 Hawk Estates
Community Facilities Fiscal Impact Proffers
69 Single Family Units at $23,290/unit and 170 Townhouse Units at $17,732/unit
Capital Facili
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
$2.77,780
$425,164
page 11
IMPACT ANALYSIS , ATEMENT
RED HAWK ESTATES
School Construction $1,324,041
$3,809,101
Total $1,607,010
$4,621,450
$2,485,060
$3,014,440
page 12
IMPACT ANALYSIS , ATEMENT
RED HAWK ESTATES
IMPACT 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
M
IMPACT ANALYSIS ,ATEMENT
RED HAWK ESTATES
EXHIBIT 1 - PROPERTY MAP
page 14
tNNO-Mma-mim
REZONING LOT'S
RA RESIDENTIAL &AGRICULTURAL)
M2 4SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
MI (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL)
B2 (COMMERCLiL/INDUSTRIAL)
a
-- 65 -A-_72
65-A-138 4 _
l
6A -A-129 65 -A -86A
as '�� 64-A-158
' f s
65 -A -103A /I
J
<a
c�
-- _-- W a z0
-�--fro
(�{{,S= Y
jr
0
I ' W
*f7 _!
t CL _ E
V�
c-4 VI�In ir
STONE WALL I
1l DIST. i i
1. L
SHAWNEE DIST.__w o �— "1 cclL
> a�
SULPHUR�.._.._II o C 0
0
ow, 0'- o
SPRING RUN UI m t E
l'
• /t
55 A 13A
65-A-104
S
fi�tl�
i
lir
dI
U
6S AkbB ,i
f
65-A-80\ i
FsYe4s L�^}'r'3;
� 681A t
.S k•3 }� t 0 t
>�i �I4 ..
, �
2GAf3Qs1}xq .;.thrix z #r' '1_ • 65-A-80 1
65 -A -103A /I
J
<a
c�
-- _-- W a z0
-�--fro
(�{{,S= Y
jr
0
I ' W
*f7 _!
t CL _ E
V�
c-4 VI�In ir
STONE WALL I
1l DIST. i i
1. L
SHAWNEE DIST.__w o �— "1 cclL
> a�
SULPHUR�.._.._II o C 0
0
ow, 0'- o
SPRING RUN UI m t E
d 0_N—
fD t U
w
65-A-104
fi�tl�
lir
dI
U
Z
!
-w
❑ Z
SURVEY:
KA
C.I.:
NONE
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO.:
//
RD
0403007
SCALE:
DATE:
/0 500// 1000
1-=500'
08/23/05
SHEET:
Ex. 1
,6v_I
w
scute= 500 f
IMPACT ANALYSIS S iATEMENT
RED HAWK ESTATES
EXHIBIT 2 - HISTORIC STRUCTURES MAP
page 15
Q_
PROPERTY KEY
Ld
HOUSE
Z
HOUSE
�D
I"
in O
DAWSON HOUSE
W
R–WYNN HOUSE**
X O
=R – CUNNINGHAM HOUSE
Y 12
DUNN–ARNOLD HOUSE **
E,
Y_
ROUTE 655
= U
R–CHAPMAN HOUSE**
V
DONED BARN – ROUTE 655
7v x
=R–EDMONSON HOUSE**
00 W
–BRAITHWAITE
W E_ 0
E ROUTE 50/17
x V) W
iAM HOUSE
w = LL.
E LOY HOUSE
o
a'
n
.S A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
> BY THE RURAL LANDMARKS
V
RT OF FREDERICK COUP
Ld
O Obi U
(n r N
.s N I 11
Gtot 7 -
to �
W i El O
v
L �
N C N U
O � O 0
�
(n N t O
a ()
WS
F -u- E E
Zw
Q
c� to
zcr
JW
�W
z
OW
U
SURVEY: O,i„
i
NA N/A
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.:
1200 0 1200
SEM 0402015
—�
SCALE: DATE:
Jl
1"=1200' 08/23/05
Scate 1' = 1200 ft
SHEET: /
�x. z
IMPACT ANALYSIS S I ATEMENT
RED HAWK ESTATES
EXHIBIT 3 - CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD MAP
page 16
Frederick County Planning S ➢evelopnent
Ninchester, Virglrrc
Civil War Battlefields and rites
(As Defined by the NTS Shenan oah Valley Civil War Sites Study)
12-10-97
IMPACT ANALYSIS S -I ATE MENT
RED HAWK ESTATES
EXHIB
IT 4 - DRAINAGE AND TOPO MAP
page 17
z
O
W
<v) z
U
Za�>
QZW
Z
W J y ::)
o
_ZUQ
Q n = U
Gi UJ
O Of
O 0
a
V
J
O N M O
rn o t n.
VT
L
y o cc
co
Wn 7 C C O
io t 2 U
H C ~ E
V V)
Z y-
II
J W
Ld
1n Z
Oz
o lil
SURVEY: C,„
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
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of the
Red Hawk Estates
Located in:
Frederick County, Virginia
Prepared for:
Turner Enterprises, LLC
R. J. Turner, Manager
2971 Valley Avenue
Winchester, VA 22601
Prepared by:
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200
H + Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401
T 304.264.2711
F 304264.3671
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 (TJ.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..
PHRi/�
A TraiTc Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
Project Number: 14658-1-0
August 2, 2006
Page I
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.
A Trak Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
Project Number: 14658-1-0 +A
H August 2, 2006
PPage 2
No Scale
-I-
Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Red Hawk Estates in Frederick County, Virginia
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
Project Number: 14658-1-0 +A
August 2, 2006
3 3
1
Q
a
a
SITE
4
L
t
4 }
STI'E
�
m� ,
A �
Winchester
Regi malT`I
eb
Airport
-I-
Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Red Hawk Estates in Frederick County, Virginia
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
Project Number: 14658-1-0 +A
August 2, 2006
3 3
No Scale
Figure 2
PH
Rl�
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
Existing Traffic Conditions
A Traffac Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
Project Number: 14658-1-0
August 2, 2006
Page 4
No Scale
Denotes stop sign control
HI Denotes traffic signal control
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
PH
�� Project 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, PFIR+A applied an annual growth rate of 5
% 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 Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
PH"A+ProjectNumber: st 2,2 06 August 2, 2 e 6 Page 6
Table 1
2010 "Other Developments"
Trip Generation Summary
Code Land Use
Amount
Am Peak Hour
PM Peal; Your
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
71630
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 M
210 Single -Family Detached
69 units
14
43
58
48
28
77
690
Total
14
43
58
48
28
77
690
Mise 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
1086
11976
Orrick Paramount
251 E;derly 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 1
23,177
* Includes Giles Farm, Toll Brothers, Coventry Court and miscellaneous residential units at an absorbtion rate of 80 units/year.
PHR/�
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
Project Number: 14658-1-0
August 2, 2006
Page 7
No Scale
.. v
oov n
v ,.y
'\ N a 124(129)
*®438(555)
*4-■ 151(240)
/ (269)113 ..p
(590)289 man* Sen
(69)64 o t r ' ,sen Road
N D
657
� N �
H O r
rn
C�C
O O. Ofl.
o �j ♦� 66(78)
w
(601)304----
656
601)3041656 (141)82--*
1�� ypl bbl
SITE woo
J,
Sulphur
Spring Road
655
(114)105�� /
SITE
'16.
\4"
Average DailY Trips
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
Project Number: 14658-1-0
HP August 2, 2006
8 8
No Scale
50
Signalized
"Suggested
[ntersection
Improvements"
LOS=B(C)
EB- 411 Leg
WB - 1 Left
n
JULC(C)
JUL
(C)c J*U
so v
656
Signalized
Intersection
LOS=B(E) A
j LLi!Is®C(E)
�.
t
(E)Bl\
A
0
w
R
SITE
655
d�
N�
SITE
Signalized "� "Suggested
Intersection Improvements"
LOS--C(C) NB & SB - 7 Left
U"
U,
I� B�C)
-.P0 Sensen; Road
(C)B
w U
Road
W,
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
A Trac Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
PRAProject Number: 14658-1-0
j--j
August 2, 2006
Page 9
TRIP GENERATION
Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip
Generation Deport, 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
Total
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.
A Tra_('tc Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
R+A Project Number: 14658-1-0
PH
August 2, 2006
Page 10
No Scale
-I-
Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
PH
V A+ProjectNumber: 14658-1-0
August 2, 2006
Page 11
I
No Scale
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
r:
Figure 7 Development -Generated Trip Assignments
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
ect NjProumber: 14658-1-0
P August 2, 2006
1-1 Page 12
No Scale
C:
Figure 8
AverageDaily
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions
A Tra f%c Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
Project Number: 14658-1-0
August 2, 2006
Page 13
No Scale
Signalized "Suggested
Intersection Improvements"
LOS--B(Q NB & SB -1 Left
656 U
Signalized L if- B(C)
Intersection
LOS=C(F)V (C)B �� Sensen Road
C(F)
o
Mc r� � Sensa
u n Road
p 657
lone, h
S�tie (Cl$�� it G7
* O
C o
0
w
50 a
17
woo
SITE
C.655 Sulphur Spring Road
5 �� d
*(A)A j1
Groff r " �; jy
N. Unsignalized
Signalized"Suggested Intersection
Intersection Improvements" SITE
LOS=C(CI EB- 4th Leg �%i A(A)*
WB - 1 Left o
(7V
(rA N
mNU/
C(CI Q Q
50
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
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates
PHF A`
Project Number: 14658-1-0
a 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 -turn 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 Traffic Impact Aaalysis of the Red Hawk Estates
PH
�� Project Number: 14658-1-0
August 2, 2006
Page 15
Extended & I
Greenwcd
ja
Per Eastern Rouu man
r! TiA
717,
T Isting
T
V.,
p;*',
Old Greenwood
Singl� Fatfill
Road- to,-;-
'oa I
'Rernaln as Local Res
d qo�
ch siden
V �Street
rr
% -E
mergency Access
r, tA
'N -z,- & interim Access to
P,
i,T�E l,' Shootinj
stng 0 .........
x
Lane
mprove
Open=,' i
rSprings
Sulph
(80'R.O. h
_j
0
Independence
Drive
z
'To
Senseny
Road
'
It
J 1 ; i- ,
Extended& Improved
Channing Drive
Pr qt'Per Eastern Road__yt
POtOnUal Future
connamm
J
FTT
f
J
Pots I F,
C-
0= 1
.11, 4,j ut-"
4/
Z
Extended Improved "'i
Channing
Per Eastern Road Plan e,*
tkNote: See Illustrative Crow-Sectlon
for Road Efficiency Buffer Treatment C
Location of
'Future' Illustrative
Cross-Secti.n
for charmingve
on
!on Extendedded
PIl
........ ....
%
rmwater
-Management Pondr
Community
11
Cc uni
4
it
'Green
(Typical)
y
Red Hawk
'D
Estates
Conceptual Plan
Frederick County, Virginia
'honer Enterprises, LLC
PM..d by:
synpoetica
D- ApAl 16, 2008
Not.:
F.
APpro)dmate Limits or
100 -Year Flood plain
fi
Beecher Pottery Shop
��'--,
true
Dpa rtment ape~
qit,,yf
con
Mod
Vehicular
Y,
Yt
POtOnUal Future
connamm
J
FTT
f
J
Pots I F,
C-
0= 1
.11, 4,j ut-"
4/
Z
Extended Improved "'i
Channing
Per Eastern Road Plan e,*
tkNote: See Illustrative Crow-Sectlon
for Road Efficiency Buffer Treatment C
Location of
'Future' Illustrative
Cross-Secti.n
for charmingve
on
!on Extendedded
PIl
........ ....
%
rmwater
-Management Pondr
Community
11
Cc uni
4
it
'Green
(Typical)
y
Red Hawk
'D
Estates
Conceptual Plan
Frederick County, Virginia
'honer Enterprises, LLC
PM..d by:
synpoetica
D- ApAl 16, 2008
Not.:
F.
Travel Lanes
i
(Eastbound)
Future Improved
Sulphur Springs Road
(Public Right -Of -Way)
Note:
For illustrative
purposes only;
not for construction.
Scale in Feet
0 10
Date: April 18, 2008
Prepared by:
synpoetica
Community Planners & Designers
www.sympoetica.net
s� t
10,
Multipurposili
Trail
OI
Sulphur o I
Springs o
Run `V
co .
U�
N .
O
Proposed
E I
Sulphur Springs U)
Greenway --�
i I
Proposed Bike Trail
(Typical)
Illustrative Cross -Section
(Trail to be constructed per Frederick County
Parks &Recreation Dept. specifications.) e gg
awk Estates
Illustration in Support of the Conceptual flan
Frederick County, Virginia
Turner Enterprises, LLC
4' pVall 10'
or Hedge Malhpwpose
Trail
4' V, U
or Hg1ge
E Varies rent 40'-------47.5 �22'�16 22'� f7.511 40' '; 10' Varies
Front
Front o
Yard . Yard I N
j 2.5' Entry
I
Zone Streetscape Easement 2 5 Travel Landscaped Travel Streetscape Easement Zone
j Lanes Median Lanes
Building 1 1151 'i ;3 ¢ n
S ' Buil
Setback ding E
'M ft tQSetUack
Line ^k°'.
Public Right -Of -Way Line
Residentia Lotit 80' Residential Lot
I 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 ed awl. estates
Prepared by: Illustration in Support of the Conceptual Plan
-syn "®e' iia Frederick County, Virginia
Community Planners &Designers
www.sympoetica.net Turner Enterprises, LLC
REZONING APPLICATION F ORNM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
be corttpleted by Planning Staff:
iing Amendment Number
Hearing Date �,
Fee Amount Paid $ //, .� S �- 00
Date Received 6 le �
BOS Hearing Date � ,
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.
1. Applicant:
J �2rs�s LI.0
Name: � T AMA Telephoner fCj�-7 —2�0p
Address:
2. Property Owner (if different than above)
Name:
Address:
3. Contact person if other than above
Name: �30�i
Telephone:
Telephone:
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location map _ Agency Corrnnents
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:
LCI
u AUC. 6 �,�
6. A) Current Use of the Property:
B) Proposed Use of the Property:
7. Adjoining Property:
PARCEL ID NUMBER
III.• W:
• --
G r� _
USE
-T2Et5
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
11
9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning
proposed :
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family homes: Townhome: 111 Multi -Family:
Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms:
Office:
Retail:
Restaurant:
10. ,Signature:
Souare Footaee of Proposed Uses
_ Service Station:
Manufacturing:
_ Warehouse:
Other:
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 (eve) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the
property for site inspection purposes.
I (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 Planning 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.
.1 (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
—C
65
A
12
SAGER, JUAREZ
—T376 GREENWOOD RD
WINCHESTER, VA
22602
1.0
RA
1374
GREENWOOD RD
—C
65
A
13B
CUNNINGHAM, WALTER& WANDA M
1366 GREENWOOD RD
WINCHESTER, VA,
22602
6.9
RA
0
65
A
86A
MCKEE, DONNA M
1384 GREENWOOD RD
WINCHESTER, VA.
22602
5.0
RA
1384
GREENWOOD RD
—S&
65
A
104
YEATRAS, GEORGE 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.
22601
0.3
RA
160
BRIMSTONE LN
65
A
1038
ROBINSON, DAVID C.& CAROL ANN
315 SHAFFER LN
WINCHESTER, VA.
22602
33.0
RA
0
64
A
158
PERRY PROPERTIES
1945 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
116
ARCADIA 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 IN
65
A
91
IWILLIAMS, HELEN V
44 FERGUSON LN 1
NEWPORT NEWS,VA
23601
3.2
M2
336
SULPHUR SPRING RD
Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue Office Page 1 2/7/2006
Owner's Name:
Pin #:
Zoned:
Use:
Acreage:
Sager, Juarez
65-A-12
RA
Single Family Residential
1.0
Shuman, John A.
65 -A -13A
RA
Single Family Residential
17.19
Cunningham, Walter C. & Wanda. M.
65-A-138
RA
Single Family Residential
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 & Corral 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 Of..
65-A-95
RA
Regional/Local Government
20.15
Frederick Co- Board
65-A-96
RA
Regional/Local Government
0.28
Arnold, Thelma 1.
65-A-97
RA
Agricultural/Undeveloped
43.00
-Wilkins. Bradley & Michelle
65-A-98
RA
Single Family Residential
14.52
Boyce, Robert C. Sr. & Elmo
65-A-99
RA
Single Family Residential
0.64
Williams, Raymond & Kathleen
65 -A -99A
RA
Single Family Residential
1.00
Sea!, Robert A.
65-A-100
RA
Single Family Residential
1.00
Boyce, Robert C. Sr. & Elmo
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-1038
RA
Agricultural/Undeveloped
33.00
Yeatras, George, Peter & Chris
65-A-104
RA
Agricultural/Undeveloped
56.00
Arcadia Development Co.
65-A-116
82
Commercial & Industrial
59.06
Ambrose, Sondre Anne Campbel!
64-A-1.29
PA
Agricultural/Undeveloped
107.56
Perry Properties
64-A-158
M1
Commercial & Industrial
44.97
* denotes subject parcels
>
m
��
PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C.
!'
�
Z
m
116 South Stewart Street
j
Winchester, Virginia 22601
g o
Telephone (540)662-5792
o
N m
Facsimile (540)662-5793
�n
oz
n
CONSULTING
PROJECT:
RED HAWK ESTATES
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Lam/ AMBROSE SAND;A ANNE CARPER
TEES OF12-9
THE JAMES PEYTON 10Cres
1398 Acl�ss
LZ PERRY ENO4INE�� G cc INC
9]ie;es
?� DONN -83C
Acres
TJ LIMAS CONSTANCE L ETALS
64-A�2
65.03 Acres
1YINC E4—IlI T.111AL
�yTy ��AAic:ea
$ 04YA.*RENGLt/yE LL
0.47ri44A66e''JJes
O LO
139 ns Vo�C WINC
NILL HA
_IiRyATRUSTEE
79B Auu
�.. M Pew..
Im
b�-H=14
100.24 Acres
PERRY PROPERTIES
64 -A -15B
44.97 Acres
DAVID C& CAROL
%A -103A
16 Acres
CAROL
FINCH*A iP RJR
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
289740
Carol A. Lehman Revocable Trust
portion of
TOTAL
85.2984
TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC
28.9740 ACRES
"7
s
� ML an
65• -((A)) -e$ ---.
♦
TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC '+
10.633 ACRES
COUNTY OF FREOCRICK j
TMELAIA E, ARNOLD
66—((A)) -142A
TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC
4.9922 ACRES
14.4 Ltc
744 ACRES
1
♦ 65�-((A))-102 S_5- t(A)) 1038
TURNER ENTERPRISES. LLC DAVID C_ At CAROL A.
28,1752 ACRES PORINSON
♦
FERRY PROPEWACS
/ 65—((A)) -410.3A
r J ♦L3AVID C. do CAROL A. �
/' ♦ I#O�NSON
r „f
J
,A,RCAMA DEVELOPMENT CO-
r J
TURNER ENTMRRIWS, LLC
TOTAL AREA — 83.1797 ACRES
EXHIBIT
cun%mNc
AMENDMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
Planning commission Approval on August 8, 1990
Board of Supervisors Approval on September 26, 1990
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
#006-90 of KATHRYN M. PERRY
WHEREAS, Rezoning application #006-90 of Kathryn M. Perry to
rezone 56.386 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General)
and 2.251 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Ml (Light Industrial) and
1.489 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) to B2 (Business General)
located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of Winchester on Route
50 and designated as Parcel 116 on Tax Map 65 (65000-A00-0000-0000-
0116-0) in the Shawnee District, was referred to the Planning
Commission on July 18, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
application on July 18, 1990; and received a draft statement of
conditions proffered prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this
application on August 8, 1990; and received a signed statement of
conditions proffered prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds this
rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety,
welfare, convenience and good zoning practice;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board
of Supervisors as follows:
Page 2
Rezonina #006-90
Kathryn M. Perry
That Chapter 21 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is
amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 56.386 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) and 2.251 acres from
RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial) and 1.489 acres from M1
(Light Industrial) to B2 (Business General) located approximately
2.5 miles southeast of Winchester on Route 50, and designated as
Parcel 116 on Tax Map 65 in the Shawnee Magisterial District and
described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the
following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the
applicant and property owner as follows:
r
PROFFFR
PERRY PROPERTY REZONING RF UEST
CASE NO. 006-90
Revised 9/14/90
I, the undersigned, KATHRYN M. PERRY, sole owner of the land to be
rezoned under zoning request number 006-90, referred to as the Perry property
rezoning, and the applicant for said rezoning, hereby voluntarily proffer the
following conditions_ The conditions proffered shall be binding upon the heirs,
executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest of the undersigned.
In the event the Frederick Countv Board of Supervisors grants said rezoning to
B-2 and accepts these conditions, the following proffered conditions shall apply
to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick
County Code:
1. As shown on the attached plat, access to the property to be developed
will be by a 4 lane divided road entering Route 50 from the north side of Route
50 at a point opposite the existing entrance to Westview Business Center. Upon
rezoning approval and upon development, the owner will transfer to the
Virginia Department of Highways or to the County of Frederick, as designated by
the County of Frederick, by deed in such form as directed, the seventy foot (70)
fee simple as shown on said plat as running from Route 50 to the lands of
Donald W. and Melvina M. Moulden.
2. The undersigned will cause to be built, upon development of the
rezoned property, the highway as shown on the Generalized Development Plan
from points A to B.
I The undersigned will construct concurrently with the construction
described in the preceding paragraph the deceleration lane and entrance shown
on said Generalized Development Plan on the northeast side of Route 50 at the
entrance of the road to be constructed.
4. All construction in as provided in Paragraphs 2 and 3, above shall be at
no cost to the county of Frederick and State of ir.ginia, and shall be contingent
upon rezoning approval.
5. A two lane road section for acceptance by VDOT from B to C shown on
the generalized development plan will be constructed by the owner of the land
in question. This construction will be at the expense of the applicant/ property
owner. The said road connection from B to C will be constructed in
associationwith any subdivision or site plan development within the
development phase containing said road connection as shown on the approved
master development plan.
6_ Normal usage electrical and telephone systems required within the
development area for service to the individual uses, will be placed
underground. The development area is the area bounded by the limits of this
proposed rezoning and adjacent rights-of-way.
7_ The applicant desires to donate 55,000.00, in cash, at the time of transfer
of the first building lot or issuance of the first grading permit and an additional
$5,000.00, in cash, at the time of the second building lot or issuance of the second
grading permit to the Greenwood Fire Company in order to provide for the
expanded commercial zoning fire needs_ Should the entire site be transferred
one parcel, the Appliant will make a $10,000.00, in cash, donation to the
Greenwood Fire Company to be used for their needs_
Kathryn Ivy. Perry
This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
Passed this 26th day of September, 1990-
A Copy Teste
John R} Riley, J `.
Frederick County Administrator