The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 04-05-06 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia April 5, 2006 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) February 15, 2006 and March 1, 2006 Minutes.................................................................. (A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Conditional Use Permit #02-06 of Joseph Snapp and Robert Rhodes for a Wayside Market. This property is located at 1107 Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), and is identified with Property Identification Number 63 -A -2-F in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (B) 5) Rezoning #17-05 of Russell-Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance District) with proffers, for 60 single family homes, and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 43-A-1513 and 43-A-16. Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (C) 6) Rezoning 903-06 of O -N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (D) FILE COPY 7) Rezoning #04-06 of Orrick Cemetery, Inc., submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 33.61 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 22.06 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) with proffers, for Mixed Use Commercial/Residential. The property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Senseny Road (Route 657) and Greenwood Road (Route 656) with road frontage along both roadways, in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 55-A-201. Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (E) 8) Other MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on February 15, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan Eddy, Senior Planner; Candice Perkins, Planner II; Kevin Henry, Planning Technician; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of the December 21, 2005 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 02/13/06 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the CPPS discussed what will be happening in the future regarding the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study; he said public meetings will be scheduled in May. Commissioner Kriz also reported that a meeting will be held on March 7, 2006 with the engineers, planners, developers, and so forth to ascertain whether the Study is on target and to receive input. Frederick County Plaiming Commission Page 1683 Minutes of February 15, 2006 0 L1 U n V 1 -2 - Economic Development Commission (EDC) – 02/03/06 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the EDC discussed strategy for businesses and development in the area; they also discussed and received a report on Frederick County/ Winchester economic measures. Commissioner Thomas said that Winchester and Frederick County has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the State of Virginia; he commented that this was good news; however, it means the labor market is very tight. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not already on the Commission's agenda for this evening and Mrs. Rhoda Kriz came forward with the following report: Winchester -Frederick County Unification Proiect Mrs. Rhoda Kriz, Chairman of the Public Opinion/Public Input Subcommittee of the Winchester -Frederick County Unification Discussion, stated that Frederick County and Winchester have entered into discussions regarding the possible unification of certain governmental services. She said the first phase of the project includes five departments—the Planning & Zoning Department, Social Services, the Department of Parks & Recreation, Public Schools, and the Department of Fire & Rescue. Mrs. Kriz emphasized the importance of public participation throughout the project and she announced four public meetings where information will be presented. She said the meetings will be held over a two-week period in March with each meeting on a different week night and at a different location to accommodate citizens' schedules. Those meetings were scheduled as follows: Monday, March 13, Sherando High School, at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 15, War Memorial Building, Jim Barnett Park, at 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, March 21, Millbrook High School, at 7:00 p.m. Thursday, March 23, James Wood High School, at 7:00 p.m. Mrs. Kriz next spoke about the Committee of 100—a non -meeting committee made up of volunteer citizens representing a cross-section of the Winchester -Frederick County population. She said the discussion group would like as many people as are interested to have an opportunity to participate directly in the project. Mrs. Kriz said that in order to have a thorough and consistent review of all of the proposals, each member of the Committee of 100 will be asked to review the unification proposals and to submit comments at various times throughout the project. She said the subcommittees would like to conduct this as much as possible by way of Email; she said the comments will be collated and presented to the appropriate subcommittees. Mrs. Kriz added that the individual responses and comments will remain anonymous; she said information and a sign-up form are on the website at www.winchester-frederick.com. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 15, 2006 D n Page 1684 W M -3 - PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #17-05 of Russell-Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC to rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 130 single-family homes, and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Rt. 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Rt. 663). The properties are further identified by P.I.N.s 43 -A -15B and 43-A-16 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 60 Days to April 5, 2006 Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy presented a letter from PHR&A requesting a postponement ofthe Russell-Glendobbin Rezoning Application 417-05 and a copy of an email clarifying that the requested postponement is for 60 days. Conuiussioner Thomas asked Ms. Eddy about the appropriateness of a summary presentation or whether public comments should be allowed, since there were so many citizens in the audience who were interested in this rezoning application. Ms. Eddy said she could provide a brief summary; however, she did not want to mislead any of the citizens who wished to speak because this would not be the required legal public hearing for the rezoning. Ms. Eddy read aloud the letter from PHR&A which stated that work is progressing on a revised proffer statement and a revised generalized development plan (GDP). Chairman Wilmot asked for a show of hands of the number of citizens who were present and interested in this specific rezoning; approximately 30 people raised their hands. Chairman Wilmot apologized to those present and advised them of the situation. She stated that there will be a number of opportunities for the public to participate in the process; however, she stressed the importance of everyone viewing the correct application. Commissioner Morris said it was apparent there are reasons why so many citizens were present at the meeting and he advised the applicant to consider holding a community meeting so that everyone is aware of the concerns. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously accept the request of the applicant for the postponement of Rezoning Application 417-05 of Russell-Glendobbin for a 60 - day period and that the application be heard on April 5, 2006. (Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.) Frederick CountyPlanning Commission M Pae 1685 o g N L F 1 g Minutes of February l 5. 2006 -4- 2006-2007 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Frederick County. The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects, requested by various County departments and agencies, and is reviewed for conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and for potential allocation in the ensuing five-year period. The CIP is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. In addition, the CIP is an advisory document; projects are not necessarily funded because of their inclusion in the CIP. Action — Recommended Approval Planning Technician, Kevin T. Henry presented Frederick County's 2006-2007 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) which consisted of 46 capital projects, nine of which were new capital projects. He reported that of the nine new projects, two are from the County Administration and seven are from the public schools system. Mr. Henry said the seven projects from the public schools system include three new elementary schools, school renovations, and land acquisition for I 1 facilities; the two projects from County Administration include the Gore refuse site expansion and the relocation of the Clearbrook fire station. Mr. Henry continued, stating that as requested by the Planning Commission at their discussion of the CIP on December 7, 2005, the School Board and the Planning Department worked together to formulate a revised map showing school locations using "bubble" locations for potential new school sites. Mr. Henry reported that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) endorsed the draft 2006-2007 CIP at their meeting of November 14, 2005. He reported that at the January 25, 2006 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board clarified that the CIP is strictly an advisory document and is not intended for requesting funding allocation. Commissioner Ours appreciated the work of the School Administration and the Planning Staff to formulate the revised Potential New School Locations map, which he thought was much easier to understand and more clearly shows where the School Board is headed with their future construction plans. Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Com>nission members believed the projects proposed within the CIP were in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend the approval of the 2006-2007 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Frederick County to the Board of Supervisors, as presented. (Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting; Commissioner Watt was absent for this item.) (Commissioner Watt arrived at this point in the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission ju-, Oi PcGi unrJ 13; Lv v Page 1686 -5 - PUBLIC MEETING Consideration of an entrance -spacing waiver request, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates on behalf of Eastern Automotive Group, which would allow a new commercial entrance to be placed less than 150 feet from an existing entrance. An entrance -spacing waiver is permitted under Article IV, Section 165-29B(1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This property is identified by P.I.N. 75A-6-B41B and is located within the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Approved Planner Candice Perkins reported that the Eastern Automotive Group property is located on Valley Pike, across from Kernstown Commons, and the site is zoned B2 (Business General). Ms. Perkins said the approval of the requested waiver will allow this property to develop with an automotive sales facility with a full commercial entrance onto Valley Pike and will align with the Kernstown Commons entrance, which will be signalized.. She explained that the required entrance spacing for this site is 150 feet from any existing entrance; the proposed entrance is shown to be located 90 feet off of the adjacent Capital Meats entrance. Therefore, the applicant would need a waiver of approximately 60 feet. Ms. Perkins stated that the staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider inter -parcel connection opportunities between the Eastern Automotive Group site and the Capital Meats site, because the Route 11 improvements associated with the Kernstown Commons development would reduce the Capital Meats entrance to a right -in, right -out only. Commissioner Morris asked Ms. Perkins how the other properties to the rear, such as Vanco, LLC, were accessed and if they could also benefit from an inter -parcel connector. Ms. Perkins replied that the other properties are accessed via a median crossover. She added that Capital Meats is the only parcel that could benefit from an inter -parcel connector. Mr. Ronald Mislowsky with Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc. (PHR&A) stated that last year, an Outback Steak House was approved for this site; however, Outback Steak House has since moved across the street. Mr. Mislowsky said the site plan that was approved is still valid as far as the building, parking arrangements, and entrances. He said that Eastern Automotive Group approached PHR&A about submitting a revised site plan. He said the only right-of-way issue that was changed from the original site plan approval was the relocation of the entrance to align with the Kernstown Commons entrance, for safety reasons. The Planning Commission had numerous questions for Mr. Mislowsky about the alignment of the applicant's proposed entrance with Kernstown Commons' future signalized entrance, as well as the timing of installation of the traffic signal for Kemstown Commons and the opening of the Eastern Automotive Group site. There were also questions regarding the entrance for the adjoining Capital Meats site. Mr. Mislowsky stated that the new entrance shown is lined up with Kemstown's signalized intersection and VDOT is satisfied that the revised LOS calculations are acceptable with the four-way movement intersection, instead of the three-way movement. Mr. Mislowsky said that if Eastern Automotive Group opens before work is completed on the other side of the street, then Eastern Automotive Group will be limited to a right -in, right -out because of the median strip; he said the only way for Eastern Automotive Group to get a full access is if Kernstown Commons completes the Route 11 improvements and installs the traffic signal. Mr. Mislowsky said VDOT had indicated the light would not be installed until traffic warranted the installation. In addition, he said VDOT had also stated that Eastern Automotive Group would be required to enter into a signalization agreement; Mr. Mislowsky noted, however, that the approved MDP indicated that Kemstown Commons would be responsible for the traffic signal. Chairman Wilmot called for public comment, however, no one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 15, 2006 Page 1687 S -Z Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve an entrance -spacing waiver request, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates on behalf ofEastem Automotive Group, which would allow a new commercial entrance to be placed less than 150 feet from an existing entrance on Valley Pike (Route 11). (Note: Commissioner Manuel abstained from voting; Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.) Rezoning Application #12-05 for the Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed- use development of 793 residential units and retail, restaurant, and office uses. The property is located one mile west of I-81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Rt. 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Rt. 1176), and west of Canter Estates, Section V. This property is further identified by P.I.N. 75- A -99A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (The public hearing for this application was previously held on December 21, 2005; action was deferred for 60 days.) Action — Recommended Approval Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy reported that the applicants have continued to make modifications to this rezoning application to address many of the concerns that were previously expressed by members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ruddy said the most significant change continues to revolve around the dedicated area that has been proffered as a school site; the applicant has modified the location by moving it slightly to the east and has enlarged the area from 15 acres to approximately 18 acres. He said the applicant has continued to work with the County School System to ensure this site was suitable for their needs. Mr. Ruddy stated that the applicant has also revised the phasing program by reinstituting a three - phased approach: Phase I shall not exceed 325 residential units, Phase H shall not exceed an additional 275 residential units for a total of 600 units (with the inclusion of 20,000 square feet of proffered commercial space), and Phase III shall not exceed an additional 193 units for a total of 793 units. He added that the development phasing program continues to provide the basis for the transportation program which has been modified to be consistent with the revised phasing. Mr. Ruddy next presented the Commission with copies of correspondence that was sent to the Planning Staff from Mr. David Worthington regarding environmental questions and concerns. Commissioner Kriz requested that Mr. Ruddy provide a summary of the applicant's monetary proffers in relation to the County's Capital Impact Model. Mr. Ruddy explained that this application was being reviewed under the original Capital Facilities Impact Model which generated a total of $5-6,000 per unit capital impact. He said that after this application was submitted, the County adopted a new development impact model, which more thoroughly addresses the impacts associated with community facilities. Under the new model, a single-family detached residential component generates approximately $23,000 impact to facilities, with about $18,000 of that amount for schools. The new Capital Facilities Impact Model was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in December 2005; however, the Artrip rezoning application was submitted prior to the County adopting the new model and by policy of the Board of Supervisors, the original capital model was applied to this project. Frederick County Planning Coninussion Mini ites of February 15, 2006 n F V Page1688 -7 - Commissioner Thomas asked for the estimated value of the applicant's proposed improvements, both on-site and off-site, including the donation of the school site and bridge construction. This question was deferred to the applicant. Mr. John H. Foote of Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Terpak, PC, representing the Villages at Artrip rezoning application, stated that the original application and proffers were dated and filed with the Planning Department in June of 2004. Mr. Foote commented that this property is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the Urban Development Area (UDA). He said the transportation improvements proposed have been recognized as a crucial link in the County's long-term transportation plan for this area, particularly with respect to Warrior Drive. Mr. Foote said the applicant cannot commit to building Warrior Drive through Crosspointe, but they are committed to working with Mr. Glaize in an attempt to create a community development authority. Mr. Foote stated that the Tower Companies will provide a four -lane, divided Warrior Drive from the top of the property to the bottom and to Wakeland Manor. He noted that there is also a reverse mechanism for constructing the road from the opposite direction, should Warrior Drive come from the north first. Mr. Foote said the school site issue has been resolved and the public schools are satisfied with the site; the school site layout should have little to no environmental impact to the Opequon. Mr. Foote said the other issue that has been raised is with respect to the traffic; he said the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) performed indicates the traffic for this project can be accommodated and not have adverse impact on the intersections that are critical to the County. hi particular, at the future intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior Drive, sufficient right-of-way exists at the intersection to construct the full improvements that would be required to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) "C," once the connection is made. He added that a proffer has been included in the package noting that these improvements will be accomplished by the applicant. Referring to Commssioner Thomas' question on the value of improvements and contributions, Mr. Foote estimated the school site's value to be between $2'/z and 3'/Z million dollars, based on the fact that the property is within the UDA, as well as the fact they removed 71 potential units out of this area to accommodate the school site. Mr. Foote said that approximately $1'/� million in cash has also been proffered. He said that if the project was ran at the fiscal impact model of $5,000 per unit, which is the maximum amount they are subject to under the old model, the result would be about a $4 million cash contribution to the County. Regarding the transportation improvements, Mr. Foote said he estimated the value of only the two outside lanes instead of all four lanes, since the applicant was only required to build two; he estimated the cost to construct these two lanes through the property at $2 million. Mr. Foote then estimated the minimum cost for the bridge at $3 million, but he cut that amount in half He stated that the total infrastructure package and school site package totaled approximately $6 million. Mr. Foote calculated that amount to result in a proffer commitment to the community of approximately $7,500 per unit, which was over the amount the County would have expected under its Fiscal Impact Model. Commissioner Kriz asked if there was a calculation on how many units would be constructed per year and Mr. Foote replied no. Mr. Foote said they have committed to build Warrior Drive from across Wakeland, to the round -about, and up Parkins Mill, so the school can be accessed before the first residential building permit has been issued. He said the cost to accomplish this is substantial; therefore, they can not limit themselves on the number of units constructed within a year because it would be impossible for them to finance their own infrastructure costs. Commnissioner Moms asked for clarification on where the ten -foot recreational trail enters and leaves the property. Mr. Richard Burm:ngham, a designer vv:th Devvber;y, Planning Consultants and Engineers, pointed out the trail layout through the development for the Commission. Commissioner Morris also inquired if the applicant was contributing to the traffic signalization at the intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior Drive or if it was being f ended by the commercial development. Mr. Foote replied that the commercial development is funding its portion. Frederick County Planning Commission Mini tec of Februmv 15, 2006 Page1689 Im Commissioner Thomas wanted to be sure the County did not end up with a "bedroom community" with this proposed development. He said the applicant's proffer indicates he will have 20,000 square feet of commercial floor space available to be leased, with access and utilities, not later than the 600'h building permit. Mr. Thomas believed the wording on this statement was a little vague and needed to be more specific. Mr. Foote explained the intent of the proffer is that the 601" building permit cannot be issued if the square footage amount has not been satisfied. Commissioner Thomas argued that under the proposed wording, the applicant could construct 600 units and stop there, and not build one square foot of commercial space. Mr. Foote replied that the applicant could commit to initiating the site planning for the commercial property by a specific number of building permits before the designated 600 number. He suggested that the Commission stipulate their recommendation of approval to the Board on the condition that the proffers are amended to require the site planning to begin by the 300'' residential unit. Commissioner Unger thought the majority of Commission members believed this was a nice - looking project, but there were a few things he still questioned. For example, he said that Warrior Drive is basically a road to nowhere; he said it was a beautiful road, but it stops at Crosspointe and he did not see how this could benefit Frederick County, especially since Crosspointe may not develop for five, six, or eight years from now. In addition, he couldn't justify the applicant's quoted value of the school property and he did not think the development had good access. Commissioner Kriz asked Mr. Foote if Warrior Drive would have been proposed for construction if the rezoning application was required to come in under the new Capital Facilities Model. W. Foote replied that it would probably not have been offered. Mr. Foote said the cost per lot would have been too high and would have made the lots competitively disadvantaged against all other development lots available in the County. He said they would be looking at an exceptionally high cost per lot, probably as much as $40,000. Chairman Wilmot called for public comment and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. David Worthington said he had been given the opportunity to walk over the site with the developer and was appreciative of the environmental protections proposed for the woodlands, the ponds, and the wetlands areas. He was concerned, however, that the area designated for playing fields, behind the proposed school, would be difficult to grade because it was completely wooded and contained a number of ravines. His second concern was for the protection of the Opequon stream, located below the area designated for playing fields. Because of the amount of grading work that needed to be done in this area, and the location of stormwater management ponds, he was concerned about the nutrient and sediment load that could conceivably be added to the Opequon. He said the Opequon is already considered to be a polluted stream and guidelines must be maintained to meet the Chesapeake Bay requirements. There being no other person wishing to speak, Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Chairman Wilmot questioned the issues raised concerning economy. Chairman Wilmot believed it was the job of the Planning Commission to determine whether this was a viable project within the Comprehensive Policy Plan and whether it was a good project for the County. She added that in order to afford this project, the County is going to need to look at other ways and places of generating revenue, should this project be approved. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 15, 2006 Page 1690 ME Commissioner Kriz spoke favorably about the project, but he could not see why the citizens of Frederick County should have to make up the difference in impact costs between the two fiscal impact models. Commissioner Oates also liked the project layout. He said that he was concerned, however, not with the difference in the cost models, but with the considerable build -out and not having the road go through and connect to the north. Commissioner Morris commented that Warrior Drive was vital to this whole area and he was pleased to get it constructed at least this far. He said the other positive issue is that here is a valuable school site, precisely where it is needed and the School Board has said this is a location they can work with. Commissioner Morris said it would have been nice to have been promised more proffered dollars, but he didn't think it was enough to delay the project. A motion was made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Mohn to approve Rezoning Application 412-05 and MDP 909-05 for the Villages at Artrip. The motion failed, however, due to the following tie vote: YES (TO APPROVE THE REZONING): NO: Unger, Watt, Oates, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr Manuel, Morris, Wilmot, Thomas, Ours, Mohn (Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.) A new motion was made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz to deny Rezoning Application 412-05 and MDP 409-05 for the Villages at Artrip. It was Commissioner Thomas's opinion that denying this rezoning based on a difference in impact models was inappropriate. Commissioner Thomas said the application was submitted under a valid proffer model and it should be considered under that model. He added that proffers are voluntary and the applicant is voluntarily submitting proffers based on the guidelines that were in effect at the time. Commissioner Ours agreed with Commissioner Thomas. Commissioner Ours stated that the applicant has gone through a number of revisions and has tried diligently to address the Commission's concerns in a forthright manner. Chairman Wilmot called for a vote to the motion on the table. The motion was defeated, due to the following majority vote: YES (TO DENY THE REZONING): Unger, Watt, Oates, Kriz, Triplett NO: Manuel, Morris, Wilmot, Thomas, Ours, Kerr, Mohn (Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.) Commissioner Thomas next moved to recommend approval of Rezoning Application # 12-05 and MDP #09-05 for the Villages at Artrip with the caveat that by the issuance of the 300a' building permit, the developer must submit a site plan and start initial planning for the 20,000 square -feet of commercial area that is to be completed and ready for use prior to the 600`x' residential permit issuance. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours and was passed by a majority vote. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of Febmary 15, 2006 Page 1691 -10 - BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application 412-05 and MDP #09-05 for the Villages at Artrip with the proffers submitted by the applicant, but with the caveat that by the issuance of the 300th building permit, the developer must submit a site plan and start initial planning for the 20,000 square -feet of commercial area that is to be completed and ready for use prior to the 600`h residential permit issuance. This application, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District is a proposal for a mixed-use development of 793 residential units and retail, restaurant, and office uses. The vote was as follows: YES (APPROVE REZONING W/ CAVEAT): Manuel, Morris, Wilmot, Thomas, Ours, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Watt, Oates, Kriz, Triplett (Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.) OTHER Committee Appointments Chairman Wilmot announced two committee appointments: Commissioner Oates to the Comprehensive Policies and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) and Mr. Al Omdorff, the Assistant Superintendent for Administration of Frederick County Public Schools, to the CPPS as the School Board's representative on that committee. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary =n= Frederick County Planning Commission _K.Ainl,tPc of HPII i -T 1 S ')006 Page 1692 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on March 1, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary R Oates, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Susan Eddy, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of the January 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 02/23/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS elected officers; he said Mr. Roger Thomas was elected Chairman and he was elected as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS had a lengthy discussion on signs in Frederick County and he believed this study would continue for the remainder of the year. He said that Greenway Engineering brought in a plan concerning small -lot subdivisions and community Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1693 Minutes of March 1, 2006 D n N F V -2 - centers which the subcommittee also discussed. Transportation Committee - 02/28/06 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the new Transportation Committee held a "get -acquainted" type of meeting and they discussed and established priorities. Commissioner Kriz believed this new committee will make progress in their efforts to identify and find solutions for the transportation problems in the County. Sanitation Authority — 03/28/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that rainfall for January was 2.75 inches and all plants are operating satisfactorily. He said the Sanitation Authority worked on their Capital Plan for the next several years and the primary topic of discussion was the Parkins Mill plant and its upgrade. They hope to have the Parkins Mill plant completed by 2009. He said the Sanitation Department will be paying about $17 million towards the upgrade with the remainder to be funded by other government agencies. Commissioner Unger said that dues have gone up as of January 1 and they will go up again in July; he said presently, they are at $8,000, and they will go up to about $9,300 and by 2007, they predict the amount will be about $14,500. Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) — 02/23/06 Commissioner Light reported that the CEA is just getting organized with bylaws and officers. He said the CEA is presently drafting a brochure to be distributed throughout the county in an attempt to get the CEA started. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not already on the Commission's agenda for this evening; however, no one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #01-06 of Clearbrook Business Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 16.886 acres from ILA (Rural Areas) District to B3 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers. The property is located on the west side of Route 11, approximately 2,000 feet north of Hopewell Road (Rt. 672). The property is further identified with P.I.N.s 33 -A -122A and 33-A-123 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Frederick County Planning Commissionp Page 1694 D 0 Minutes of March 1, 2006 D J Q► V V -3 - Action — Recommended Approval With Proffers Commissioner Oates said that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this rezoning application, due to a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Unger said that he would also abstain from discussion and voting on this rezoning due to a possible conflict of interest. Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that the site is within the boundaries of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. She said the proposed B3 Zoning is generally consistent with the NELUP; however, the NELUP discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor and encourages inter -parcel connections. The NELUP also recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and greater setbacks, buffers, and screening are also recommended along Martinsburg Pike. Regarding transportation issues, Ms. Eddy stated that the NELUP calls for Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) to be improved to a four -lane facility. She said the applicant has verbally stated a willingness to pave a new south -bound lane in front of the property. Ms. Eddy said the NELUP further states that proposed industrial and commercial developments should only be allowed to occur if impacted roads function at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better. She stated that the revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was based on 120,000 square feet of floor space and 8,000 square feet of restaurant use for a maximum of 128,000 square feet, which the applicant has provided for in his proffer. Ms. Eddy noted that these uses are projected to generate 1,197 average daily trips (ADT); she said that the staff is concerned that the 1,197 ADT could be exceeded if some of the by -right uses allowed in the B3 District were to take place. She said the applicant has voluntarily agreed, therefore, to proffer out gasoline service stations and truck stops. Ms. Eddy said the staff is encouraging the applicant to also consider proffering out three additional uses, motor freight transportation and warehousing; building centers/garden supply centers; and recreational uses. She said that while these uses are permitted in the B3 District, they are high -traffic generators and could cause the projected ADT to be exceeded. In addition, Ms. Eddy said that VDOT's Mr. Lloyd Ingram emailed the staff stating that he had reviewed the most recent TIA and proffers and was supportive of the application with the reduction in proposed ADT. Ms. Eddy concluded by summarizing the applicant's proffers as follows: 1) a maximum of 128,000 square feet, with 8,000 of that amount for restaurant use, shall not be exceeded; 2) exclusion of gasoline stations and truck stop uses; 3) site shall be limited to one commercial entrance; 4) provision of a left -turn lane on Martinsburg Pike going north; 5) a pro -rata monetary contribution towards signalization of Route 11 with Hopewell Road and Brucetown Road; 6) a monetary contribution towards the acquisition of future right-of-way for turn lanes on Route 11; 7) a monetary contribution for fire and rescue and Frederick County; and, 8) provision of additional landscaping for adjoining residential uses. Ms. Eddy added that after the agenda packets were mailed out, the staff received four written letters of support for the rezoning from neighbors. The subject of inter -parcel connectors and turn lanes was raised by the Commission; they wanted to be sure there would be proper entrance spacing available when the next property to the south was developed. Commissioner Light asked if the staff had recommended any enhanced corridor appearance buffer standards; he also questioned where the storm water management would be located. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 1, 2006 Page 1695 — 4 — Mr. Jeffery G. Jenkins of R & J Development, L.L.C., the property owner, came forward and stated that he intends to construct a paved 12 -foot, south -bound lane across the entire length of the front of his property and he will add this to his proffer statement before the rezoning goes to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. In addition, Mr. Jenkins said that he will prohibit all uses under SIC Code 479 Amusement and Recreational Services and this too, will be added to his proffer before going to the Board. Commissioner Kriz asked the applicant if he had considered omitting building centers/garden supply centers, such as Lowes, Moores, etc., and motor freight transportation/warehousinguses. Mr. Jenkins said he was not comfortable leaving those uses out because it was his intention to create a business park with tradesmen, plumbers, and electricians; he thought eliminating those uses would interfere with their needs, in the way of trucks making deliveries, for example. Commissioner Light asked Mr. Jenkins about the potential for a square -foot size limit to address motor freight and building centers, so a huge trip generator of those two potential uses would not be allowed on the site. Mr. Jenkins was willing to make that provision. Commissioner Light said that he would also like to see enhanced corridor appearance along the front of the property and shielded lighting to protect the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, Commissioner Light inquired about the location for a storm water management pond. Mr. Jenkins said that although they have not yet reached the site plan stage, he believed the general location of the storm water management pond was on the other side of I-81. Chairman Wilmot reviewed the items discussed for everyone present. She said the applicant has indicated that he will pave a 12 -foot, south -bound lane across the front of his entire site; an inter -parcel connector has yet to be discussed; Amusement and Recreational Service uses have been eliminated as a potential use; motor freight transportation/warehousing and building centers/garden supply centers will still be considered as a potential use, but the square footage of these uses will be limited; shielded lighting and storm water management will be considered at the site plan stage; and the right -turn lane is not needed at this time, due to the applicant's offer to construct the 12 -foot lane across the front of the entire site. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Harris Stein of the Stonewall District, an adjoining property owner, said that he spoke with Mr. Jenkins extensively and they discussed the construction of a berm around their common property line with three rows of trees. Mr. Stein said that he was comfortable with the rezoning and had no objections as long as there is a shield for his property consisting of a berm and trees. Mr. Frederick Stronko of the Stonewall District, an adjoining property owner, believed that Mr. Jenkins was going to move his construction company on the site and he was opposed to this because of the dust, fumes, and noise that would impact him. Mr. Stronko was disturbed by the activity taking place on Mr. Jenkins' property; he wanted to know what was going to take place there and if the Environmental Protection Agency had been notified. Mr. Stronko said that his property had been infested with vermin from the buildings Mr. Jenkins bulldozed down on his property; he said his chicken coop area and drainage ditches had been disturbed. Mr. Stronko was opposed to the rezoning application proposed. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1696 Minutes of March 1, 2006 D LJ U M V V[ -5 - Commissioner Light asked Mr. Jenkins if he was willing to provide the inter -parcel connectors suggested by the staff and Mr. Jenkins agreed to provide them. property. Commission members were satisfied that the applicant had addressed their concerns about the Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning #01-06 of Clearbrook Business Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc. on behalf of R & J Land Development, L.L.C., to rezone 16.886 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to 133 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers to include the construction of a paved 12 -foot, south -bound lane across the entire front of the property; the inclusion of inter -parcel connectors where appropriate; to prohibit Amusement and Recreational Service uses; and to incorporate a square -footage limitation for motor freight transportation/warehousing uses and building centers/garden supply centers uses. (Please Note: Commissioners Unger and Oates abstained from voting; Commissioners Watt, Thomas, Ours, and Mohn were absent from the meeting.) OTHER Chairman Wilmot asked Commission members to review and complete the Planning and Zoning Issues Assessment provided by Mr. Mike Chandler of CPEAV. She also asked Commission members to return the completed form to Planning Director, Eric R Lawrence, who will compile the opinions. Chairman Wilmot said that at the next Planning Commission meeting, she would like the Commission members to establish priorities, based on the Commission's retreat last February. She said that if the three most important priorities could be established, in terms of planning, land use issues, or zoning issues, it would be tremendously helpful. Commissioner Kriz stated that the UDA Study Group will be meeting with engineers, developers, and land planners on Tuesday, March 7, at 11:00 a.m., in the Board of Supervisors' meeting room and everyone is welcome to attend. Frederick County Plarming Commission Page 1697 Minutes of March 1, 2006 ppj �� a. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the Commission adjourned at 7:40 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission I h� Page 1698 Minutes of March 1, 2006 6 • • J CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #02-06 JOSEPH SNAPP AND ROBERT RHODES Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 20, 2006 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 04/05/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 04/12/06 Pending LOCATION: This subject property is located at 1107 Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 63 -A -2-F PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential North: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential South: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential and Church East: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Off -Premise Wayside Market with Ice Cream Stand REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Rt. 622, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be constructed to our minimum standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the States' right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. CUP #02-06, Joseph Snapp and Robert Rhodes March 20, 2006 Page 2 Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended. Inspections Department: No comment or building permit required for the structures provided they comply with Section 102.3 Exemptions (7.) VUSBC Farm Building and Structures, and is not licensed as a restaurant by the Virginia Department of Health. Sanitation Authority: We do not serve this area. Winchester -Frederick County Health Dept.: The Health Department has no objection to the proposal. Winchester Regional Airport: Since the CUP does not appear to have any impact on the operations of the Winchester Regional Airport, there are no objections or special conditions to request for this site plan. Planning and Zoning: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for off -premise wayside markets in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). While the proposed use intends to sell agricultural and horticultural produce from local farms, the actual market is not located on a farm; therefore, this off -premise wayside market CUP is required. Upon issuance of the CUP, the applicant intends to sell farm produce and operate a frozen custard stand. This proposed use would take place on a 5.00 acre parcel with a single-family dwelling located to the rear of the property. The wayside market will operate in an existing one-story 1,800 sq. ft building located along the frontage of Cedar Creek Grade (Rt.622). An ice cream stand will also be associated with this use, and located adjacent to the 1,800 sq. ft. building. This proposed wayside stand will sell a wide variety of agricultural and horticultural items and merchandise. There will be outdoor display areas associated with this use, as well as a small field for planting of pick -your -own crops. These areas are noted on the sketch in your agenda. This property is located outside the Sewer Water Service Area (SWSA) and Urban Development Area (UDA), as noted in the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County. It is important to note, though, that the site is located east of Route 37, adjacent to an area that has recently been included in the UDA. As such, it may be appropriate to apply standards to the CUP that reflect the vision for the Cedar Creek Grade corridor as it exits the City of Winchester. Frederick County, through the CUP application, traditionally has regulated the uses and signs on properties located along highways in its rural areas. Furthermore, a higher standard of development and conditions with this application should be implemented along this corridor. This should include the following: CUP #02-06, Joseph Snapp and Robert Rhodes March 20, 2006 Page 3 • Maximum freestanding sign height of six feet • Maximum freestanding sign of 25 square feet • Prohibition of internally illuminated signs • Prohibition of the placement of any dumpsters/ enclosures within the 60 -ft front yard setback. These standards would be in keeping with other land use applications and may apply to any future applications along this corridor. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. The site shall be allowed to have one freestanding sign. Maximum height of freestanding sign shall be six (6) feet. Maximum size of a freestanding sign shall be twenty-five (25) square feet. 3. No internally illuminated signs shall be allowed outside of the building. 4. Maximum size of a building -mounted sign shall be ten (10) square feet. 5. Dumpsters shall be completely enclosed by an opaque fence with a minimum setback of 60 feet from Cedar Creek Grade. 6. A minimum of nine (9) lined parking spaces with wheel stops, and a minimum of double prime and sealed, shall be installed prior to the operation of the off -premise Wayside Market. 8. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. BRIOGEF 63 A 2L ORTH, WILLIAM E III d LISA W 63 52 3 HENRY, RICHARD W d BONNIE G 63 52 10 BRUCE, TROY A It ELAINE L 03 5311 KING, KEITH Jd INEZ J 63 53 12 SAGER, ROGER L d JOAN H j j, v 63 A 2D BRIDGEFORTH, RUTH D 1 A 2C HOLLIDAY, LARRY E SR d TERESA D y 63 51 2 WILLIE JR POWE, JAMES W. d ELIZABETH H. 53 (Bus ness lldustd,l Ta-ft,on Ta—ft,Distnd) ( R5 (Res dental Recreational Community Distract) Map F Nenao.. E* HE(Hlgher Educ 1 D t t) Q RP(Resdental PeHar—D'strct) • Roaa cen[eellnez M2 (Intlustr al G I D' t' t) CRIM312 CARL 3 1 , ms uea 63 51 1 RITCHIE, REX E d HELEN J it • 83 A 2B COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 3i* ,/ 3= •�eff 83 A 2F tiRHODES, ROBERTM m 13 A 2E BLUE RIDGE GRACE BRETHERN *0 83 51 BNCLAURIN, A 3 LLC WILLIE JR \GREY,1TON'1"PROPERTIES, 1 Bi (Business Ne ghb h d D' t t) S MS (Medical Support D'atrct) Q B2 (Bus ness G-1.1 Dt t) U R,t Resdental Planned C.—rty Dstnct) 53 (Bus ness lldustd,l Ta-ft,on Ta—ft,Distnd) ( R5 (Res dental Recreational Community Distract) •* EM (Extractive M f d g D- trio) Q RA (Rural Areas District) E* HE(Hlgher Educ 1 D t t) Q RP(Resdental PeHar—D'strct) Mt (Industral, Light Dtr t) ERRIS M2 (Intlustr al G I D' t' t) CRIM312 CARL 3 1 , «' MHt (Moble Home Community District) RSR j1 a' "A. GREY, i ONE DEVELOPERS INS Zoning RP 41 63 A 3A WALLS, KIM B d MARIETTA C ++r l ' City at Winchester _ r! I ( 1 `tL��k yCi ii i CUP #02-06 Joseph Snapp & Robert Rhodes wE ( 63 0 75 15A - 2F ) 300 .� Feet 63 A 2K C d W PROPERTIES / LA/NG, ORD3111 GONt / Sa 3218 SETTLE, / ERRIS CRIM312 CARL 3 1 , RSR j1 SAE 32 26 JAMES 11 63 AZJ- WALLS,KI63 MBd M0.RIETrA 6AT'HE. I lEFPLER2 b whPatfP'd'j;n_ LISAL 63 A 3A WALLS, KIM B d MARIETTA C ++r l ' City at Winchester _ r! I ( 1 `tL��k yCi ii i CUP #02-06 Joseph Snapp & Robert Rhodes wE ( 63 0 75 15A - 2F ) 300 .� Feet 4 U52 8 HENRY, RICHARD W It BONNIE 11 41 WILLIAM MEIII&LISAW 83 5210 TRUCE, TROYA 1 ELAINE L 1 83 5311 KING, KEITH! d INEZ d R 6 6 5, 12 SA -.;E0..5 JcaYH - ii l — 1 �'% / �tq�''�MaP Eeateres m• No. Y 1A'Y.ur �."� N BS 822x0. /J � GRE YSTbNE OEVELAPERS. I • 53 A 2D BRIDGEFORTH, RUTH 4 r 83 A 28 0. 2t C&Yi R' -ES f/ [ON8IV NWEALTH OF VIRGINIA t !'j'1Lne 1 C7 �` W.k GORGON 1 1L• '�,;� fid i t�� i N SEFaLE. T€+aefp S3 9 CASAsa • 63 SJyA12 Ej.,,E$ i Ar 83 A�1 WALLS, KIM Bd H[a lEF3 8223 FAQ 1,IdA1 ..i i.j A.i. �Tzi ax' 8 • 83 A 2F RHODES,ROBERT M s''.j ' a` Y ^� •` BLUE RIDGEGRACEBRETHERN 'le •! V � F 83 A 3A WALLS, HIM B d MARIETTA C �{ City of Winchester 83 ] 1 t tiT[HIE eEKEd NEL(rvJ A • 1 `�lfj2t0 AM{9,� r GREySiON€PRO •�'" - IN MCLAUH t. Vr LLIE JN for •J 81 (Business, Neighbarhood District) A MS (Medical Suppod District) �.> 82 (Busness Ge ID't U R4 (Residential Planned Community D'sUicU nn CUP Cl1P # �2 O� ® B3(Busim lad t IT t District) (A RS(Residential Recreatonal Communry District) - V ®' EM(Extract—M f du' gD- tact) Q RA(Rura(A,—Dstrd) Joseph Snapp & Robert Rhodes HE(Hgher Educt DtcU Q RP(Restlental Pertormance Distad) Mi (Industral,Lght D' tr t) (63 - A - 2F) M2 (Industral G1 D' t ict) r• MH1 (Moble Home Community District) we 0 75 150 Feet 300 I� 63 A I JM PROPERTIES, LLC BRIDGEFOR 0 A ,H, WILLIAM 2L E III & LISA E3 52 B HENRY, RICHARD W & BONNIE G 63 5210 BRUCE, TROY A & ELAINE L 63 53 11 KEITH J A INEZ J 63 A 2D BRIDGEFORTH, RUTH D 11 A 11 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 61 A 'C HOLLIDAY, LARRY SR &TERESA D 32 O BI Neghb.lhld Dmt-) * MS (MIdi-I SIPP.d DmImt) A 11 B2 G,—.1 Dittkt) 0 R4 (R-id,,(.I, Planned Community DlMlwt) RHODES, ROBERTM 651' RITCHIE, REX E & HELEN J 63 51 2 POWE, JAMES WI & ELIZABETH H. 63 518 MCLAURIN, WILLIE JR 63 A 21 BLUE RIDGE GRACEBRETHERN 13 A 3 GREYSTONE PROPERTIES, LLC wP BI Neghb.lhld Dmt-) * MS (MIdi-I SIPP.d DmImt) B2 G,—.1 Dittkt) 0 R4 (R-id,,(.I, Planned Community DlMlwt) 83 (Busi—1, Ind ustriaIT t D;shict) AS (R,,!dIntj,I R11111fi—I CIM—by D"Hh,t) •R- C.—fi— E. (E.I—UYe M—f-u,ing DiMmt) Q RA (R-1 A- Di.tdt) HE (Highe, Ed—t— Di�Hj,t) Q RP (R-.id—U.I P--- Dh.hit) MI (Industrial, LightDmUid) M2 (1,d—ml, GeneralD��Hj,t) MH1 (M.bil. H—I G11—nity Dmtrid) 1111 ",A .Nl.lONE DEVELOPERS, INC 63 A 2K CA IN PROPERTIES LING, ING, " 9217 63 'Z 18 TILE, T'RRlS AI CRIN, CA 12 19 RL R SR 13 E',' 2 20 1 JAMES 1 whe 13 A 21�3 I,, I WALLS, KIM B & MARIETTA GATHERLEFfL23 SA 63 A 3A WALLS, KIM B & MARIETTA C Chy If Wf-h—, tlti CUP 02 - 06 Joseph Snapp & Robert Rhodes (63 - A - 2F ) ^ I 0 75 150 300 0-% Feet Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA '3110,166 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner_ other) NAME: 'Jo PI} r9aAP )-Dtf-S ADDRESS: KS CJ 1;-J C VFl 2-2 02 TELEPHONE Z LA2Z �� (v 9- O 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Jc') S cPi,, A SA),q Pio 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) to'I CGDAC C2E,Lr-1,', GQ) -i06 J 0L T -Lr (,22.' V2- M w c1 -r ori C_cs o � Crz� i� Co 2r1y C, o STs ► D � C'D 1 c H eS a CVT`; Lir1I'TS C,010(o r0tJ/A2ilS 4. The property has a road frontage of 30"T7 �- feet and a depth ofX, j j L.ifeet and consists of acres. (Please be exact) X i I 17 3,3G [� 5. The property is owned by Ro �L y,v Ls nm All De S as evidenced by deed from 7aJ��=K:� i��.�,2�; �� recorded (previous wner) in deed book no. on page � as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Tax(Parcel) Identification (I.D. )No.�— Magisterial District 5b� Current Zoning 7. Adjoining Property: USEq II,, ZO ING North 'RcsiiSla� VIA East South West 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: No CIT -146e- SWUMI-141S -T0 06- COti�JW(ACT8_0 (--VC4_,PIT rb(L (- 021,,jG --rC-4"-' UZL(AM -M4 I On2 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME Gjj .ADDRESS n: 5 CdV.frn CIL %fz,►" PROPERTY v NAME V' t, ftlo • � },l' n �Zfanlr-� ADDRESS PROPERTY ID#-P�--—�— NAME M �• ��,t �'(n 1� (L� �Q�Q �n ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# L02 J �� .e- zz60;Z I+vv C�o� ��&LVA 2Z6D 2. NAME I ADDRESS ( , C- e,C„ (W -c, PROPERTY ID# k `'n=L4 p2 NAME M4- "7 )�� v� 2 I� PROPERTY ID# U.VWI-2 PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS/ I �i,4,,, Q. I ( ;� Z Z oo z - ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. t ROPI 27y M 0. &ZZ e Taus 41' 9D SP(,.o iC DICQEAM 1420 2A 1a 3or --- 172 Is PC() y !' CI4bgCH PRo P�2T`r 5S2 ' !.� 7 F -v �-/O&j G LiljI r-W-cr OPF-N r, ELD Foe F t-14N1m1( 1/CEE�7-t9)3(,,E9 it-P'CK '13C2,Z)CS ANS PRapaC6 w"!41F" �aUC+�Tivr�4e, (40, c)q RROI)ci 14044 � w iv ti ' o 0 rn - w _ _ — DISTANCE TO E2TE_ 37= 790 ft DISTANCE TO CH IR HBiI-L DRIVE= 2 i00 ft. l Variab{e R-O-�/ SIGHT DISTANCE= i WO ft IG}1f-DISTAN='i:05gft W��nn GRA.%�� t TO CURVE . TO CRi`Si OF Hlll�iEK �y 45M.P.H. 8=a°�._ —-4 UYE, 600Ro � CG- 11 '— � r o VDOT 4" 1Mide Striping oo ENTRANCE - >TONET te a .TURNINc_ _ 1Lt}ER - 7 CA - 125.00 2S .. . �-IEAVY c9J - RAVEMENT- BUSINESS S 4 IN$T�L CG -12 HANDICAP / � NON-ILLUF RAMPS AT THE SITE - 34.00 25sf. IN A ENTRANCE, -AS DIRECTED / 03 �. 6ft. IN HIE "E VDOT INSPECTOR. / 40'R LIGHT PAVEMENT 50'R z en-17AACe )VS -f- 2.3�, o F RV-- X37 A/,91- , 1f Soo45 A0 6507- ry. L J 5'R `V �flri�i 5'R I v v2 n L ALLEN EBERT, z .da-. /- (LICENSE) No. 1498 4 I APPROVED WINCHESTER - FREDERICK COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FAMILY VARIANCE -LOT 2 FREDERICK COUNTY (V'-bl PLANNING DEPARTMENT IIY jl:'APT!ER 8, ARTI LE ECTION I-2-35.1.2 - 12. Additional comments, if any: M A-90 4AJ x if r G •e «Er aN TN i .S P4eo PLr,e-r y' f d 2 7 -HE P(gJ'T - vL we: IMVt EKPANnCl0 pn1. rArH YLrAt2 OC�2 1IbM� S & MI LeS +f�i2'rH�2 OtxT C�rJA2 G2��1� 6/2�l fJ I (We), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven(7) days priorthe first public hearing and maintained so as to bevis visible untiltafter the Board of Supervisors, public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. yoZ TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONTNO ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: • J • REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 20, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner 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: February 15, 2006 Postponement requested by applicant April 5, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: April 26, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 60 single family homes, and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. LOCATION: The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43 -A -15B and 43-A-16 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) South: RA (Rural Area) East: M1 (Light Industrial) & RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Orchard Use: Agriculture Use: Industrial & Vacant Use: Orchard Use: Residential & Agriculture Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: 60 Single Family Detached Residential Units REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Staff Note: The agency review comments are based on 130 single family units. The applicant did not obtain new agency comments when the application was revised to request 60 single family units. Virginia Dent. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673, 663 and 661. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Russell-Glendobbin Property rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised November 9, 2005, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. 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 Marshal: Subdivision plans shall include two separate and distinct means of access as well as extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting into the proposed site and meet the requirements of Frederick County Code section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. — Site Suitability: The discussion indicates that "the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities". As you may or may not know, the proposed rezoning site is located within a karst area of Frederick County. The karst areas surrounding this site are characterized by linear rock outcrops and isolated sinkholes. Efforts should be made to evaluate the onsite conditions to determine if sinkholes or solutioning could impact the onsite development of a small lot subdivision. The results should be included in the Environmental Features table shown on page 4 of 6. 2. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Site Drainage: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it drains to Red Bud Run". The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the available topographic survey information, it appears that the runoff leaves the proposed rezoning site in three (3) distinct directions: east, west and north. This multi -directional flow will make stormwater management a real challenge. We applaud the applicant's offer to implement BMP facilities (Proffer 10.1) to control, not only the magnitude of the flows, but also the quality of the runoff. These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. In addition, off-site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near the property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion indicates that solid waste will be collected at citizens' convenience%dumpster facilities or via private Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell -Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 3 carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. The closest existing citizen convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new development. Consequently, we are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. This requirement shall be included in the homeowners' covenants. This requirement will serve to offset the need to provide a suitable convenience site on the proposed subdivision property. This latter alternative will require the applicant to dedicate approximately one (1) acre to serve as a convenience site operated by Frederick County. Frederick County Inspections• No comment required at this time. Will comment on subdivision review. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposal provided that the 7.2 acres outside of the S WSA remain part of larger tracts within the SWSA until such time as suitable private water supplies and sewage disposal systems are located and approved, at which point the FCHD would not object to those 7.2 acres being subdivided into the two potential residential lots as mentioned in the proposal. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proposed proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate for the impact this development would have on the leisure services provided by the county. Department of GIS: Three road names will be required for this subdivision/development. Road names will be reviewed and approved during the MDP and subdivision process. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 130 single family homes will yield 22 high school students, 18 middle school students and 51 elementary school students for a total of 91 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Winchester Regional Airport:, The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Attorney:, (Based on proffer statement dated May 1, 2005) 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, and is legally sufficient as a proffer statement subject to the following: 1. Paragraph 1.2: Is this Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 4 development to be limited to any particular type of single—family detached building types, or it's to be limited to one of the specific single-family detached building types set forth in Section 165-59(B) of the Zoning Ordinance? If it is to be limited to a specific type, that should be set forth in the proffer. 2 Paragraph 2.1: I don't understand the reference to "Butcher" in this paragraph. 3. Paragraph 4.1: The time at which age restricted units would be "designated" should be specified. For example, would those units be designated at the time of subdivision? 4. Paragraph 12.1: It should be noted that the inflation adjustment calculation provides for the cap of 6% per year to be non -compounded. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the specific site, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmark Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It is also noted that the National Parks Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that his proposed rezoning would directly impact. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned R-3 (Residential General). Parcels 43-A-16 and 43-A-17 were rezoned to A-2 (Agricultural General) in 1978 (Zoning Amendment Petition #003-78). Parcels 43 -A -15A and 43-A-1 5B were re -mapped from R-3 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. 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. In 2002, parcels 43 -A -15A, 43-A-16 and 43-A-17 were subdivided to form a rural preservation subdivision (Glendobbin Ridge). 16 parcels with a minimum size of 2 acres were created, and a 40% set-aside parcel with 36.54 acres (Parcel 43-A-16) was created. As per section 165-54D (1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, this parcel cannot be further subdivided. However, Section 165-54D (3) states: "Board waiver of division restriction. Ten years from the date of the creation of any forty percent parcel and following a public hearing the Board of Supervisors may release the parcel from the restrictions of subsection D(1) through the process of rezoning, provided the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any forty percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or included within the UDA as a result of future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten year restriction on rezoning." The preservation parcel is in the UDA and the ten year period is not Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 5 required. A request for a waiver of the rural preservation lot restrictions is included with this rezoning application. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The subject sites are within the Urban Development Area (UDA). All of parcel 43-A-16 and a portion of parcel 43-A-1513 are within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Any lots formed from the subject site that are outside of the SWSA are not eligible to receive public water and sewer service. The site is not within any small area land use plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The sites have no land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. It is important to note that the properties do not have a residential designation on that plan. In the absence of any specific plans for this area, a careful evaluation of surrounding uses is necessary. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, contains two -acre lots and the large set-aside parcel. (Note: The property owners in that subdivision recently bought their lots with the expectation that the set-aside parcel would remain as such.) Also adjacent to the south and west is the Spring Valley development. While five -acre lots in this area have been platted, most are undeveloped and the area is in agricultural use. Most subdivisions along Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or greater. The parcels to the north are zoned RA and are in orchard use. A major rural subdivision (Welltown Acres Section 4) was platted there with 5 -acre lots, but it has not been developed. Three parcels immediately to the east are Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are in orchard and agricultural use. While there are specific setbacks for agriculture in the RA District (200 feet between residences and orchards, 100 feet between residences and agriculture), there are no specific setbacks in the RP zone for orchards or agricultural use. Therefore, new RP houses could be located 25 feet from the rear property line, adjacent to the existing orchard. Staff Note: On 02114/06 staff received an email from Fruit Hill Orchard, owner of the adjacent orchard and the orchard across Glendobbin Road. Fruit Hill Orchard is opposed to this rezoning because RP next to an orchard has no orchard setback. Should this application be approved, considerable thought should be given to requiring an orchard setback (200 feet) between any house and any active orchard. Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 6 Other parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use (Stonewall Industrial Park). The Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically calls for separating industrial uses from residential uses. This proposal would accomplish the opposite and considerably increase the number of residences directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. The applicant is advocating using a large number of new residences as a buffer between the industrial park and the existing low-density residential properties. New development on the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. Staff Note: Should this application be approved, considerable thought should be given to requiring a buffer between any house and any MI zoned property. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements, and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). The future Route 37 is a road improvement need that is identified in the County's Eastern Road Plan. This section of Route 37 is the highest priority in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. The applicant has proffered to survey and plat the right-of-way for Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant will dedicate this right-of-way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. The applicant intends to identify the location of Route 37 and the required road efficiency buffer at the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage. However, as the final alignment of Route 37 has not been engineered, it is not possible to definitively state how much of the site will be needed for construction of the road and for associated road efficiency buffers. Staff note: The alignment of Route 37, shown on the GDP, could change as a result offinal engineering. Should this rezoning be approved as submitted, the placement of houses on such a limited size tract would reduce flexibility in the alignment of Route 37. Variation in the route as a result of this rezoning, could require placing the road further east on the adjacent industrial land, further impacting this established industrial park. On the other hand, a site plan has been submitted for McClung -Logan site in the Stonewall Industrial Park. Approval of that site plan might necessitate moving the path of Route 37further west. (In the interest of full disclosure, it would also be worthwhile to include a note concerning the future Route 37 on any plats that might resultfrom this rezoning, should it be approved.) 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplain or Rezoning #17-05 -- Russell -Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 7 wetlands/hydrologic soils on the parcels identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick Counly. Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick-Poplimento loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C). This soil type is not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Staff Note: The Public Works Department noted the karst areas of the site which will need to be addressed at the MDP stage. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Staff Note: The TLA was based on 130 single family units. The applicant did notprepare a new TLA when the application was revised to seek only 60 single family units. Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 1,300 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that the study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the project at Level of Service C conditions or better. The TIA does not model whether traffic will exit the development from a new road on site or from Union View Lane. Local Roads The applicant is proposing one public entrance for all 60 lots in this development. The new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. A private gated connection, for emergency access, is proposed through an existing private access easement that would connect the new development to the cul-de-sac on Union View Lane. A new small cul-de-sac is also proposed on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP) Staff Notes: While staff generally encourages inter parcel connectors, one would not be required in the Subdivision Ordinance with this application. The applicant at the subdivision design stage will need to demonstrate that lots with acceptable driveways can be plaited along the new road given the steep topography. As stated in the VDOT comment, 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. This includes the entrance on Giendobbin Road which is on a hill with existing visibility problems. Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 8 B. Sewer and Water The site will be served by a gravity sewer that will be extended from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park system located south of the site. The planned extensions will occur across acreage owned by the applicant within the Stonewall Industrial Park that is adjacent to the subject site. Water service to the proposed development may be provided by one of two methods. The first is the extension of an eight inch water main from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park water system, which is served by the Stonewall Industrial Park Tank. To provide adequate pressure for both domestic and fire protection purposes, this arrangement would require installation of a booster pump station. The other option for water service would involve the extension of a high pressure main from the Northwest Water Tank transmission line into the site. These alternatives will be evaluated with FCSA staff to determine the appropriate method of water service to the project. As noted above, the portion of this site not included within the Sewer and Water ServiceArea (SWSA) will not be served by public water and sewer. The applicant will need to obtain permission from the Health Department for any lots outside of the SWSA that will require private wells and drainfields. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requestsfor land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $10,206 per residential unit. Staff Note: The Russell-Glendobbin application was received on November 28, 2005 and thus the County's old Fiscal Impact Model was used for analysis. Applications received after November 30, 2005 are expected to mitigate the impact of development calculated by the new Development Impact Model which is $23,290 for each single family detached unit. Rezoning #17-05 — Russell -Glendobbi n March 20, 2006 Page 9 5) Proffer Statement — Dated August 4, 2005, Revised March 9, 2006 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated March 9, 2006. This GDP shows (1) right -of- way dedication for Route 37 and (2) an emergency access between Union View Lane (via a private access easement) and the new development. The GDP also shows a cul-de-sac that could access the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial) property. B) Land Use The applicant has proffered to limit the development to a maximum of 60 single family detached dwelling units on lots a minimum of 20,000 square feet. The applicant has proffered a phasing plan that would allow 30 units within any 12 month period. C) Transportation As noted previously, the applicant has proffered to survey and plat the right -of- way for Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant will further dedicate this right- of -way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. The applicant will provide a private, gated connection between the internal road network and Union View Lane for emergency access. The applicant has proffered $300.00 per dwelling unit for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661). D) Monetary Contribution A monetary contribution in the amount of $10,206.00 to Frederick County, to be provided at the time of building permit issuance, is proffered in an effort to mitigate the impacts associated with this development on community facilities. A transportation contribution (see above) has also been proffered. E) Environment The applicant has proffered Best Management Practices (BMP) for stormwater management. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Two Planning Commission recommendations are required with this application: a recommendation on the rezoning request and a recommendation on the request for a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions. Denial of the waiver request would leave the application incomplete and would effectively be a recommendation of denial for the rezoning. This application is not consistent with the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The application seeks development of a housing type not found in the surrounding area and not called for on Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 10 the County's Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is adjacent to industrially zoned land and an active orchard. A dense residential development in this location is incompatible with those two uses and could prejudice the operations of the adjacent industrial sites and the orchard. The site is along the future Route 37 corridor and the final alignment of that road has not been engineered. It is thus unclear at this time how much of the site will be required for the future Route 37. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Plannin- Commission to the Board of Supervisors concernin'a this rezoning application and waiver request would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planninga Commission. OUTPUT W c APPLICANT: Russell-Glendobbin Net Fiscal Impact I LAND USE TYPE RP REAL EST VAL $17,043,000 Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Required Total Potential Adjustment For FIRE & RESCUE = 1 (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Capital Facilities col sum only) Ooer Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Taxes, Other (Unadiusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $63,567 Elementary Schools $557,399 $0 $0 $63,567 $48g j Middle Schools High.Schools $327,887 $91,202 $442,730 $480,680 $533,932 $381,727 $984,238 $7,571 Parks and Recreation $199,550 Public Library $34,692 $44,972 $44,972 $32,152 $167,398 $1,288 Sheriff's Offices Administration $20,532 $9,702 $16,823 $0 $4,193 $9,702 $21,016 $6,937 $15,025 $27,755 $213 Building $26,349 $5,506 $42 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $0 $33,616 $32,417 $35,790 $0 $0 $26,349 $203 $68,207 $48,764 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL LESS: NET F=ISCAL IMPACT $1,744,271 $140,442 $478,520 $58,868 $0 $677,830 $484,605 $1,259,666 $9,690 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $0 $0 $1,259,666 $9,690 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 I I INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.533 ----------------------- PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 ------------------------------------------ Ratio to Go Avg - 0.715 METHODOLOGY: 1. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. ------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -------------------- ----- 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations. is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated In fiscal Impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as I calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. NOTES: Model Run Date 04/27/05 CMM Project Description: Assumes 130 single family detached dwellings on 67 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. I Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- - - I I I I I I I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 1 I I I I I I COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 June 23, 2005 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Senior VP Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property Dear Chuck: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Russell- Glendobbin Property. The rezoning application seeks to rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District. Staff s review comments are listed below for your consideration. 1. Procedure. The subject property is in the Urban Development Area (UDA), therefore the applicant is eligible to seek a Board waiver of the division restriction on the set-aside (40% parcel) of the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. As per Sectionl65-54D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, this is accomplished through a rezoning, following a public hearing. Procedurally, the Board waiver and the rezoning would take place at the same public hearing. 2. Comprehensive Plan. As noted in the draft application, the subject properties are in the UDA and partially in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). I would point out that no portion of the subject sites are designated for residential use on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. Since this site is not in an area designated for residential development, it is not clear how the proposal is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As you are aware, Section 165-541)(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that a rezoning covering a preservation parcel will only be granted if the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Surrounding Area. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision contains two -acre lots and the large set-aside parcel. (Note: The property owners in that subdivision bought their lots with the clear expectation that the set-aside parcel would remain as such.) Also adjacent to the south and west are five -acre lots, which have yet to be developed. In fact, most subdivisions along 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester. Virginia 22601-5000 T Page 2 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or greater. Also critical is the fact that the parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use. While the Comprehensive Plan seeks to separate industrial uses from residential uses, this proposal would considerably increase the number of residences, and thus residents, directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. Furthermore, it appears that the proposal is advocating using a large number of new residents as a buffer between industrial and low-density residential uses. The set-aside parcel currently serves as a very satisfactory buffer. 4. Sewer and Water. Only part of the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Areas (SWSA) and thus eligible for water and sewer service. 5. Buffer. Should this application be successful, the Zoning Ordinance only requires a Category A Buffer between new RP and an existing M1 Districts. The applicant should consider enhancements to the required buffer, such as that required when new M1 locates next to existing RP. 6. Route 37. The GDP shows the future Route 37 and a proffer indicates the right-of- way for Route 37 would be dedicated to the County at no cost. Should this application be successful, the Zoning Ordinance requires buffers and screening between the residential parcels and Route 37, which would be a major arterial road. The applicant may want to consider enhancements to the required buffer and screening. Also note that the alignment of Route 37 is at present not precise, and may impact more of the site than that shown on your plans. 7. Surveyed Plat. Please supply a surveyed plat of the subject properties, which shows all property lines and proposed zoning boundary lines. Metes and bounds should be provided to verify exact locations of lots and zoning boundaries. 8. Deed. Please provide a deed to the property verifying current ownership. 9. Verification that taxes have been paid. Please provide a receipt from the Treasurer's office which verifies that real estate taxes for the properties have been paid. 10. Adjacent parcels. The list of adjoining properties should include 43-A-19 and 43- A-21. Also, ownership of parcel 43-20-3 has changed. Verify ownerships before the actual application is submitted. Page 3 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 11. Proposed Proffer Statement (Including Generalized Development Plan). A. Page 3 of the applications states the application is for 125 units. The proffer statement (1.1) states a maximum of 130 units. Please insure consistent numbers. B. Proffer 2.1 refers to the Butcher rezoning. Please correct. C. Proffer 3.1 states a contribution to the Board for fire and rescue in the amount of $889.00 per dwelling unit. This is not consistent with the amount listed on page 6 of 6 in the impact assessment. - D. Proffer 4.1 mentions units designated as "age restricted". This is not explained in the application. Please address. E. Proffer 11.1 states the applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. Specify the improvements and the timing of those improvements. F. Proffer 11.2 calls for a connection between the internal road network for the project and Glendobbin Ridge Road. Please be more specific on the details of this connection and the timing of the connection. 12. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency cominents from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Public Schools, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. Note: the proffer statement has been sent to the Frederick County Attorney by the Planning Department. 13. Virginia Department of Transportation. I have received an email from Lloyd Ingram at VDOT stating that VDOT was not satisfied with the transportation proffers. VDOT's concerns will need to be addressed before this application is submitted. 14. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $9,823 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. 15. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Please have the property owners complete the special limited power of attorney form which authorizes you to represent them during the application process. Page 4 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 All of the above comments and any agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, s� T. Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad Attachment / V f l tyCj , ► � I t f� ,JJ+ --i4. �' j�r�',..#i— I{•f ., �`,�, ,,�,;`�� ' � � !�i �r �a..�c .' t 4�' f .�� Tye J� � = i e ;h' •�./� .}7'` � yiAffi t. .r; �, k �~ ,i ,! ! � r 1 A j� L f-� �- - 'r I J•... SWSA BOANDARY �! `,ter'" lr •.: �.�?. ° !i ti'1 P i 7 — a R AS C. STONEWALL INDUSTRIAL PARK' S -• ef�dNA1i0NAL ILD E. �_—. t FEDERATI RUSSELL — GLENDOSSIN Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 0 o GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 MEOER/CK COUNTY, WROINIA 1 i 1 �9` / Btl0/�s :• h SWSA r I t Cyd' GfId tiill'Rd j f li • s" 3 s . a Subject Property g t Cance. bur ytu I� eo • d Application ^i Rt 37 Bypass l—i Parcels • Road Centerlines �SWSA i t '"wy i N UDA � "+... Trails Woods,de 1'I t 52 t a "'Ny ♦, p o t t �� Sn acs Gt yq ca F 37 rT t° - titer- B,uer, r B Cu C➢etl�.iex Ur - (- I • 0 Urban Development Area Name bine • � � _ � � �e; � Ci��naa r f 'soe G, Lm. nn'r�zaE,c•t 6 n La BTST �< 1 C�� r alp. Fig u REZ # 17- 05 N Russell - Glendobbin WB (43 -A -15B, 16) 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet f/ 11 1 � 3 a'7 Map Features Application ^i Rt 37 Bypass l—i Parcels Lakes/Ponds Road Centerlines �SWSA —i ^N^- Streams '"wy Buildings N UDA Tanks "+... Trails C➢etl�.iex Ur - (- I • 0 Urban Development Area Name bine • � � _ � � �e; � Ci��naa r f 'soe G, Lm. nn'r�zaE,c•t 6 n La BTST �< 1 C�� r alp. Fig u REZ # 17- 05 N Russell - Glendobbin WB (43 -A -15B, 16) 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet f/ 11 1 � 3 a'7 Urban Development bArea ,,; ,.� °�• u�" d �� ''I� � .t ♦.`�. �fw C t. f�ycc-r a: 1 _�. ��- �•�� ;�''�-`� ♦ • 3 1,♦.F-\ r Li O e I 1 }~ 51N5A .E. 2.r rip ��,nl]l�� y = • ♦ � �, r, j4 45,E 7.5 .A+ r`1s Pr! 1 � a .N �--• f Jy�4 .-�Y.� - �r �;..' RuiJ Subject Property460 \\\r E , w i C ' 7-TJr \ Ti HTs7 I tdrr,rpr, he �— li� Il 1i -•Y •.`- �. �.. / /!. e� v � ' r y f ' Map Features REZ # 17 - 05 e'jm;m `` R13iB�i99 �q Russell - Glendobbin �.xeuoim Read Canhrlinas (43 - A -15B, 16 ) Zoning Catagories " 0 750 1,500 3,000 WE 5 Feet SWSA V g. • x A, J Subject Property • urban Development Area A % % lA Map Features Zoning Catagories REZ # 17 - 05 Roel Centerlines B1 (Business, Neighborhood D,,41,t) O B2 (.—n—, General Dmtrmt) W MH1 (M.U. H-- C. --Y District)— = Ms (Medical G,PP.It Omt,id) Russell G l JAW B3 (B..In.ss, Ind—.1 T—ifi— Distrito R4 (H -id -1, PlannedCommunity Dim"") e n d o b b i n M EM (Extractive Manufacturing Distract) HE (Higher Ed—ti- D, -.t) R5 (R—d—VIII Recreational Community District) (R-1 A District) 43T-.euumnv 15 16) -A - WMI nd—ial,Light .-i.) O RP (Residential P --n- District) , M2 (Industrial, G.-1 District) N WE 0 750 1,500 3,000 S Feet i I I rban Development i �� Il�rs �,•• eye 6 ��. ; roti•,. s, d s �� ••,g r � � d ' q:r.•.sF:�R�,�s`y�s,;•'��`':�''3SiA�•s'rE•: i • • • - �: ro r 'errs ' °rr, ��:� .:�. �� •' � , � ��'�',r • .�:•�••;...• .•., mea ••: 3yr yy y .q•_��'��.•' I ��,� •�;'� 'yyy s � •s ti� s .� ✓ � ai • y�s�,•, ' SIG• - yp0 S'dy � y ,• O• hs+� �; 's., °' � •'y� r •'�y°• Sys yr�:;:�� <�..•: 45:4. ' �+, • �� T:' ,••,s;d'• - ,. .. q s • Srrbsr+. �; �� r ;s '•.1:+� Landuse Catagories Map Features Rural Community Center REZ # 17 - 05 Application �, Rt 37 BypassC-1 ,Parcels Residential - Business N Lakes ' Lakes/Ponds Road Centerlines Q SWSA Industrial Russell - Glendobbin - Streams Buildings �� Trails ��UDA �vE �, Institutional Recreation S (43 - A -15B, 16 ) Tanks f *5! Historic ®Mixed -Use 0 750 1,500 3,000 ®Planned Unit Development Feet PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT ^ REZONING: RZ. # RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) PROPERTY: 67.7242 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels: 43 -A -15B & 43-A-16 (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell APPLICANT: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell PROJECT NAME: Russell - Glendobbin ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: May 1, 2005 REVISION DATE(S): August 4, 2005 November 9, 2005 March 9, 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional 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 County Supervisors (the `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 term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Russell-Glendobbin Property" dated March 9, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: 1. LAND USE: 1.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 60 single family detached dwelling units. 1.2 The project shall develop solely with single family detached residential uses. The minimum lot size for said uses shall be 20,000 square feet. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Russell-Glendobbin Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. 2.2 The project shall be developed pursuant to an annualized phasing plan. Building permits for no more than 30 dwelling units shall be issued within any twelve (12) month period, beginning from the date of rezoning approval. 3. FIRE & RESCUE: 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $889.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 4. SCHOOLS: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $7,571.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 5. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,288.00 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 6. LIBRARIES: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $213.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such single family detached unit. 7. SHERIFF'S OFFICE 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $42.00 per dwelling unit for the Sheriffs Office upon issuance of building permit for each such unit. 8. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $203.00 per dwelling unit for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of building permit for each such unit. 9. WATER & SEWER: 9.1 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. 10. ENVIRONMENT: 10.1 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 which results in the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 11. TRANSPORTATION: 11.1 Transportation improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent with the study entitled, "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Russell-Glendobbin Property," prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc, dated May 4, 2005 (the "TIA"). The Applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. 11.2 The right of way for VA Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the GDP will be surveyed and platted. The Applicant will cause the dedication of this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. (See 2 on GDP) 11.3 The Applicant shall provide a private, gated connection between the internal road network for the project and Union View Lane for emergency access. Said connection shall be extended from the Property across the existing 50 -foot access easement within the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision to the current terminus of Union View Lane. (See 3 on GDP) 11.4 The Applicant shall place the amount of $300.00 per dwelling unit in an escrow account for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661). Such funds shall be escrowed at the time of building permit issuance for each residential unit, and shall be released to the County within 90 days of a written request by the County. 12. ESCALATOR CLAUSE: 12.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors (`Board") within 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 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non - compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Respectfully submitted, Glen W. Russell By: Title: Pamela L. Russell Title: () (.v-w—GL— STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i� day of VVIa" , 2006, by lid► 1- �s My commissio s Notary PublicI.- V%V-Wv�—: A Traffic Impact Analysis of Located in: x, l ederick Comity, Virginia Prepared for: Glen W. Russell 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 Prepared by: Patton Harr -is Rust & Ass-ociates, pc Engineers, Surveyors. Planners. LcndscgDe Architects. 3D0 Foxcroff Avenue, Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 May 04, 2005 Frederick County, Virginia IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF TIE Stonewall Magisterial District March 2006 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540-667-2139 Fax: 540-665-0493 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement U RUSSELL — GLENDOI3DIN PROPERTY REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT March 2006 A. INTRODUCTION The 67.7242 acre Russell—Glendobbin property lies wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) of Frederick County, with the majority of the acreage also within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The site is located adjacent to the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision, a rural preservation subdivision created by the applicant that is currently developing with single family detached units on 2 -acre lots. The proposed development of the Russell—Glendobbin property will provide a transition from the more intensive land uses within Stonewall Industrial Park to the low density residential development pattern that extends north and west from this area. Approximately 37 acres of the site are platted as the preservation parcel of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. This acreage is normally reserved exclusively for open space or agricultural uses; however, Section 165-54D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows the Board of Supervisors to release a preservation parcel that is within the UDA from such development restrictions through the rezoning process "provided that the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time." The rezoning of the site for single family residential development is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which expressly calls for suburban residential uses to predominate within the UDA. The portion of the UDA wherein the Russell-Glendobbin property is located represents a transitional area that includes light industrial, low density residential, and agricultural land uses. The proposed rezoning will enable development of single family detached lots that will complement and be compatible with the transitional character of the area. Moreover, the integration of varying lot sizes and types will create an alternative residential development pattern that will ultimately enhance consumer choice and foster a dynamic housing market, both of which are key objectives of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate the impacts of this development while simultaneously contributing to the regional transportation network. The single family residential land use envisioned for the site is compatible with the surrounding community and consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. As such, this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. Page 1 of 6 3/2006 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement E. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The subject acreage is located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The site is not located within the boundaries of any small area plan included in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and is therefore not subject to a specific planned land use designation. In the absence of such a designation, the general policies that govern the UDA and suburban residential land uses, respectively, combine to provide guidance concerning the appropriate use of the acreage. These policies stipulate that suburban residential land uses are intended to predominate inside the UDA, within which the public facilities necessary to support such uses either exist or are planned for expansion. As described in the introductory section of this report, the portion of the UDA wherein the Russell-Glendobbin property is located represents a transitional area that includes light industrial, low density residential, and agricultural land uses. The proposed rezoning will enable development of single family detached traditional lots that will complement and be compatible with the transitional character of the area. By introducing alternative lot sizes served by public facilities to an area of relatively low residential densities, this proposal will result in an appropriately diverse residential development pattern that will enhance consumer choice and support a vibrant land market, which the Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies as desired outcomes of the UDA concept. It is noted that the UDA boundary extends well beyond the subject acreage to include the Apple Pie Ridge Road area. The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that this area is included in the UDA due to its prevailing lot pattern, but that public facilities are not intended for extension to this established residential enclave. Implied by this statement is that suburban residential densities are not envisioned for the Apple Pie Ridge Road area regardless of its location within the UDA. Despite its proximity to the Apple Pie Ridge Road area, the use of the Russell — Glendobbin property is not similarly impacted by this unique adaptation of UDA policy. The principal factor distinguishing the site is the location of the majority of its acreage not only within the UDA, but also the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). As such, public water and sewer facilities may clearly be extended to the site thereby assuring its capacity to develop with the residential densities envisioned within the UDA. The proposed rezoning of the subject acreage from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) is consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Page 2 of 6 3/2006 Russell - Glendobbin C. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Site Background and History Impact Analysis Statement The Russell-Glendobbin property consists of two parcels, one of which is 36.5389 acres (Parcel A) in size and the other 31.1853 acres (Parcel B). The entire area of the site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Parcel A is the preservation parcel ("40% parcel") of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision, a rural preservation subdivision totaling sixteen lots that was approved by Frederick County in 2002. Parcel A is situated at the south end of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision adjacent to Stonewall Industrial Park. Parcel B extends north from Parcel A to Glendobbin Road, and is immediately east and adjacent to lots 3 through 16 of Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. It is important to note that the acreage comprising the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision was located within the UDA at the time of subdivision approval. Moreover, the majority of the acreage is situated within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), which confirms its eligibility for service with public water and sewer facilities. B. Location and Access The Russell--Glendobbin property consists of 67.7242 acres of land located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (VA Route 663), within the Stonewall Magisterial District. The site is adjacent to the currently developing Glendobbin Ridge subdivision, and is accessible directly from Glendobbin Road. Primary project access will occur through an entrance on Glendobbin Road. A secondary point of access will be established for emergency vehicles through the existing Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision. C. Site Suitability The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. The following table provides an area summary of environmental features: Page 3 of 6 3/2006 Russell - Glendobbin Environmental Features Total Project Area Area in Flood Plain Area in Steep Slopes Area in Wetlands Lakes & Ponds 67.7242 Acres 0.00 Acres 0% 0.00 Acres 0% 0.00 Acres 0% 0.00 Acres 0% Impact Analysis Statement The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento- Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick- Poplimento loams, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C), as shown on map sheet number 24 of the survey. This soil type is not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. D. Traffic A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 1,300 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions. (see Figure 9, A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin, dated May 4, 2005) From a regional perspective, the planned path of VA Route 37 shown on the Eastern Road Plan crosses the southeast corner of the property. The Applicant has proffered to dedicate this area to Frederick County to ensure protection of the right of way necessary for future construction of this roadway. E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply The site will be served by adequately sized gravity sewer that will be extended from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park system located south of the site. The planned extensions will occur across acreage owned by the Applicant within Stonewall Industrial Park that is adjacent to the subject site. There are no identified issues with the gravity connection of sewer to the existing Stonewall Industrial Park sewer system. Approximately 316,000 square feet (7.2 acres) of the site resides outside of the SWSA. This portion of the property could be developed with the Single-family detached rural traditional housing type which allows 100,000 square foot lots, without public sewer and water. Necessary road construction across this area to Page 4 of 6 3/2006 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement serve the remainder of the site would limit the number of dwellings on private health systems and water supply to a maximum of two. Water service to the proposed development may be provided by one of two methods. The first is the extension of an 8 inch water main from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park water system, which is served by the Stonewall Industrial Park Tank. To provide adequate pressure for both domestic and fire protection purposes, this arrangement would require installation of a booster pump station. The other option for water service would involve the extension of a high pressure main from the Northwest Water Tank transmission line into the site. These alternatives will be evaluated with FCSA staff to determine the appropriate method of water service to the project. A maximum of 60 single family detached homes will be served by public water and sewer within the proposed development. The demand for water and discharge for sewer is therefore projected at approximately 12,000 gpd. All facilities constructed and installed on the site will meet FCSA requirements for its ultimate ownership and maintenance. F. Site Drainage Site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south, as it drains to Red Bud Run. It is anticipated that low impact development techniques together with good erosion control practice will mitigate adverse stormwater discharge impacts. The preservation of riparian buffers containing mature woodlands will provide significant mitigation of nutrient losses. Actual specification of temporary and permanent facilities will be provided with final engineering and will comply with all County, State and Federal regulations. G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Assuming maximum build -out at 60 single family detached homes, it is projected that each dwelling will produce approximately 12 lbs. of solid waste per day for a total of 720 lbs. per day (.36 T/day) for the project. Solid waste from the project will be deposited in the Frederick County landfill following collection at citizen convenience/dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. H. Historic Sites and Structures The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any potentially significant structures on the subject 67.7242 acres or within close proximity of the properties. The subject properties are not located within the study boundary or core area of any identified Civil War battlefield. Page 5 of 6 3/2006 Russell - Glendobbin Impact on Community Facilities Impact Analysis Statement The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model was run by planning staff to project the fiscal impact on community facilities attributable to the proposed rezoning. The applicant has offered per unit monetary contributions with the proffer statement equivalent to the calculated impacts to mitigate the effects on Frederick County. Specifically, the applicant has proffered to contribute $10,506 per unit at the time of building permit issuance. The total contribution is proffered to be allocated as follows: a Fire and Rescue: $889.00 per unit ■ Public Schools: $7,571.00 per unit ■ Recreation & Parks: $1,288.00 per unit ■ Library: $213.00 per unit ■ Sheriff's Office: $42.00 per unit ■ Administration: $203.00 per unit Offsite Road Improvements: $300.00 per unit TOTAL: $10,506 per unit An escalator clause is included with the proffer statement to mitigate the effects of inflation on the value of the proffered monetary contributions. This provision stipulates that any monetary contributions proffered by the applicant that are paid after 30 months from the date of rezoning approval will be adjusted pursuant to the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI -U). Page 6 of 6 3/2006 Jf flip Cal •«`� II SWSP160UNDAR^Yt� I A d,t I Q i BR ASSOC I .I !f _ STONEWALL " f INiDUSTPIAL PARK - fw�,— NATIONAL WILDf FE FEDERATION Russell - Gendobbi 2 _ ALE IcC„ grin Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 30 rF, Mar Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 -�- ` Martinsburg, West Virginia 25454 01 - PT 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 Memorandum To: Susan Eddy Organization/Company: Frederick County Planning Department From: Michael Glickman, P.E. Date: February 13, 2006 Addendum to: A Tra -c Imbact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin. dated Project Name/Subject: May 2005 y PHR+A Project file Number: 13543-1-0 cc: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this addendum as an update to the report titled: A Traffic Imvact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin by PHR+A, dated May 2005. The purpose of this addendum is to provide revised levels of service for the intersections of Route 11/Welltown Road during 2008 background and build -out conditions. The May 2005 report included typographical errors and therefore inaccurately represented levels of service at this intersection. Figures 1 and 2 show the revised lane geometry and levels of service at the intersection of Route 11/Welltown Road for 2008 background and build -out conditions, respectively. Levels of service worksheets remain consistent with the May 2005 report and therefore not included with this memorandum. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Addendum to: A Tra_ tc ImPact Analysis of Ru sell-Glendobbin, dated May 2005 Me m 0r n d u m Page 2 Denotes s' op sign control ® Denotes traffic signal control Denotes Unsignalized 'Critical Mevement AIvII Peak Dour (iIIW Peale Hour) Figure 1 2��8 Background Lace Gzametry end Levels of Service Patton Harris Post & Associates, pc Memorandum Addendum to: A Trak Im act Anal ry is of Russell-Glendobbin, Page 3 dated May 2005 a No Scale 139 673 Ave, oaa 9J9� * 661 Unsignalized Nr9JY ,r C(B�{ Intersection k`1lPc L 'a Unsignalized Intersection [ 673 oaf C 4 Q n a .pairLane� Hill Roary h e 673 �0 b' o�. d G N` w 66 SITE, �F x 739 Signalized Intersection Gee\ LOS=CB) G� ll 739 V Unsignalized Intersection° `* d Denotes stop sign control ® Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement �t 'ie� -D + A AM Peak Hour (PNI Peak Hour) 8 Figure 2 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels o- Mer Vice OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Russell-Glendobbin development located to the south of Glendobbin Road (VA Route 673), between Apple Pie Ridge Road (VA Route 739) and Welltown Road (VA Route 661), in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is comprised of a maximum of 130 single-family detached residential units with access to be provided via a site -driveway located along the south side of Glendobbin Road. Build -out will occur over a single transportation phase by the year 2008.. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Russell-Glendobbin development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Russell-Glendobbin development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: Assessment of background traffic including growth rates and other planned projects in the area of impact, a Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Russell-Glendobbin development, a Distribution. and assignment of the Russell-Glendobbin development generated trips onto the completed study area road network;, Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. El MSTING CONDITIONS Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route ll/Welltown Road, Welltown Road/Payne Road (VA Route 663), Glendobbin Road/Payne Road, Apple Pie Ridge Road/Glendobbin Road and Apple Pie Ridge Road/Hill Road (VA Route 673). Additionally, 24-hour automatic "tube" counts were conducted along Glendobbin Road at the approximate location of the proposed Russell-Glendobbin site -driveway. PHR+A established the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of the study area roadway links using an average "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 8% as determined from the 2003 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data .and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix'section of this report. e A Traj7c Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 L Page I r� No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analvsis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543 -1 -0 - May 04, 2005 Page 3 1 No Scale x � Unsignaiized, Intersection Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Lvisting Lane Geo. -m -try and Levels of Seryce e & g A Tra c Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 9 FR May 04, 2005 a Page 4 2008 ]BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR+A applied a conservative annual growth rate of four percent (4%) to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain 2008 base conditions. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site were included: Based upon the 7`h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the "other developments" surrounding the site. Figure 4 shows the 2008 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 5 shows the respective 2008 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 2008 "(Ether Developments" Trip Generation Surnmary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Star Fart* 210 Single -Family Detached 70 units 15 44 58 50 28 78 700 Total 15 44 .58 50 ' 28 78 700 ,.Regents Crescent+ -. 210 Single -Family Detached 28 units 7 22 29 22 12 34 280 230 Townhouse/Condo 42 units 4 21 26 20 10 30 365 Total 12 43 55 42 2264 645 Rutherford's Farm Industral Park 130 Industrial Park 420,000 SF 307 67 374 81 305 386 2,923 Total 307 67 374 81 305 386 2,923 Stephenson Village 210 Single -Family Detached 400 units 72 217 289 235 138 373 4,000 230 Townhouse/Condo 300 units 21 103 124 99 49 148 2,610 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 531 units 45 73 117 100 64 164 2,238 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 144 units 5. 6 12 10 6 16 501 520 Elementary School 550 stud. 94 65 160 2 4 6 710 Total 1 237 465702 445 251 706 10,059 Adjacent Residential Development (west of Russell-Glendobbin) 210 Single -Family Detached 16 units 5 16 21 13 7 21 160 Total 5 16 21 13 7 21 160 Note: Although Star Fort and Regents Crescent are located along Route 522, the traffic generated will impact Route I I/Route 37 and therefore were included in analyses. J A Traffic .Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number:_ 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 5 i No Scale ar AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) A Traffic lmpactAnalysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number. 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 6 r� No Scale Denotes stop sign control Demotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hoag) Figure 5 2008 Backgrcnnd Lane Geometry and bevels i f Service I� A Traffic ImpactAnalysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number. J.3543-1=0 May 04, 2005 i Page 7 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7`h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2 was prepared to summarize the total trip generation associated with the Russell-Glendobbin development. - . Table 2 Russell-Glendobbin Developinent Trip Generation Summary TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The -distribution of trips was based upon local travel pattems for the roadway network surrounding the Russell-Glendobbin development. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to - assign the proposed Russell-Glendobbin trips (Table 2) throughout the study area. Figure 7 shows the respective development - generated ADT and AM/PM peak hour trip assignments. 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIW-IS The Russell-Glendobbin. assigned trips (Figure 7) were then added to the .2008 'background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of the report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Russell-Glendobbin development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS -2000 results, each of the study area intersections, will operate with levels of service "C" or. better during 2008 build -out conditions. A Traf w ImpactAnalvsis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 -L �L a s Page 8 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 130 units 25 75 100 87 49 136 1,300 Total 1 25 75 100 1 87 49 136 1 1,300 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The -distribution of trips was based upon local travel pattems for the roadway network surrounding the Russell-Glendobbin development. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to - assign the proposed Russell-Glendobbin trips (Table 2) throughout the study area. Figure 7 shows the respective development - generated ADT and AM/PM peak hour trip assignments. 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIW-IS The Russell-Glendobbin. assigned trips (Figure 7) were then added to the .2008 'background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of the report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Russell-Glendobbin development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS -2000 results, each of the study area intersections, will operate with levels of service "C" or. better during 2008 build -out conditions. A Traf w ImpactAnalvsis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 -L �L a s Page 8 A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 a Page 9 � � s No Scale Figure 7 N Qr 11`391 U1 J. n1� -P � ivjjj e SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Weak Hour) jjzzjj1 € 11 1 Development -Generated Trip Assignments _ AA Trac FactAnalysis offussell-Glendobbinl�actAnalysis offussell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 10 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 2008 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 11 f� No Scale c �f ao �en oai g Unsignalized` Intersection a � o jPteYsec tp lP s a C7 673�yq 4 T J+ A Unsignalized Intersection SITE Signalized Intersection_y" -1gl LOS=B(B) acs u Zoe �c .110e� rJ i ]' Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) I AL Figure g 2308 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin 1 o s Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 s Pane 12 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNT', VIRGINIA To be completed byP1ant�rngStaff ,, � ��Lh Fee Amount Paid ' Zo�v%g Amendment Numier Date Ftecezt?ed' MVI BOS Hearuig Date �(/ ; 41 w 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. A,.pplaczHt: Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates pc (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different that above) Name: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell Telephone: 540-662-7083 Address: 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr. P.E. (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 1 S. 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: Glen W. Russell Pamela L. Russell 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached Pi*—RCEL fly NUMBER USE Undeveloped RP -Single Family Detached Z®NfiNG 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (VA Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (VA Route 663). 2 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. x a. cel Identification/L ocation: Parcel Identification Number 43 -A -15B & 43-A-16 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: Stonewall Clearbrook Clearbrook Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School James Wood James Wood Stonewall 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoain Zoning Request d 67.73 RA RP 67.73 Total acreage to be Yezoned 11. The foKowing information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home 130 Townhome Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office Service Station Retail Manufacturing Restaurant Warehouse Other 3 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) 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. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. ,'/ Applicant(s Owner(s) Patton Harris Rust & zlr-� (..) -a=214 q Glen W. Russell Pamela L. Russell Date 911,6"� �— Date Y-//- o Date q � �� G S 4 JOV'�TEPaB RUSSELL-- GLENDOBBIY Adid ring Property Ovvners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is 2ny property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right -mf -way, a private right -of -sway, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Con=ssioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2' floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Address PreFerty Identification Number (PIN) Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-A-13 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-A-14 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-A-11 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Betty G. McKown 223 Payne Road Property #: 43-A-15 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Lenoir City Company (M1) P.O. Box 1657 Property #: 43-19-2 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-73 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-72 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property-#: 43-9-4-71 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-70 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-68 Winchester, VA 22602 5 Name and Address Property Identification. Number (PIN) Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-67 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-66 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-64 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Harley E. & Roxanne L. Ostlund 1950 Kathy Court Property ##: 43-20-15 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Glen W. & Pamela L. Russell 270 Panarama Drive Property #: 43-20-16 Winchester, VA 22603 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-13 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-10 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-9 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-7 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-6 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-5 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: Ralph A. & Theresa K. Kaiser 6029 Sumner Road Property #: 43-20-4 Alexandria, VA 22310 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-3 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: KSS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property V: 43-12-3-18 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: KSS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property#: 43-12-3-1 Winchester, VA 22604 Special Liras ted Powey- of A..ta>! ney Cmu,, ty of Frederick, Wrginla Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederlck.,Fa,us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Nortth Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) Glen W. Russell and Pamela L. Russell (Phone) 662-7083 (Address) 270 Panarama Drive, Winchester 22603 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument Number(s) 040026114 and 030000473 and is described as Parcels:_ 15B, 16 Lot: Block: A Section/Tax Map:.43 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) PHRA — Charles, E. Maddox, Jr., (Phone) 667-2139 Wdress) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601 _ o act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits lkaster Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: N/A This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. �r In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this _�J day of &e 200 a , Signature(s e n State of irginia, City/County of —To -wit - 1, To-wit:I,_ g a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally agi eared before me a4ha ow�l%edged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this / / day of4 200 S`. ' ��► '�- My Commission Expires: ublic FINAL PIAT RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDMSION GLENDOBSIN RIDGE o STONEWALL DISTRICT- N FREDI=RICK COUNTY, VIRGIhtIA c�) SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I. David M. Furstenau, a duty authorized Land Surveyor, do hereby certify that the land in this subdivision Is In the names of Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell and Is all of the land conveyed to them by deed dated March 29, 2002 and recorded among the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County aj Instrument number 020005243. David M.'Ea M*au L.S. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Above and foregoing subdivision of the land of Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell as appears in the accompanying plat is with the free consent and In accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors or Glan W. Russell State of Virginia City/ unty ofd notary public In and for the State of VErginia and the City/County of do hereby carfify that this day personally appeared before me, Glen W. Russell and Pamela L. Russell whose names are signed to the above Owner's Certificate dated September 11, 2002 and ackn ed to a ante re ma in my state and city/county as aforesaid. Notary Public Given under my hand this day of 2002 My commission explTes APPROVALS FURSTERTAU SURVEYING (540) 66244 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET - WINCHESTER, VIRGR JA 22601 DATE SEPT: 16, 2002 43-4 MoRN�s -21 AGf tts ,L rUR cn ' Cmco 6 O DA 1D M. FUR$TMAU CoOD -aw NO. 1455 Cn rl m r I� �94L� SU �� m m Q Ct o m rn N The Proposed Private drisvmy/rood Is not bunt ocm ding to at►edt 4mcifictliona of Ond wIN not bs mminlaltied by. the Wginia Dopurtrmnt of Ttsneports ksrr or Froftlett County. The Itr:."- ment snd maintenowr-s of OW rJrhlw�jVroed chap be The sole responsiWity of the ckoace 1�l iota nNcl. ere pmoidod with acetas vis- the driveway/ road. Ifrslti d"IVOarrOy/roods will not bo- comidered for Incky"n info *4 Vate mimndory system until they meet fha applicable construction mtandards of the Virginia DaPertm'Dnt of Trenaloottetion. The cost of ' bringing said ddyv�y/road to occep%W & fwrtit shell not be borne by the Vrrginis Depatlment Of ftn9portal;ion nor by Roderick County. FINRL PLRT RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION GLENDOBBIN RIDGE 5TONEVRLL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA `-`1 STRING VALLEY SUED. SECTION 4 I^ I z lot 73 ALL LOTS IN THE NAME OF MASHALL MILLS INC. 43-9-73 , lot 72 RA ; lot 71 RA � lot 74 RA RA VACANT '43-9-72 VACANT 43-9-7f VACANT' VACANT r 67.41'17" E N 68001 '07 " W 1519.94' _ 43-9-70 50' BEL 40 % RESERVE LOT 36.5387 AC. (CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED t PER SECTION 165-54D OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE) 34 �a O fl' rBRAIN a - r U" lAU SURIVEYING (540) 662-9323 1.11 SOUM IrC'UDGUN STREET WINC�STEP. VIRGTNIIA 22601 J G LOT (5 i rev 10110.'02 DATE: SEPT. 16, 2002 SCALE: 1" - 250' � E 1 20� r -. a o � $O•'BRL 0 S 68009'59"E 1220 MCKOIWN �'/ 43-A-15 ILOT RA VACANT 16 I r U" lAU SURIVEYING (540) 662-9323 1.11 SOUM IrC'UDGUN STREET WINC�STEP. VIRGTNIIA 22601 J G LOT (5 i rev 10110.'02 DATE: SEPT. 16, 2002 SCALE: 1" - 250' REZONING APPLICATION #03-06 O -N MINERALS (CIIEMSTONE) Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 20, 2006 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: April 5, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: April 26, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. LOCATION: The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758) and west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). MAGIS'T'ERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMl3>uRS: 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: EM (Extractive Manufacturing) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) T'ROPOSED USES: Quarry Use: Residential Use: Shenandoah County Use: Residential/Agricultural Use: Residential/Agricultural Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of 'Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 757. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Global Stone Chemstone Corporation rezoning application dated June 13, 2005 address transportation concerns associated with this request. 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 Marshal: Will not directly effect fire and rescue. Plan approval recommended. (Department of Inspections: Demolition permit required prior to removing any existing structures. No additional comments required. Public Works Denartment: Refer to page 4, Environmental Features: The discussion indicated that an environmental report prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) was included with the impact statement as Appendix "A". A copy of this report was not included with our submittal. Please provide us with a copy of this report for our review. Refer to page 6, Soils/Geology: The geology discussion should be expanded to include hydrogeology and the impact of the project on the local groundwater. In particular, the subdivisions which rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. General: The impact analysis has not addressed one very important item related to a rezoning from RA to EM. That item is the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings. This issue should also be expanded to include the impact of dust on adjacent residential dwellings. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: The Frederick County Sanitation Authority supports this rezoning request. The Authority will use these pits, when abandoned, as a source of water supply under an agreement with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation, dated March 2, 2000. Larger pits will provide a more abundant supply and reliable source of water. Larger pits are also more cost effective for the Authority to develop as a water supply. That benefits the residents of Frederick County that depend upon the Authority for water service. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection if there is to be no increase in water use which would require sewage disposal. CIS: No road/name requirements noted. Any road network that provides primary access to four or more occupied business structures shall be names. Numbering will be assigned as applicable. Rezoning 403-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 3 Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Winchester Regional Airport: Allowed uses under this rezoning should not effect airside operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Town of Middletown: The Middletown Planning Commission, while not opposed to the project, is opposed to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown and has concerns about the effect of excavation on the water table. Frederick County Attorney: No comments at this time (forthcoming). Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please seethe attached letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice K Perkins, Planner H. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Middletown 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 flan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County., [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-]J Land Use The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located within the Rural Areas of Frederick County. This land use designation is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as all areas outside of the designated Urban Development Area. The primary land uses in the Rural Areas are agriculture and forests. The primary growth pattern consisting of widely scattered, large lot residential development. Many residents of Frederick County are attracted to the natural beauty Rezoning 403-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 4 and special lifestyle found in rural portions of the County. Excessive or inappropriate development in these areas can reduce their value and attractiveness. At the same time, the rural areas play an important role in the County's economy through the income generated by agriculture. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-551 The subject property contains areas of prime agricultural soils which are generally located in the limestone belt running north -south through the County. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value to the County's economy of the limestone resources within the County and the extraction of these natural resources. Within the Business and Industrial Area policies it is recognized that policies are needed and standards should be developed concerning how to deal with new requests for large mining operations [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-11, 6-72]. The Rural Areas Conclusion states that most of the County will continue to be rural areas used for agriculture, forests, or low density residential uses. Certain types of business uses may be located at scattered rural locations if safe access is available, and if adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the rural environment can be avoided. These rural business and industrial uses should be those that provided services to rural areas or that are more appropriate in rural areas than urban areas. The locations for such business would include major intersections or locations with recent or existing business activity [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-601 Two of the identified goals of the Rural Area policy are to maintain the rural character of areas outside the UDA and to protect the rural environment [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-76]. Environment After describing the physical characteristics of the County, the Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses Water Supply. Issues concerning water quality, quantity, use, and protection of water resources are directly related to land development activities. Water supplies are needed to support development, while surface and groundwater are potentially affected by development activities [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3]. Major sources of water used in the County are groundwater and the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. In 2000, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority entered a seventy year lease with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (Global). Global owns quarries at Clearbrook, Middletown, and Strasburg. The lease provides the water from these quarries as a source of supply and transfers title of the quarries to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority when the mining operations are complete. The agreement has provided a viable long term source of water for the County [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-31 Groundwater is the major source of water supply in the rural portions of the County and provides a potential alternative source for urban areas. In all, over half the population of the County relies on groundwater as the sole source of water supply. The most productive aquifers in the County are the 'limestone -carbonate aquifers [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5- 3, 5-4]. Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 5 Histo The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located adjacent to Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield are historic sites in Frederick County that are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Cedar Creek is identified as one of six battlefields of great national importance that are located in Frederick County and Winchester. The Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County further identifies both sites as potentially significant properties. In addition, the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property as being within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Significant portions of Cedar Creek, along with Third Winchester and Kernstown battlefields provided the critical mass and the foundation for the Battlefield Network Plan which was adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 13, 1995, and subsequently incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts from the Battlefield Network Plan have been provided for your information. The Battlefield Network Plan and the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley were important catalysts for the designation of the regional Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District which was created by Congress in 1996. More recently, the efforts of the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Foundation and the National Park Service continue to further historic preservation efforts relating to the civil war battlefields located in Frederick County and the broader region. To address the historic preservation policy goal of protecting the historic resources in Frederick County, The Comprehensive Plan provides that the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) review development proposals which potentially impact significant historic resources and that the HRAB's information and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB facilitated the involvement of the historic preservation stakeholders in the review of this rezoning request. The recommendation of the HRAB accompanies this report and will be discussed in greater detail later in the report. Identified implementation methods for promoting the preservation and protection of Civil War Battlefield resources include the preservation and protection of the historical appearance and character of the key battlefield sites, their viewsheds, and their approaches, and the coordination of the battlefield efforts with efforts to protect and preserve natural, visual, and environmental resources [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 2-11-13]. Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does not cover this portion of the County. The properties are located in the Rural Area of the County. A large portion of the roads within the County are currently inadequate to meet the needs of the areas they serve. There is a need to insure that improvements to existing rural roads continue to be made in a systematic way and that new rural roads are provided as needed [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-1]. Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 6 In general, the Comprehensive Plan states that a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments within the County. The applicants Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) seeks to address the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request. 3) Site Suitability/Environment Both properties contain environmentally sensitive areas. The applicant has identified wetlands, streams, and floodplains, and areas of mature woodlands on the properties. Exhibits have been provided that depict these environmental features. Any disturbance of identified environmental resources would occur in conformance with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations. Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are the existing streams that traverse the subject properties. Both streams have associated floodplain designations. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Vir inia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. Multiple soil types are located on the sites. The site contains soil types that are considered prime agricultural soils. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. It is recognized that the limestone deposits that underlie the properties provide the ideal geological conditions for Extractive Manufacturing use. In addition, the most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers that are present in this area. 4) Potential Impacts Potential Impact SummanL In evaluating the O -N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application it is very important to recognize that the applicant has not proffered a commitment to the use of the property beyond those which would be enabled by the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. All land uses, meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application as submitted. The County is familiar with the operation and practices of the existing Middletown Quarry operation and recognizes that the purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the expansion of the existing limestone ore extraction operation onto adjacent properties, utilizing this natural resource. However, lacking a commitment that seeks to further define the scope of operations, this application should be evaluated carefully and with the understanding that the use of the properties could be more intensive than that described in the applicant's impact statement. Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 7 Consideration should be given to the maximum possible intensity of EM (Extractive Manufacturing) use identified in the County's Zoning Ordinance (a copy of the EM (Extractive Manufacturing District has been provided for your review). The impacts associated with this rezoning request may be significant and should be understood. The applicant should be prepared to address the mitigation of the impacts associated with this rezoning request, in particular, those impacts and issues identified by the reviewing agencies. Guarantees in the form of proffered conditions have not been offered to ensure that the impacts generated by this application are limited and consistent with the discussion in the Impact Statement. The applicant has the ability to address this through the Proffer Statement. When considering the acreage potential, the dimensional requirements, and the EM District uses, it is possible that facilities located adjacent to and with access from Chapel Road could result, as could facilities located within 50 feet of the adjacent RA zoned property surrounding the site. The scope of the impacts could exceed the projections identified and accommodated in the impact statement and TIA. A. Historic Resources The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the O -N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application during their December 20, 2005 meeting. Invited to attend the meeting by the HRAB were representatives of the various historical and cultural groups considered stakeholders in relationship to the historical resources in the vicinity of the rezoning. The following stakeholder groups were represented: Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, National Park Service, and the Town of Middletown. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion ofthe property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. The property also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The HRAB expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was not protecting the viewshed of the battlefield and the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB expressed that they could support the approval of this project if the suggestions offered as a result of the HRAB meeting are considered by the applicant in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources (Please see HRAB letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Planner H). Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 8 The applicant has modified their rezoning application in an effort to address two of the nine comments suggested by the HRAB. However, many of valid recommendations offered by the HRAB have not been addressed. Two of the most significant and constructive comments offered by the HRAB (the first two comments in the letter from the HRAB) should be further satisfied to ensure that the potential impacts associated of the rezoning are appropriately addressed. Presently, they have not been addressed in a manner that satisfies the concerns expressed by the HRAB. The opportunity has been provided for the applicant to work with the identified stakeholders, Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and the National Park Service, to prepare a view shed mitigation plan that addresses the unique view sheds and approaches critical to their particular points of view. Understanding their points of view, a tailored approach that integrates the natural landscape with customized berming and landscaping would promote an approach to the view shed management that mitigates the visual impacts of the mining operations in an effective manner. A customized approach to the buffering, berming, and landscaping would be more appropriate than the present approach proposed in the proffer statement. In certain locations, particularly on the southern property (90-A-23), designating areas of non disturbance would preserve the existing landscape and by taking advantage of the topography effectively mitigate the visual impacts of the mining operations. A strategic approach to the location and size of the waste stockpiles identified on the exhibits should also be a consideration. Current practice at the existing facility with regards to the stockpiling of overburden should be avoided in the future. Approaches to addressing the visual impacts of the proposed operations should be more detailed and should be incorporated into the proffer statement. The applicant has provided for the dedication to Belle Grove of approximately eight acres as an historic reserve. This is in an area where archeological resources associated with the Belle Grove Plantation have previously been identified. A time frame has been provided for the dedication of this acreage. The HRAB suggested that a Phase 1 Archeological Survey should be done on the property focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted subsequent studies should be performed. The applicant has proffered to complete a Phase 1 Archeological Survey of the property in the future. However, no commitments have been made beyond a Phase 1 Survey. It should be clarified that the Survey would be applicable to parcel 90-A-23 in addition to the stated parcel 83-A-109. The goal of the HRAB comments is to enable the mining operations to expand in a manner which is not detrimental to the historical context of the surrounding landscape. Further, to promote an approach that is mutually beneficial to the applicant, historic preservation stakeholders, and tr adjacent community. The HRAB comments provide the opportunity for O -N Chemstone to continue to address the needs of the community, minimizing the impacts of their operations in a Rezoning 403-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 9 manner that is compatible with the surrounding community, in a manner described in their Impact Statement. B. Transportation Much of the analysis in the Impact Statement is based upon the continuation of the existing practices of the Middletown quarry operation. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the impact statement suggests that the vehicle trips would increase by more than double from the existing count of 506 vehicles per day to 1,305 vehicle trips per day. A more significant increase in Global Stone truck traffic is anticipated in the TIA from 19 trucks per day to 80 per day and an increase of 56 customer truck trips per day. It should be recognized that a different combination or additional uses may further increase the traffic impacts associated with this request. As evidenced at the existing Strasburg facility, additional traffic impacts could be experienced from a more intensive use of the property than is currently envisioned. Primary access to the site is depicted as being from the existing site entrance along Route 625 (5th Street) to U.S. Route 11, Main Street in the Town of Middletown. The Town has expressed their opposition to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown. A significant amount of discussion regarding the inter -site transfer of materials via a conveyor belt system is offered in the impact statement. No mention of this approach has been provided in the Proffer Statement. Therefore, this approach should not presently be part of the consideration of this rezoning request. As demonstrated in the TIA, a level of service C or better would be achieved at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 625 (5th Street). Consideration should be given to the character of the traffic generated from the facility and utilizing the aforementioned intersection. B. Mining Operations and. Community Impacts Associated with mining operations is the potential for a variety of impacts that may affect surrounding properties and land uses. The Division of Mineral Mining of the Virginia Department of Mines is responsible for permitting mining operations within the State of Virginia including the operations of O -N Chemstone at the Middletown Quarry. The EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides additional local requirements that seek to minimize the impacts associated with Extractive Manufacturing uses. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust, or other adverse impacts. Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 10 The County Engineer reviewed the request and provided input expressing concerns regarding the geological impacts and the potential hydrological impacts, in particular the impact of the project on the local groundwater which includes the adjacent subdivisions that rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. With regards to the geology discussion, the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings should be fully considered as should the impact of dust from the mining operations on adjacent residential dwellings. The Impact Statement did not fully address these potential impacts. As a result of the input of the County Engineer the applicant has included proffers that seek to address the groundwater, dust, and blasting concerns associated with this rezoning request. In addition to the potential impacts of the proposed mining operations on the view shed from the historical perspective, serious consideration should be given to the visual impacts on the rural landscape from the perspective of the adjacent residential landowners and from the perspective of residents and visitors traveling along Chapel Lane which bisects parcel 83-A-109 and the proposed mining operation.. Summary of Impacts: - Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties - HRAB Concerns -View shed coordination and mitigation -Cultural Resource Surveys - Transportation impacts on Route 625 and its intersection with Route 11 - Potential groundwater, dust, and blasting controls on adjacent properties - Rural view shed. 5) Proffer State-rient — Dated .lane 13, 2005 and revised January 16, 2006, February 8, 2006, and February, 17, 2006 The applicant has provided that the property shall be developed with Extractive Manufacturing Land uses. With regards to site development, the applicant has attempted to limit access to the existing site entrance, has proffered distance buffers, earthen berms, and landscaping to minimize the impacts to the view shed of the surrounding community. It should be understood that no minimum standards have been offered to ensure that the site developmentproffers will minimize the potential impacts of the mining operations and address the expressed concerns of the HRAB. An eight acre historic reserve to be dedicated to Belle Grove has been proffered by the applicant. Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 11 A limited Phase 1 Archeological Survey has been proffered by the applicant. It should be clarified that this proffer is applicable to both parcels subject to the rezoning. The applicant has guaranteed to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority rights to the groundwater resources in accordance with existing agreements between the applicant and the FCSA. The proffer Statement should provide clarification that the future use of the property and the development of facilities to support the utilization of the groundwater resources are enabled by this rezoning request and Proffer Statement. The applicant has stated their intent to monitor, minimize the impacts, and remediate any impacts associated with groundwater, dust, and blasting. STAFF CONCLUSION'S FOR 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION IVIRETING: The O -N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application addresses many of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the following: 1) The Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties. 2) The recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and Cultural Resource Surveys 3) The potential groundwater, dust, and blasting and view shed impacts on adjacent properties. Followinz the requirement fora public hearinZ a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Su ervisors coucerning this rezonin application would be appropriate. Thea licant should be prepared to ade uatel address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. I January 3, 2006 Mr. Chuck Maddox, Jr. P.E. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Flanr erg and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: ®-N ]Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning Proposal ,_,ocation: The subject parcels are situated generally west and adjacent to t1�e Town of Middletown. Property Identification Numbers (PINs):53-A-90, 91 Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Maddox: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of December 20, 2005. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek and the property (691 acres) also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. It is the intent of the applicant to rezone this property to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning District to accommodate the expansion of the quarry operation. Hie ttKAt3 expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was moi. pri;tecling tIIG v'IGvvJI1GU UI u the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB could support the approval of this project if the following suggestions are considered in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources: A Phase I Archeological Survey needs to be done on the site, focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, subsequent studies should be performed. (Phase II/111). A detailed Viewshed Mitigation Analysis/Plan needs to be completed that will show the effects of the new quart' operation from key points (critical areas and views/pull-offs to be determined by the National Park Service, Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation). This plan needs to be completed before any land disturbance is allowed on the site and implementation of any 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 4 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Mr. Chuck Maddox Re: O -N Minerals Rezoning Proposal January 3, 2006 Page 2 suggestions that may result from the plan should be given a proffered timeline. In addition, the viewshed study should also ensure that views from Chapel Road are not impaired. • Cedar Creek should be bridged so that quarry trucks can use this route instead of going through historic Middletown and passing by the Belle Grove entrance. • The conveyer system being discussed should be studied further to ensure that it does not impact the viewshed or create noise issues. The amount of traffic this system will alleviate should be provided as well. The applicant should propose a plan for the conveyer system that will not have a huge visual impact on the surrounding landscape. • A timeline for the removal of the existing stockpile of dirt (overburden) that can be seen from the Cedar Creek Battlefield needs to be provided with this proposal. • Strategic landscaping needs to be looked at, as well as preserving natural existing landscaping, as opposed to high berms to try to screen the operation. A detailed landscaping study needs to be done for the site. • The location for the overburden from the new quarry operation needs to be provided so that large piles of dirt similar to the current operation are not present, maximum elevations for new berms need to be proffered. A documented plan for any new berms and overburden stockpiles needs to be provided. • Perimeter fencing and lighting details need to be provided so that they do not affect the adjacent historic uses. • The proffers provided to the HRAB included an eight acre reserve for Belle Grove. The proffer states that, "Said reserve shall be set aside for future dedication to Belle Grove Foundation". This proffer includes no timeline for the dedication of the property and as provided, the dedication could never happen. A specific timeline for the dedication of this property needs to be provided to ensure that the Foundation is given this property. n Please contact me with any questions concei*ning these coinflir-,its f;u,rl ire H �i�;u. Sincerely, t M1 Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/bad cc: Rhoda Kriz, Harold Lehman, HRAB Members Bill Ewing, Opequon District Supervisor Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # t)3' L^ 6 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) PROPERTY: 639.13 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 &90-A-23 (the "Properties") RECORD OWNER 0-N Minerals Chemstone Company APPLICANT- O -N Minerals Chemstone Company PROJECT NAME: Chemstone - Middletown ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 13, 2005 REVISION DATE(S): January 16, 2006 February 8, 2006 February 17, 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property'), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. 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. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, O -N Minerals (Chemstone)" dated June 13, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: 1. Land Use 1.1 The Property shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral 2vliamg PTV" of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and shall therefore conform to �,i.,.� T n _ , _ __ _ r lend "'Yining of the the MineLd1 lining Law and Recladniltion Regcllations for 1v1111cfaf 1v Commonwealth of Virginia. Proffer Statement 2. Site Development Chemstone - Middletown 2.1 Site access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Property shall not be limited. 2.2 Distance buffers shall be provided along the perimeter of the Properties in addition to those required by the Zoning Ordinance. The depth of said buffers shall be determined at the time of site plan submission, and will vary based upon the topography of the site boundary. 2.3 Earthen berms installed around active quarry pits shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed' a random manner in order to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Said berms shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant shall create an eight acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP, within which archeological resources associated with Belle Grove Plantation have been identified. Said reserve shall be dedicated to the Belle Grove Foundation within one year of final rezoning. 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Property within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Property identified as 83-A 109 by the GDP. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the Property. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia", 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003) . Rpghts to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) rights to the groundwater resources available on the Properties in accordance with existing agreements negotiated between the Applicant and FCSA. 5. Groundwater 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Property identified as 83-A 109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Property boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the Northern Property boundary. February 17, 2006 Page 2 of 4 Proffer Statement Chemstone - Middletown 5.2 The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Property. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Applicant. 6. Dust Control 6.1 Dust from drills, shot piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent. The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Property. 6.2 All material being stockpiled shall be kept adequately moist to control dust during storage and handling or covered at all times to minimize emissions. 7. Blasting Control 7.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Property shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Property shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Property shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES February 17, 2006 Page 3 of 4 Proffer Statement Respectfully submitted, O -N MI CBE O COMPANY By Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: Chemstone - Middletown The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this n day of -ifff-uto , 2006,by Mycon mission expires )-"-I 4 1c k j : � 2C`�c" Notary Public February 17, 2006 Page 4 of 4 . �'6 ty�,'.. n,�l °-, ■� it :� '� �� ;�� `•,.:f � %; a `!/f ail I: � � � I �� ,r,,.. �,j �'. y 1 s•4 ((® pry e - 6 t MINERALS , Tgtd� 76 him - OF , t.. - �:wr• a a Iw n ra.r. .,rtg.J' art Jr `y- �, r w r T ' - I A w c 1 k +_r. f. f 4tk� - - � I �% � I 1\3♦� /' \\♦ ``i � ��I�s- � `'�,/`tS� `a . ,ta�9 �. h. ��. -� fit X' ��j � / ii pp n r 7 REZONING., �A TO EM ,..� �• �` r► > C�► � \ � �✓�r�� ..>,• Pv �-� I _ - ` ,., �' ..: s : i� - ,�� \i� <,, N'0.!... � +A4. csTwwO®<.. J�� 1i � � �.• /,. - ►� rat • • - 1Y MS' is -'' �� "''�•� _ °'. -'V.I `!,�, �`�� -<'� J �'#�'r''', �� 1l 3 49,t5 Ar- a�... a an ► -'.a: ., �_• >. . .., t ��., �a'T-..:.� .,.-.. �, � .�_� /.. -.,, �f �e �i�F� ?tom ;I,-�; � he 't�•'rYf � X•, SE , sW M,�✓�� ! d. I . , - I aMi - .rt ,..�• y�... . ..q, .- •�- �i�� r' .i!'.; ia�� `-,t ai ' ave �' • i� , w oar, /a I],�� el�i»' tt � 7" '1k ,/ �t`- a\1\` ��i''/` � , �'K`�%` �` '-..`•'9Y �'try�. _ C s j AM Revised 611JI05 NTS GLOBAL STOKE CHEMSTONE CORPORATION REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT February 2006 A. INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the conditional rezoning of a portion of parcels 83-A-109 ("Middle Marsh Property") and 90-A-23 ("Northern Reserve"), which total approximately 639 acres. The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and adjacent to Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The subject acreage is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). This application proposes the rezoning of the 639 acres from RA to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. Global Stone Chemstone Corporation's ("Chemstone") existing Middletown plant and quarries are located adjacent to and between the subject properties. The property containing these facilities is zoned EM. The Northern Reserve site is further situated adjacent to Chemstone's Strasburg facility, which is located immediately south of Cedar Creek in Shenandoah County. The subject acreage contains mapped deposits of chemical grade limestone, the extraction of which is critical to the continued viability of the established quarry operation. Indeed, the mineral -rich nature of the properties and their value for future extraction activities was identified more than forty years ago, and the acreage has remained in the ownership of mining interests ever since. The requested rezoning will enable the appropriate use of the subject acreage consistent with its unique geological attributes, which will thereby assure the continued vitality of the Chemstone Middletown operation. The contents of this report will outline the role of the subject acreage in future Chemstone operations and further identify anticipated impacts as well as those strategies necessary for effective mitigation. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate identified impacts. As such, this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown B. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The subject acreage is not located within the boundaries of any small area study or land use plan included in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The properties are further located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Business and Industrial Areas policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan are relatively silent concerning natural resource extraction, except for acknowledgement that such uses exist in the County, in particular along the limestone belt west of Interstate 81, and that study is needed to establish appropriate guidelines for evaluation of proposals for new extractive manufacturing areas. To date, no such study has been undertaken. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-9, 6-72) C. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE State Regulation of Mineral Mining Operations The Code of Virginia requires the issuance of mineral mining permits for all mining operations within the Commonwealth. Mineral mining permits are issued by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy pursuant to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining. To obtain a permit or add acreage to a mine operating under an existing permit, a plan of operation/mine permit map must be submitted for DMM approval and updated annually. The DMM possesses the authority to regulate an array of technical and operational issues through the permitting process and regular mine inspections. Issues controlled by the DMM include, but are not limited to, the following: grading and stabilization of quarry pits and berms, drainage, erosion and sediment control, screening of mine operations, blasting operations, and final reclamation and stabilization of the site. The Middletown quarry currently operates under mining permit number 05714AB. Should this rezoning be approved, the expansion of the mining operation to include the subject acreage would necessitate amendment of the existing permit. To secure DMM approval, the amended permit must be accompanied by a revised plan of operation/mine permit map demonstrating effective impact mitigation and conformance with state mining regulations. Scope of Proposed Use Chemstone intends to transfer limestone ore extracted from the subject properties to the Strasburg plant for processing, consistent with the practices of the existing Middletown quarry operation. The scope of the increased manufacturing use in Frederick County will therefore involve overburden removal, controlled blasting and ore extraction, crushing of ore for transport (via central 2 Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown crusher facility), and the loading of materials for transfer. The transfer of materials between the Middletown and Strasburg facilities will occur through the continued use of trucks and the adjoining CSX rail line. Long term facility plans include future implementation of an internal conveyor system that will ultimately eliminate the exclusive reliance on these existing modes for material transfer. The future role of the conveyor system in Chemstone operations is significant as it represents a method for minimizing truck traffic on the surrounding secondary road network. Availability of the conveyor system will effectively eliminate the need for truck transport of materials between Middletown and Strasburg by Chemstone. As such, the expanded mining operation would not result in any sustained intensification of truck traffic on the secondary roads serving the site. However, regardless of the ultimate implementation of the conveyor system, truck trips will continue to be generated by the facility due to the retrieval of raw materials directly from the site by quarry customers. An extensive network of earthen berms will be installed to screen active mining activities. Moreover, substantial buffers will be provided around the perimeter of the site sufficient to further separate adjoining properties and land uses from mining operations. The provision of perimeter buffers is assured by proffer.. Site and Land Use History The subject properties contain significant limestone deposits that are recognized for their exceptional purity and consistency. For over a century, limestone ore has been extracted and processed via the existing Middletown and Strasburg quarry facilities, which are located adjacent to the subject acreage. These facilities serve a diverse array of industrial, environmental, and municipal markets with four primary product groups - high calcium quicklime, hydrated lime, chemical grade limestone, and construction aggregates. The applications for these products are numerous, but most notably involve agriculture, pollution reduction technologies, national defense infrastructure, road building, and food processing. The existing Middletown quarry facilities have been in active operation since the late 1950's under various ownership interests, and were acquired by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation from Chemstone Corporation in the mid -1990's. The Strasburg plant has operated continuously since 1896. As noted in the introductory section of this report, the acreage proposed for rezoning is adjacent to these facilities and has been controlled by mining interests for the past forty years, which has assured the availability of extensive limestone ore reserves for eventual extraction. Thus, although the zoning of the subject acreage has remained RA, the acreage has historically been reserved for extractive manufacturing as its intended use. 3 Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown The uneventful history of quarry operations in the Middletown and Strasburg areas has demonstrated the ability of such facilities to amicably co -exist with nearby residents and land uses. Open meetings have been held by quarry companies over the years to foster communication with citizens and local officials. Such meetings have allowed compatibility issues to be identified and addressed proactively, thus ensuring the operation of extractive manufacturing uses with minimal impact to the surrounding community. Open meetings will continue to serve a vital role in assuring that dialogue between Chemstone and the community is on-going and constructive. Environmental Features The Northern Reserve and Middle Marsh properties each contain environmentally sensitive areas. The following table identifies the environmental resources located on the properties, and further indicates the potential areas for mining activity and likely scope of impact for each resource. *Source: Science Applications tnternauonai L,orpurutim L.LLLJuUI I The above data summarizes a study report generated by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for Chemstone in October 2001, a complete copy of which is included with this impact statement as Appendix "A." The scope of the SAIC study is extensive, and is comparable to that of an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Of the total acreage proposed for rezoning, it is projected that actual excavation will involve roughly 78 acres, or only 11 % of the area to be rezoned. Areas adjoining the quarries will be devoted to materials processing and storage of said materials as well as discarded earth. Areas for excavation, processing and storage will be located and managed to protect identified environmental features In Northern Reserve Middle Marsh Rezoning Property Property Total Acreage 158 acres 533 acres 691 acres Mining Area 24 acres 54 acres 78 acres guar pits Area Impact Area Impact Area Impact Resource (%) Area (%) Area (%) Area Wetlands 1.9 acres <0.10 ac. 0.3 ac. None 2.2 acres 0.32o <0.10 ac. 1.20% 0.06% 8,921 10,984 793 19,905 793 Streams lineal ft. None lineal ft. lineal ft. lineal ft. lineal ft. 125 Flood Plain 36 acmes 1.0 ac. 89 acres (16.7%) 3.0 ac. acres 4.0 ac. (22.8%) (18.1 %) Steep Slopes None None None None None None (>50%) *Source: Science Applications tnternauonai L,orpurutim L.LLLJuUI I The above data summarizes a study report generated by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for Chemstone in October 2001, a complete copy of which is included with this impact statement as Appendix "A." The scope of the SAIC study is extensive, and is comparable to that of an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Of the total acreage proposed for rezoning, it is projected that actual excavation will involve roughly 78 acres, or only 11 % of the area to be rezoned. Areas adjoining the quarries will be devoted to materials processing and storage of said materials as well as discarded earth. Areas for excavation, processing and storage will be located and managed to protect identified environmental features In Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown from deleterious impact. Moreover, in any case where disturbance is proposed, appropriate mitigation strategies will be employed pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and all applicable state and federal regulations. It is noted that the SAIC study indicates impacts to approximately 793 linear feet of natural waterways traversing the properties. As per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, disturbance of natural waterways and riparian buffer areas is prohibited except for roads and/or public utilities and public facilities. Encroachment within riparian areas will be limited accordingly, which will likely result in a lesser impact on stream areas than projected by the SAIC study. The results of the environmental assessment of the subject acreage indicate that the identified conditions will neither preclude nor substantially hinder use of the properties for extractive manufacturing. Soils/Geology The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Fred erick-Poplimento- Oaklet soil association. The following table identifies the multiple soil types present on each property: Northern Reserve (Map Sheet 54 of Soil Surve Map S rnbol I Soil Name Slopes (range) 5C Carbo silt loam 7 to 15 % 13C Frankstown channery silt loam 7 to 15 % 14C Frederick -Po limento loams 7 to 15 % 15E Frederick-Poplimento very ravel) loams 25 to 60 % 17C Fred e rick -Pop limento-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 15 % 17E Frederick-Poplimento-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 45 % 39C Swimley silt loam 7 to 15 % Middle Marsh (Map Sheet 51 of Soil Survey) Map Symbol Soil Name Slopes (range) 5B Carbo silt loam* 2 to 7 % 5C Carbo silt loam 7 to 15 % 6C Carbo-Oaklet silt loams, very rocky 2 to 15 % 7C Carbo-Oaklet-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 15 % 32C Oaklet silt loam 7 to 15 % 39B Swimley silt loam* 2 to 7 % 406 I Timbewille silt loam* 2 to 7 % *Denotes .soils classified as Prime Farmland (see Soil .Survey, p. 12.3, Table 5). Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown The majority of the soil types comprising the subject acreage are not considered prime farmland. However, the Middle Marsh property does contain pockets of three soil types that are distinguished for their agricultural value. These soil types are identified in the table above with an asterisk (*). The unique geological characteristics that give the property its value for extractive manufacturing also produce areas of enhanced soil fertility, which, when existent over large contiguous areas, may be conducive to productive agriculture. In the case of the Middle Marsh property, the prime farmland soils are generally fragmented and dispersed throughout the site thereby limiting its overall agricultural value. The purity and consistency of the limestone deposits that underlie the subject properties constitute the ideal geologic conditions for extractive manufacturing use. The characteristics of the identified soil types and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Access Public road access to the Middletown facility occurs from Route 757 (McCune Road) via Route 625 (Veterans Road — Frederick County, 5th Street — Town of Middletown), which is accessed from US Route 11 in the Town of Middletown. The site possesses direct access to the CSX rail line, which allows the extensive use of railroad facilities to transport materials between facilities. Moreover, a system of internal conveyors is planned for the transfer of materials between the Middletown and Strasburg plants, which will result in the operational integration of the Chemstone operations in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties. The utilization of such alternative modes of transportation and material transfer ensures an operational efficiency that minimizes impacts to the secondary road network. D. TRANSPORTATION The transport of extracted limestone ore from the subject acreage to the Strasburg processing facility will occur via three modes, which are: 1. Conveyor system (internal, directly linking quarries and Strasburg plant); 2. Rail (existing CSX rail line); and 3. Truck Studies conducted by Chemstone identify the conveyor system as the preferred method of material transport as it ensures the least impact to the surrounding road network and community. It is further recognized that this alternative requires the most significant investment in terms of both initial installation and long-term operation. Thus, while the conveyor system represents the long term goal for inter -plant material transfer, it is unlikely to be implemented as a short term improvement. As such, inter -plant transfer will continue to occur via rail and truck transport 11 Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown Initial contact with state permitting agencies has indicated that future implementation of the proposed conveyor system would be feasible. At such time that it is installed, the crossing of the conveyor over Cedar Creek will be completely enclosed to preclude accidental loss of material into the waterway, and will further be screened to minimize visual impacts. As noted above, the inter -plant transfer of materials by train and truck will continue to occur to some degree regardless of the availability of the conveyor system. Given the potential for truck traffic on the surrounding road network, a traffic impact analysis (TIA) was completed for this application and is included with this statement as Appendix "B" (Traffic Impact Analysis of Chemstone, dated March 16, 2005). The TIA considers two transportation scenarios for this rezoning. The first scenario involves the exclusive reliance on trains and trucks for inter -plant material transfer, and therefore reflects impacts caused by increased traffic of all types. The second scenario assumes implementation of the proposed conveyor system and the corresponding de -emphasis of trucks for inter -plant material transfer. The scope of the analysis for each scenario was determined through consultation with VDOT, and focuses principally on the intersection of Route 625 (5th Street) and US Route 11 (Main Street) in the Town of Middletown. The existing Middletown facility generates a total of 506 vehicle trips per day (ADT), based on actual traffic counts. This traffic includes employee trips, customer trips, and Chemstone's inter -plant material transfer trips. The TIA projects anticipated traffic using trip generation data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. Under the first transportation scenario, the TIA projects that the rezoning would result in an increase of 799 trips per day, totaling 1,305 ADT for the facility as a whole. Trips of all types are increased with this scenario, to include an approximate doubling of inter -plant truck trips. Under the second transportation scenario, which accounts for the future conveyor system, the rezoning would produce a net increase of only 186 trips per day, resulting in a total of 693 ADT for the expanded facility. The nominal increase in trips under this scenario is attributable to the elimination of truck trips for inter -plant material transfer from the trip generation projections. As such, trips produced by the expanded facility under this scenario would be limited exclusively to those of employees and customers. The TIA concludes that study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the proposed rezoning at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions. Although the second transportation scenario is clearly of lesser overall impact, the TIA indicates that Level of Service Category C conditions or better are maintained at studied intersections under both of the scenarios analyzed, thus ensuring consistency with the transportation 7 Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown objectives of the Comprehensive Policy Plan regardless of the ultimate mode(s) used for inter -plant material transfer. E. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The Middletown facility is served by a private health system for on-site sewage disposal. No additional sewage facilities will be required by this rezoning. Water supply for the Middletown facility is obtained by quarry pit de -watering, which occurs through the mining process. This source will provide sufficient supply and pressure for the expanded mining use, to include dust control in and around the quarries. All de -watering activities will be performed pursuant to DMM requirements, and in accordance with the approved mining permit for the Middletown operation. F. DRAINAGE The plan of operation/mine permit map is required to include a drainage plan subject to DMM review and approval. The drainage plan must address several items, to include the following: (a) the directional flow of water on and away from the site, (b) location and specifications of constructed drainage ways, (c) the use of natural waterways for drainage, and (d) delineation of the streams or tributaries receiving the discharge. Should the requested rezoning be approved, the mining permit must be amended to include the subject acreage, which will involve preparation of a revised drainage plan that ensures effective incorporation of the expansion area into the facility's overall drainage system. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Solid waste generated by employee activities will be collected in dumpster facilities and removed from the site by commercial refuse carrier. Solid waste will be transferred to the Frederick County landfill for ultimate disposal by said carrier. Waste resulting from mining activities will be placed in spoil stockpiles and within berms used for facility screening. The storage and adaptive use of spoils will be addressed through the approval process for the amended mining permit, and will therefore be required to meet all DMM requirements. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The subject properties are located within the boundaries of the Cedar Creek Battlefield, but are not identified as cors battlefield resources. The Middle. Marsh property is noted to contain ruins referred to on maps as "Nieswander's Fort." A detailed Historic Impact Assessment is included with this report as Appendix "C," which discusses both the role of the site in the referenced Civil War battle and :. Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown the potential origin and significance of the ruins. The conclusions of this study indicate that significant historic resources will not be lost due to the proposed use. The site is located immediately west and adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, the boundaries of which were established by federal law in 2002. To ensure that the visual impacts to this adjoining resource are mitigated, Chemstone intends to locate all processing equipment inside the quarry pits so that such facilities will not be visible. Moreover, berms surrounding the pits will be constructed with smooth lines and grades to preclude fragmentation of the park's viewshed. I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model was run to assess the likely impact of the proposed project on capital facilities. The output module generated by this analysis indicated that the proposed land uses would result in a net positive fiscal impact. Such positive impacts are derived from increased revenue from real estate and machinery/tools taxes. I January 2006 Chemstone - Middletown SAIP-a S.SME N PVJENTIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF MINING OPERATIONS AT THE MIDD " H AND RESER -S PROPERTIES r rlrepared for G.W. CliffoM Associates, Inc. 117 E. P ccadiffy Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 I •i'f J August 2042 •.�. Prepared by �c;ience .Applic ions International Corporation' 1129 Business PRr"ay Souris Suite 10,' - �:�., Westminster, Maryland 21.157 POTENTIAL, IMPACT ANALYSIS OF MINING 0PE1' TIONS AT THE NIIBDLEMA:RSH AND RESERVES PROPERTIES FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Reviewed by: SAIC Ref. No.: 01-1633-00-2190-000 Prepared for: C.W. Clifford Associates, Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Prepared by: SCIENCE APPLICATIGNS INTERNATIONAL CORPORiTEON 1129 Business Parkway South, Suite 10 Westminster, Maryland 21157 August 2002 Submitted by: J _w_a_ t Michael D. Hauller,1 .G.0 _ 73 c Eric S. Andreus, P.C. 73 Projeci Hydrogeologist Senior Technical Manager SCIENCE APPLICA TIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................<.............o.................................................................................1 1.1 Scope of Study.................................................................................................................1 2.0 WETLANDS..........................................................................................................................2 2.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................2 2.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................2 3.0 FORESTS.......................................................................................o.....................................4 3.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................4 3.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................5 4.0 STRE1 S........................................................................e.....................................................6 4.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................6 4.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................6 5.0 G11OUND"WATER RESOURCES ................................................... ..............................8 5.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................8 5.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................9 LIST OF FIVURES Figure 1, Wetland ..................... ......Following Text ........................................................................... Figure 2, Forested Areas..........................................................................................Following Text Figure 3, Streams and Floodplains...........................................................................Following Text Figure 4, Hydrogeologic Map .............................................................. .....................Following Text SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis .lobal Chemstone 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Rezoning of the two Global Chemstone (GC) parcels north of the existing facility from the exist- ing agricultural use to future mineral extraction requires approval from Frederick County, Vir- ginia. The approval process, as outlined in the Rezoning Application Package from the Depart- ment of Planning and Development, requires assessment of potential impacts resulting from this change in land use. Potential groundwater impacts are of particular concern to local constituents and are a key focus of these assessments. There are two parcels included in this study, named by convention in accordance with a mining reserves report (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990, for Chemstone Corporation). The parcel to the north is termed the Middle Marsh property and the one to the south, adjacent to Cedar Creek, is termed Chemstone Northern Reserves property. 1.1 Scope of Study The potential impacts addressed by SAIC include wetlands, forests, streams, and groundwater. Our tasks coincide with County rezoning requirements and are completed at a level similar to that of an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specific details of the work are provided in each section. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis global Chemstone 2.0 WETLANDS The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing wetlands includes the following: �- Use of applicable National Wetlands Inventory Mapping. a Use of applicable USDA soils mapping. �- Use of applicable 100 -year floodplain mapping. Field examination of potential wetlands. ➢ Mapping of the potentially affected environment. A Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas. 2.1 Affected Environme4rt Potential wetlands areas include those mapped as wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Mapping and as hydric soils in USDA soils mapping. Flood -plain areas (based on 100 -year flood -plain mapping) and stream -side areas that could be considered waters of the United States were examined but are assessed in the Streams Section of this report. Based on field observations, true wetlands areas may be somewhat different than indicated in the mapping. Detailed, formal delineations are required as part of a separate permitting process. As indicated on Plate 1, the Middle Marsh and Northern Reserves properties contain approxi- mately 0.3 and 1.9 acres, respectively, of potential wetlands. 2.2 Potential Impacts Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place. These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated stockpile, bean, spoils, and plant footprints. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis - ,lobal Chemstone 3 As shown on Plate 1, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential impact areas for each parcel. This results in less than 0.4 acres of total potential wetlands that could be affected by the rezoning. This area should be considered an estimate, since formal wet- land delineations have not been completed. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact AnalVsis global Chemstone 4 3.0 FORESTS The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing forest areas in- cludes the following: Selections of appropriate forest stand criteria were selected based on the existing land cover, including pasture and fallow fields, cedar, cedar (grazed), cedar/osage, and oak/hickory stands. Use of the oak/hickory forest community as an equivalent to the "mature woodlands" as considered by the County (these are not true biologically mature or virgin forests). Field examination of forest area zones (without field marking). Field mapping of the potentially affected environment on aerial photographs. > Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas. 3.1 Affected Environment The five different vegetation covers found on the two parcels are shown on Plate 2. There is an area in the southern portion of the Middle Marsh property that can be described as an Oak -Hickory Forest. Species observed in this small forest island include red oak (Quercus ru- bra), white oak (Quercus alba), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), mockernut hickory (Carya to- mentosa), and white pine (Pinus strobus) in the overstory, and sassafras (Sassafras albidum), dogwood (Cornus florida), and hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) in the understory. This is likely a re -growth of abandoned farmland, as there is an almost complete lack of old dead snags, and/or decomposing trees, which would be indicative of an older, truly mature forest. Neverthe- less, this area provides habitat for Oak -Hickory biota, which likely include blue jays, wild tur- key, scarlet tanager, rose -breasted grosbeak, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, Northern flying squirrel, and Eastern chipmunk. The remainder of the Middle Marsh property is clearly agricultural and includes sharp delinea- tions between fallow agricultural and active agricultural land. Much of the fallow agricultural land is dominated by Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), which is an invasive, early - successional species that is relatively shade intolerant. Other species observed in these sections, SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis 31obal Chemstone 5 particularly along the creeks, include black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), osage orange (Maclura pomifera), Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), and honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.). The area just to the north of the intersec- tion of Route 627 and Middle Marsh Creek is predominantly Eastern red cedar and is heavily grazed. The Northern Reserves property is difficult to access due to lack of roads, steep slopes, and heavy vegetation. The site contains a larger Oak -Hickory Forest community, as described above. This site offers a larger and more contiguous forest than the Oak -Hickory Forest on the Middle Marsh property, and likely offers better biotic habitat for the variety of species described above. There are areas of dense Eastern red cedar on the upland portions of this site as well as Eastern red cedar pasture. 3.2 Potential Impacts Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place. These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints. As shown on Plate 2, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential impact areas for each parcel. This results in a total of eight acres of potential mature forests that could be affected by the rezoning. This area should be considered a maximum, since the term mature forest could be applied more stringently and significantly reduce the affected environ- ment areas accordingly. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis global Chemstone 6 4.0 STREAMS The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing streams includes the following: A Identification of perennial streams in the area. > Estimation of watershed areas and potential flows using USGS data from local gauging stations. Mapping of 100 -year floodplain areas. ➢ Mapping of the potentially affected environment. ➢ Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas. 4.1 Affected Environment As shown on Plate 3, the major stream in this area is Cedar Creek, which flows southeastward adjacent to the Northern Reserves property. Two tributaries to Cedar Creek cross the Middle Marsh property before joining Cedar Creek. Middle Marsh Brook and Watson Run flow in a southwesterly direction and have contributing drainage areas of approximately 1,105 and 826 acres respectively. They are not true perennial streams (they had no flow during the October 2001 field inspections). Using the Opequon Creek gauging station records, these streams are es- timated to have average flows of 0.69 to 0.52 cfs, respectively. Each creek is impacted by the agricultural nature of the surrounding area. There is cattle grazing in and near the creeks and the channels are vegetated with forbs, bearing evidence to the fact that there has not been enough water to scour out the vegetation in recent weeks or months. 4.2 Potential Impacts Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place. These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated 'l _ A �1..._4 F ..L L.. stockpile, berm, spoiis, ahu yiaun ILK)"piiuUa. SCIENCEAPPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Anal sis ilobal Chemstone 7 As shown on Plate 3, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential impact areas for each parcel. This results in a total of 793 linear feet of potential stream channel that could be affected by the rezoning and a total of 13 acres of potentially affected 100 -year floodplain. These quantities should be considered maximums, since many potential impacts can be mitigated by avoidance. There should be little to no impacts to stream flow from the pro- posed operations since they will not use surface water for processing or dust control (provided by dewatering pumping). SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact AnalVsis - Iobal Chemstone 8 5.0 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to groundwater resources in- cludes the following: B Delineation of interconnected geologic formations based on existing mapping and field observations. Delineation of potential zones of surface water and groundwater contribution based on topographic drainage catchments areas. ➢ Identification of photogeologic fracture traces as potential zones of increased groundwater flow. A Inventory of potential groundwater users and wells within 1,500 feet of the property boundaries through the Frederick County Health Department, by field observation, by aerial photo analyses, and use of tax mapping parcel boundaries. > Estimation of groundwater pumping for the existing pumping records and quarry con- figuration based on interviews with Global Chemstone personnel and aerial photo analysis. > Estimation of zones and magnitudes of groundwater drawdown surrounding the poten- tial mining areas using a digital groundwater model and pumping rates extrapolated from existing operations and mining areas, maximum drawdown from the proposed mine depth, and aquifer parameters from pumping tests in the carbonate aquifer. 9 Identification of potential karst areas from existing State geologic publications and field inspection. > Mapping of the potentially affected environment. Comparison of the mapping with potential groundwater impacts. 5.1 Affected Envi: onment The parcels lie in the Shenandoah Valley portion of the Great Valley Physiographic Province. This area is underlain by carbonate rocks of the Great Valley sequence, which in this area in- cludes the Beekmantown, New Market, and Lincolnshire formations. The New Market Forma - SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis global Chemstone g tion (Mosheim Formation) is a high calcium limestone and is the mineral resource identified for extraction. Where saturated, these formations constitute a local section of the carbonate rock aquifer system of the Great Valley. Recharge to the aquifer system is generally from local precipitation. In general, the carbonate rock aquifers of the Great Valley are highly productive and have relatively high rates of recharge. Groundwater moves through the rock through cracks, fissures, solution openings, and bedding partings in the rock mass. Based on drilling records in the Great Valley, the groundwater system extends to at least 700 feet in depth in this area. Groundwater use in the area is limited. The aggregate quarry between the two study parcels withdraws approximately 84,000 gpd on an annual average basis. There are 30 on-site well and septic systems within 1,500 feet of the property boundaries of the two parcels. of these, domes- tic water use is generally between 200 and 400 gpd per unit, approximately 10 to 30 percent of which is consumptive. 5.2 Potential Impacts Potential impacts from mining in the two parcels originate from the dewatering required in the mining operation itself, as the extraction process extends below the water table. In general, as the mining process exposes water -bearing fractures, groundwater enters the mine and is pumped out so that mining can continue. The resulting impacts are similar to those associated with a large -diameter groundwater well. Potential impacts are estimated using a single hydrogeologic computer model (Two Day). The parameters used in the model are as follows: > Pumping rate �, Depth to water table h Water table drawdown ➢ Aquifer transmissivity Aquifer thickness SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis ,lobal Chemstone 10 The depth of the mineral deposit (New Market Formation) determines the maximum potential depth of mining and water table intrusion. Based on geologic mapping performed for the min- eral resource study, the New Market Formation terminates at a relatively shallow depth, to an elevation of approximately 550 feet (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990), which greatly reduces the potential water table drawdown impact. The potential water table drawdown contour lines are shown on Plate 4. As shown, the estimated drawdown off-site in areas of existing wells is 10 to 20 feet. Since most wells in this region have in excess of 100 feet of available drawdown, the anticipated affect would likely be unnoticeable in such supplies. Therefore, based on this model and the assumptions therein, there should be few if any adverse impacts to existing water supplies in the Area. Since this is an area of poten- tial karst (sinkholes), changes in the water table cam accelerate the surface exposure of these ex- isting subsurface features. Although no mitigation measures appear to be warranted at this time, a groundwater and karst monitoring program should detect potential adverse impacts in advance such that appropriate mitigation can be provided. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION e ,r ''. }-'.{�0• �£ • �rr< �� df.� �b ay4 l F Ii ANY r• r_ l t• •r'YX x P r:: �' i t MIDDLE MARSH PROPERTY PD143" Imr<.=.t A es Vatire Gsocla^d A,-ea - A,<es i ' r It � ri t `'lowntfai Impact Area = 4' Acres { r 1 Polentiz irmact Area = 8Acres � l : i __ - _ ... i ax wrraamsesaocurtt _ rormaraAWA9 I ��t�� a Zi � � �� l Y if �.,,•- s �'^.. y�! ,K�� t� - f v =... + 'Ae lDflLF MARSH FRLaPEATY �e r II j �i i e, f p N A ! oit 35 Acv. � I� C�rarone hbrhhem Bassos � � , • _ — - ,- � i � '' i +,y,� ` • �. P ( !� 7 - � `94 4 " A Illi f 1 -... _ •- ..^ _ -. _ �`.Lb-aLaSR�..�nwlyii' y4}� _ ' I Omb .,..r.,. ...... e ` �I ... �.. -- _ _ � .-. ... .e.. .. _ .-... - ,t- I _al..' 'gtC'gL•3A:'xTLLY....� i i cOb_z och rw January 2006 Chenstone - Middletown AP P � - LNT IDI Prepared by. Lynn Sims Ph.D. Military Historian University of Richmond CEDAR CREEK REPORT The question is; "Will the quarry expansion intes-fere with the core battlefield of Cedar Creek or impair an understanding and interpretation of what happened there 19 October 1864?" A problgm in Virginia is so much history happened here you could put a fence around the Valley as well as Eastern Virginia and call them both historical areas. We cannot, and have not, and do not want to save all land where history "happened." We can only save what we know to be significant. The property proposed for quarry operation was the land ridden over by Brig. Gen. George Custer's Third Division of the Cavalry Corps on the afternoon of 19 October 1864, part of the Federal counterattack against Confederates under Lieut. Gen. Jubal A. Early. The original morning offensive by the Confederates was a brilliant and complicated plan involving a three -column converging night attack supported by cavalry on both flanks. It was planned well, executed with force, gained the element of surprise, and pushed the Federals back. About 0930 the Confederate attack lost its momentum. The Federals were able to mount a counterattack about 3:30 that afternoon overwhelming the Confederates and reversing, not only Confederate success that day, but eliminating Confederate power in the Valley for the rest of the war. Part of the Federal counterattack was a cavalry charge of about 3,000 troopers under Custer which swept down on the Confederate left, or western, flank and mostly consolidated what Federal infantry already had captured in the way of wagons, cannons, prisoners of war, battle flags, and supplies. When the former head historian for the National Park Service, Dr. Edwin C. Bearss laid out the battlefield, he included everything this side of the quarry to the Valley Pike as the core battlefield. Since that designation individuals have built homes on the core battlefield, Interstates have obliterated part of the battlefield used by Confederate troops moving to the attack. Also business establishments now stand on land where the battle took place, and Lord Fairfax Community College owns over 100 acres. Among the famous Federal personalities at the battle, Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan the Commanding General operated in the middle and eastern part of the field near the Valley Pike. Two future presidents of the United States, Col. Rutherford B. Hayes, and Cpt_ William McKinley were both on the eastern side of the field, again near the Valley Pike. Custer's name is known by most Americans. He was there, and performed perhaps his best during the war. His tactics were pretty much the same through out his career. That is without much preparation, planning, or consideration of tactics and terrain, "Charge in fast, throw the enemy off balance, then react to what happens." These were his tactics for 12 years, until he charged into a large group of Sioux and Cheyenne along the Little Big Horn in present day Montana. Still, Custer was in this battle and it was one of his finest actions. Aside from part of the Federal cavalry charging across a piece of this land, nothing of significance happened on the land. By October 1864, everyone on both sides was a professional. The outstanding points of the battle of Cedar Creek are the Confederate plan and execution, the personal leadership of Sheridan and other officers, the stubborn resistance of pockets of troops on both sides, and the rout of Early's trocps, which ended Confederate power in the Valley and ended Early' s career. The accompanying map shows the route of Custer's charge and the proposed extension of the quarry. Quarry owners are mindful of keeping the integrity of the battlefield and are considering ways to minimize, and hide structures necessary for mining, as well gs considering ways tobenefitbattlefield visitors understanding through the use of platforms and interpretive devices. In an aside, the battle was significant for Vermont units because by happenstance every unit from the "Green Mountain" State on active duty was at this battle. Hanging in their state capito-in MontpeTieris ahuge painting of Cedar Creek. Other fighting at the same time in 1864, east and south of Petersburg, also was significant as it caused Gen. Robert E. Lee to leave his trenches and move west until he was stopped at Appomattox Court House and surrender, 9 April 1865. Without a doubt-ifCreek was in any other state, much would be made of the battle for out of the 53,000 soldiers engaged, there were 8,500 casualties. But there are only two unit markers on the battlefield, and only one visible to the public. There are several state markers along the Valley Pike which give an idea of the events for all who stop to read. For the historian who wants to see the battle as the participants saw it, ground level, or from horse back, that is still possible. Once the Confederate planners left Signal Knob on Massanutten Mountain, they too were at ground level. In summary, early in the day the Confederates attacked and forced the Federals to retreat. That retreat took place this side of the proposed quarry operation. Only Custer's sweeping counterattack later in the day crossed part of the land proposed to be quarried. I have flown over the land in a helicopter, driven, and walked the land, read after- action reports of the participants, as well as studied the pertinent maps in the Library of Virginia, the Virginia Historical Society, and in published books. I believe an accurate, complete and useful interpretation of the day's events can be viewed with the construction of the quarry. I further believe with the help of the mining company, the interpretation of the battle will be better understood than it is now. NIESWANDER'S FORT The question is, What do we know about the rums noted on wags "N'Lesewonder's Fort?" The ruins now 1beledWieswandei s -Fort on maps probably date from 1754-M6, during the French and Indian War when the Lower Valley of Virginia experienced many Indian raids. Although there is no record of a Nieswander Fort in the records of the time, there is evidence to infer the ruins came into existence as a result of Indian depredations, and fear among presidents of tbe-LowerValley. Given the size of the site, most certainly the "fort," built over a spring, was a blockhouse. It was probably much like Hupp's Fort, his primary residence also built over a spring, and according to the state marker dates from 1755. One problem in researching this period in the Lower Valley is in 1781 practically all of the documents relating to the -French and Indian War were destroyed in a fire at the Virginia State Library. Brothers Jacob and -Christian Neuenschwandger came from Canton Bern, Switzerland to Lancaster County, PA in 1711. From there they moved into the Lower Valley between 21 October 1731 and 28 November 1732. Jacob was married to Susannah, and Christian to Maria Magdelena. Christian settled five miles south of Winchester, a hW mile on he west side of the current Valley Turnpike, the old Indian war trail which became broadened by wagon traffic. Settlers moving through the area used it as the main thoroughfare. Jacob, who owned 435 acres purchased from Yost Bite 7 February 1738, settled three miles further south near Stephens City, also close to the turnpike. The brothers were-Mennoniteiri he Anabaptist tradition and shunned warfare, militia service, and firearms_ Their defense would be to avoid conflict by staying in a blockhouse until danger had passed. The settlement of Mennonites in the Lower Valley was encouraged by Virginia and was in the tradition ofVirginian�s settlement of Scotch Irish in theUpperVailey, Huguenots west of Richmond at Manakin Town on the James River, and Germans in Cermanna, Orange County. Virginia winked at religious conformity to the Church of England in the case of frontiersmen. These groups were used as a "trip wire," or warning, as they would be the first casualties fromincTian attacks. Nieswanders were among the first white settlers in the Valley. Jacob had a son named "Colonel" John Nicewanger, born in 1742, a first generation American who became a military man. Often pacifist conviction died easily and early on the frontier because of closg contact with wan=ing -Indians. To understand these people we must understand the pioneer spirit. A frontiersman was a law unto himself, able to take care of his family, birth his children, set broken bones, protect his family, and raise a crop to survive. The pioneer spirit caused frontiersmen to Yeep on the frontier. -Seldom did a frontiersman `settle" and allow others to pass him by to settle a further frontier. When he could hear his neighbor's dog barking or see the smoke from another's chimney, he moved on further west. Without a doubt, Virginia Governor Dinwiddie was the strongest of the colonial governors in devising ways to protect Englishmen in North America. Even though there are no French and Indian War battle sites in present day Virginia, many killings and atrocities occurred here_ The first hostile forces sent out in the war were Virginians, and the first to shed blood were Virginians. Records estimate over 3,000 people from the Valley died or were taken into captivity during this war. A problem surfaced after General Edward Braddock's force of 2,500, including George Washington and 250 Virginians, were ambushed traveling to Fort Duquesne, on the Monongahela. River, in July, 1755. The Braddock Road was cut west toward the Ohio River but ran through the Lower Valley at Winchester. Unintentionally the road also was an avenue for Indian raiding parties traveling east who now perceived the English as cowards and poor fighters. The road ended in the Lower Valley at Winchester, foujided in March 1744. By 20 February 1755 George Washington had written to ask Governor Dinwiddie to increase the support to the frontier and to build a fort at Winchester. Washington said, "The inhabitants who now are in forts are greatly distressed for the want of ammunition and provisions and keep asking me for these. I have none to give and see people in forts without food." Such colonial military failures as Braddock's defeat always were followed by serious Indian raiding upon the frontier. After March 1756 there were twenty skirmishes and over 100 casualties. Washington's troops were spread as thin as two soldiers per mile on this frontier from 1754 to 1757. The years 1755 —1756 will be remembered as the most murderous of frontier life. Cabins and barns in the Valley burned like funeral pyres. Governor Dinwiddie made George Washington command-in-chief of the Virginia forces in August, 1757 and in charge of defenses in the Valley. Adding to Washington's problems was American general distrust of a standing army as well as the pacifist beliefs of the settlers. The solution bit upon was to stay on the defense by constructing a series of forts, blockhouses, anti stockades. This would allow small garrisons in conjunction with local people to protect the settlers. Few forts had been built prior to 1756 but that year saw completion of the majority of forts in the area. Forts were for depots, storage of food and fodder, and rallying points in times of danger. The presence of forts also encouraged people to move }nto the area. By September of 1757 Fort Loudoun was completed in Winchester on an half acre of land, 96 feet on a side and including four bastions. There were three classes of defensive structures on the frontier. The blockhouse was the most simple, usually a square two-story log building, with the second floor overhanging the first. There were numerous rifle holes in the logs. Nieswander's Fort was probably in this class. The stockade was much stronger than a blockhouse, often a double log structure two stories high, surrounded at a distance by a high fence of stakes or palisade. Forts were the ultimate structure, usually square having a blockhouse at each corner with eac4 blockhouse connected by a palisade fence. Stockades and forts were for garrisons with sleeping arrangements and served as places of refuge for many people. Blockhouses, when not designated to be built in an area, often were made by families. These blockhouse were fabricated by community labor and private funds, and therefore reserved for selected families in time of danger. A situation could arise where a dozen or fewer Indians might cause those owning the blockhouse to flee into it with the clothes on their backs and what they could grab_ In March 1756 the Assembly of Virginia authorized the building of a cordon of forts on the frontier, the construction to be overseen by Captain Peter Hog. These structures usually were on the heads of creeks extending toward the Allegheny Mountains. There are several extant lists of these forts describing the number of militia to be stationed there, distance from one to another, and the name the officer in charge. - _ They all had names and geographical location descriptions. Some were built some were not. Fort Nieswander is not one of them. The name Nieswander, in all of its variations of spelling, is not mentioned in connection with this cordon of forts project_ The closest was Stephen's Fort on Cedar Creek, ten or fifteen miles from Major Robert White's Fort near the Capon fiver in the North Mountain neighborhood. Even though Washington thought the best defense was a good offense, he was unable to muster enough troops from the locals to take the offense. Washington wrote "Those who now remain are collected in small forts, out of which there is no prevailing on them to stir, end every plantation is deserted_" Also there was no cooperation among settlements in the Lower Valley. When the people of Hampshire County appealed to Frederick County for help against an impending Indian attack, the people of Frederick County said, "Let Hampshire take care of itself as we will do if we are attacked." In summary the ruins called Nieswander's Fort, if the ruins are of a blockhouse, was a private one reserved for the Nieswander family and friends. Its present location, on a part of the Cedar Creek Battlefield far from a main road, as well as its undocumented history, argue that saving the site would serve no historical purpose. January 2006 Chemstone - Middletown A pp T-#-":tR-IVF-4FTC IMIDACITANAL Y& Q --JS A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Rome Located in Middletown, Virginia Prepared for: O -N Minerals Chemstone Operation 1696 Oranda Road P.O. Box 71 Strasburg, VA 22657 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Lmdscape Architects. �+ 300 Foxcroff Avenue, Suite 54 --��--++--.. Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 HT 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 March 15, 2005 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the rezoning of land parcels located adjacent to the existing Global Stone facility in Middletown, Virginia. Currently, the site accommodates 26 employees per day, 19 Global Stone trucks per day and 50 customer tracks per day. The proposed expansion could increase the number of employees by 14 per day, the number of Global Stone trucks by 80 per day and the number of customer trucks by 56 per day. This report also examines a scenario that would eliminate all Global Stone truck traffic by implementing a conveyer belt system across Cedar Creek. Primary access to the facility will be provided via a single site -driveway located west of the Route 625 (5`h Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street) intersection. The proposed development will be built - out over a single transportation phase by the year 2008. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Global Stone with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Metbodelogy The traffic impacts accompanying the Global Stone development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the Global Stone, • Distribution and assignment of the Global Stone generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) conducted manual AM and PM peak hour vehicle classification counts at the intersection of Route 625 (5`h Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street) in Middletown, Virginia. ADT (Average Daily Trips) 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 10%. figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/FM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 625 (5t' Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street). Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service work -sheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. _ A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone o Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 1 1 No Scale IT�`D'fi 625 St �rY1 ti~ �� 1 115 d �.l IJ1i � pip J T �oGb ry1� 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) -- Figure 2 Existing Tr airic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279 2-0 March 15, 2005 Parye 3 r� No Scale SITE 1� Ur signalized ` 625 5t '� �tersection t h t J Z1 * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service 3 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone 9 Project Number: 11279 2-0 March 15, 2005 r Page 4 2008 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Existing traffic volumes were increased along Route 11 using a conservative annual growth rate of two percent (2%) as determined based upon historic traffic growth for the area. Figure 4 shows the 2008 background ADT and AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 625 (5th Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street). Figure 5 shows the respective 2008 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. TRIP GENERATION Currently, the Global Stone facility accommodates 26 employees per day, 19 Global Stone trucks per day and 50 customer trucks per day. As a result of the rezoning of adjacent land parcels, the development could increase (at a worst-case) by 14 employees per day; 80 Global Stone trucks per day and 56 customer trucks per day. PHR+A has analyzed two (2) alternative scenarios for the site: 1) Scenario #1 assumes the implementation of a conveyer belt system that would transport material across Cedar Creek whereby eliminating the internal Global Stone truck traffic, 2) Scenario #2 assumes the existing metholdology for transporting material across Cedar Creek (via Global Stone trucks). The trip generation for the Global Stone facility was interpolated from existing traffic counts and assumptions based upon the current and proposed land uses. Table I shows the trip generation results for the Global Stone development. Table I Global Stone Trip Generation Summary _ A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone G Project Number: 11279-2-0 t fir'_ March 15, 2005 Page 5 AIV Peak Hour PM Peak )clout co-AIDT In ©at Total In Out Total Existing 26 Employees 4 5 9 5 4 10 139 19 Global Trucks 3 3 7 4 3 7 101 50 Customer Trucks 8 9 17 11 8 18 267 Total Exiting �Trips i6 17 33 20 u� y 15� — 35 507 2 3 5 3 2 5 75 Scenario ](via Conveyer Belt System) 40 Employees (+14) 0 Global Trucks (-19) -3 -3 -7 -4 -3 -7 -101 106 Customer Trucks (+56) 9 10 19 12 9 21 299 Worst-case Scenario I Trip Differential +9 +9 +I8 +11 +8 +19 +272 Total (Existing ++ Scenario 1) 25 Q� 26 51 31 23 54 779 3 _ 2 5 75 Scenario 2 (via Global Stone trucks) 2 3 5 40 Employees (+14) 99 Global Trucks (+80) 13 14 28 17 13 29 427 106 Customer Trucks (+56) 9 10 19 12 9 21 299 Worst-case Scenario 2 Trip Differential +25 +27 +52 +32 +24 +55 +801 Total (Existing + Scenario 2)I 41 44 85 52 39 99 1,308 _ A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone G Project Number: 11279-2-0 t fir'_ March 15, 2005 Page 5 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 lv�-Im March 15, 2005 L Page 6 No Scale SITE Unsignalizea Intersection 625 5th St ��t 1 !1' 11 Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement -.L1, + AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Fig -are 5 X00$ Background Lane Geometry and Levels of rervic _ A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stowe Project Number: 1127"-2 March 15, 2005 _ Page 7 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND rt RIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon existing travel patterns at the Route 11 (Main Street)/ Route 625 (5"' Street) intersection. Figure 6 represents the trip distribution percentages into and out of the proposed Global Stone development. Figures 7a and 7b show the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments at the intersection of Route 625 / US Route 11 for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. 2045 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS Global Stone assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Fegures 8a and Sb show the 2008 build -out ADT and AM/FM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 11 (Main Street)/. Route 625 (5th Street) for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Global Stone development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS -2000 results, the intersection of Route 11 (Main Street)/ Route 625 (5h Street) will operate with levels of service `B" or better during 2008 build- out conditions for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone a o Project Number: 11279-2-0 T- March 15, 2005 L Page 8 No Scale SITE ti S� 625 4-1 5th Str i 40% T1P+.A Figure 6 ' "rip Distribution Percentages L A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 9 I No Scale Note: Negative values are due to the elimination of Global Stone trucks as result of the conveyor belt system AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 7a. Scenario ##1: Trip Assign.-nents A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Pro ect Number: 11279-2-0 - J March 15, 2005 Page 10 Trip A.ssig emits A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 11 No Scale I I L s"1, AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average DOpy Trips Figure sa Scenario fl: 2408 Build -out Traffic Conditions _g € A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 �i March 15, 2005 Page 12 No Scale ti SITE 625 Stfj tree } Q-1 b AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure Rb Scenario #2: 2008 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone A Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 e Page 13 f fl No Scale SITE Unsigl:> alized Intersection * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9a Scenario #1: 2008 Build -out Lane GeGMetry and bevels of Service m A Traffic Impact Analvsis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 14 i� No Scale s';1 SITE Unsigni alized Intersects,Gn � X25 Sth Street 1 11 * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement T , + AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure gb Scenario #2: 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and bevels of Service ATraffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone fe Project Number: 11279-2-0 `= March 15, 2005 V ra Pale 15 I HCS -2.009 Worksheets INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - TWSC At an unsignalized two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous right of way whsle the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left -turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps _is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors .(sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for TWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in - queue position. Level of Service Criteria for TWSC Intersections Average Total Delay Level of Service secfveh A _<10 B >10 and <15 C >15 and <_25 D >25 and <35 E. - >35 and <50 F >50 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - AWSC At an unsignalized all -way stop -controlled (AWSC) intersection, all directions are controlled by a stop sign. Operation of AWSC intersections requires that every vehicle stop at the intersection before proceeding. Since each driver is required to stop, the judgment as to whether to proceed into the intersection is a function of the traffic conditions on the other (opposing and conflicting) approaches. Therefore, a driver proceeds only after determining that there are no vehicles currently in the intersection and that it is safe to proceed. The analysis takes into account the problem of determining, under capacity conditions for a given approach, the factors that influence the rate at which vehicles can depart successfully from the STOP line. Traffic at other approaches, which increases potential conflict, translates directly into longer driver decision times and saturation headways. The saturation headways are also influenced by characteristics of the traffic flow (slow accelerating vehicles, left turns, etc.). hi the analysis in this reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of .service for AWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in - queue position. Level of Service Criteria for AWSC Intersections Average Total Delay Level of.Service seclveh A <_10 B >10 and <15 C >15 and S25 D >25 and S35 E >35 and X50 F >50 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the We ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. In this report all the default values recommended by the IICM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal' timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optional" signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the full range of level of service: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Stopped Delay Level of Service per Vehicle (sed A <_10.0 B >10.0 and 520.0 C >20.0 and _<35.0 D >35.0 and <55.0 E >55.0 and 580.0 F >80.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 10 and up to 20 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high We ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes. operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high We ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Level of Service E describes operations with delay in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high We ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to, such delay levels. REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERJCK COUNT', VIRGINIA 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. I. Applicant: Name: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Telephone: 540-465-6819 Address: 1696 Oranda Road P.O. Box 71 Strasburg Virginia 22657 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone: Name: Charles E Maddox Jr. P.E. (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X _ Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X __nor+� Verification of taxes paid X Prol�rrc1_ Statement+ X 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: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached PARCEL ID NUMBER USE Undeveloped Quarry ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The (Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). 2 AD.IOINERS (MEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting abe requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-ol-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Harne Address Property Identification Number (PiN) Name: Keith A. & Linda A. McNeely 443 Westernview Dr Property #: 84-6-10 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Mark A. & Karen Griffith 411 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-9 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Fred & Shirley Potter 379 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-8 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Steven M. & Deborah M. Miller 357 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-7 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Donald J. & Donna W. Hopkins 325 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-6 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Lawrence E. & Wendy J. Hamilton 277 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-5 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Jeanne Rapa & Shellie L. Sellards 241 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-4 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Kevin D. & Elizabeth M. Barrington 205 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-3 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Gary S. & Dale A. Nichols 1405 Handley Ave Property#: 84-A-7 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Richard A. & Janet S. Dye 11310 Vale Rd 84-A-12 Oakton, VA 22124 -Property#: Name: H & E, LC 1832 Chapel Rd Property#: 84-A-17 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Jennifer L. Nichols 1875 Hites Rd 84 -A -17A Middletown, VA 22645 -Property#: Name: Edith M. Renner 152 Veterans Rd Pro ert #: 91-A-7 Middletown, VA 22645 5 Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd Property #: 84-A-16 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Timothy D. & Lisa M. Rickman Rt 1, Box 695 Property#: 91 -A-7A Swords Creek, VA 24649 Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St Property #: 83-A-107 Strasburg, VA 22657 Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St Property #: 83-A-1 08B Strasbur , VA 22657 Name: Dennis F. Boyer 165 Drover Ln Property#: 83-A-1088 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Deborah R. Dorman 9345 River View Rd Property#: 83-A-106 Broomes Island, MD 20615 Name: Rock Builders, Inc P.O. Box 1146 Property #: 83 -A -103B Berryville, VA 22611 Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd Property#: 90-A-20 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Richard A. McDonald 470 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90-A-30 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Meadow Mills Union Chapel RR 1 Box 446 Property #: 90-A-29 Edinburg, VA 22824 Name: Joseph L. & Frances Kenny 516 Meadow Mills Rd Property#: 90 -A -29A Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Thomas G. II & Cornelia E. Lekas 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90-A-28 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Albert H. Hodson 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90-A-27 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Ave NW Property #: 90-A-33 Washin ton, DC 20036 Name: Malcom & Mildred G. Brumback 420 Belle Grove Rd Property #: 90-A-26 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Barry L. Bowser P.O. Box 221 Property #: 90-A-25 Middletown, VA 22645 12. Signature: I (vie), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is subrnitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planing Comrrisson public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. i (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the 'best of i n_y (cur) kAowledge. Applicant/ Owner Dates 4 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederl.ck, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederEc1r.we.us Department of Planning &a Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) O -N Minerals (,Chemstone) CoMoration (Phone) 540-465-6819 (Address) 1696 Oranda Road P.O. Box 71 Strasburg VA 22657 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Deed Book 620 on Page 186 and is described as Deed Book 476 on Page 105 and is described as Parcel: Lot: 109 Block: A Section: 83 Subdivision: Parcel: Lot: 23 Block: A Section: 90 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name).._ Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (Phone) 540-667-2139 (Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: N/A This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. T� In witness thereof, have hereto set m our) and seal this �O day ofM, 2004, /1_ Signature(s State of Virginia, City/County of�f� 1--G b`'�Z -C/� To -wit: a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction ,fore certi that the person(s) o signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and bas acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this ,E y;_, day oaf , 2M- . My Commission Expires: ,,& �ltary Public QV -ZIACOW AlWjloa.N(b s- C-1 149.25 Acres C� A U ul 1614, jr 4_3 4-1i Q) O—N MI'17erGls Chemstol7e �70 Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc (b N � . Southern Reserve Boundary Exhibit 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 Cb VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, 14RGINIA I ?g 9 L30 G'4 Rt H �kj�B 2ppq e) p JK RALE /S DB os PG 151 L10 0)/ =�aa?O I' Qom L8 0 � Q vo- m N Co Z �' O QL1.5 N ZL16 � C17 C73 RpU o jq �6\ 2 s R/GHgRN/F 53.16' 100.30' 100.30' 100.30' 54.16 20.56 23.07 '31"E 1655.16' '14"W 834.12' '38"W 569.68' '22"W 1346.03' '59"W 1490.67' '59"W 2939.60' '46"W 196-47' '41"E 1301.31' 31"W 1917.06' '21"E 62.27' 'O4"W _ 1629.81' 1. FREDERICK COUNTY PIN: 83—A-109 2- PROPERTY OUTLINE, ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON GRAPHIC SCALE 0 500 1000 2000 (1N FET) 1 inch = 1000 fL i it a THE PLAT ATTACHED TO DEED OF EXHIBIT y BARGAIN AND SALE RECORDED IN A PORTION OF THE DB 620, PG 186 AMONG THE LAND PROPERTY CONVEYED TO 3. RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, CHE�ASiOf�E CORPORATION} VIRGINIA. INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT BASED ON A DEED BOOK 620, PAGE 186 CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT i FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA o 3. NO TITLE REPORT. SCALE: 1" = 1000' DATE: FEB. 15, 2006 v i Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. N 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 +� Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 T 540.667.2139 Of a F 540.665.0493 SHEET 1 OF 1 / �g 4R DYE 31 ty � L2S 6 > 2 L24 m � 1 X26 a a ^ PORTION OF w Z PIN 83-A-109 o Z m p 21,339,227 SF 2j' REMAINDER OF PIN 83-A=109 N z w ir C,, 489.8812 AC w o ► 2,159,280 SF rc a. a49.57025 AC ' NO _ _ z Q9 J� to W _ LINE TABLE BEARING LENGTH 6 �8"E S66 C) Z C) 38 51 4023.076' N N 39'32'58"E 640.55' Z m 39'56'01"E 1296.56' n' W o 58'34'51"W 24.61' I 71'51'15"W 762.00' 48'10'25"E 1030-98' 42'53'33"E 198.00' J��FS 48'03'52"E 1774.42' C32. 56'49'53"E 3699.27' A/ 33'20'32"W 1675.02' R�F� 47'56'38"W 578.15' 44'53'23"W 954.20' T 57'54'13"W 321.85' e f 0/s 4031'00"W 179.03' 53.16' 100.30' 100.30' 100.30' 54.16 20.56 23.07 '31"E 1655.16' '14"W 834.12' '38"W 569.68' '22"W 1346.03' '59"W 1490.67' '59"W 2939.60' '46"W 196-47' '41"E 1301.31' 31"W 1917.06' '21"E 62.27' 'O4"W _ 1629.81' 1. FREDERICK COUNTY PIN: 83—A-109 2- PROPERTY OUTLINE, ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON GRAPHIC SCALE 0 500 1000 2000 (1N FET) 1 inch = 1000 fL i it a THE PLAT ATTACHED TO DEED OF EXHIBIT y BARGAIN AND SALE RECORDED IN A PORTION OF THE DB 620, PG 186 AMONG THE LAND PROPERTY CONVEYED TO 3. RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, CHE�ASiOf�E CORPORATION} VIRGINIA. INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT BASED ON A DEED BOOK 620, PAGE 186 CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT i FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA o 3. NO TITLE REPORT. SCALE: 1" = 1000' DATE: FEB. 15, 2006 v i Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. N 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 +� Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 T 540.667.2139 Of a F 540.665.0493 SHEET 1 OF 1 / § 165-83 ZONING § 165-85 Additional landscaped areas may be required to ensure that all unused areas are landscaped and to improve the general appearance and use of the site. In no case shall more than 25% of the site be required to be landscaped in the B2 Business General Zoning District. ARTICLE XI EM Extractive Manufacturing District § 165-84. Intent. The intent of the Extractive Manufacturing. District is to provide for mining and related industries, all of which rely on the extraction of. natural resources. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. It is also the intent of this article to avoid the encroachment of incompatible uses on the borders of the EM District. § 165-85. Permitted uses. The following uses shall be allowed; A. Surface or subsurface mining of rock, metal and nonmetallic ores. B. Oil and natural gas extraction and/or pumping, including storage of production produced on the site. No refining is allowed. C. Sand and gravel mining and processing. D. Crushed stone operations. E. Manufacture and processing of cement, lime and gypsum. (Cont'd on page 16625) 16624.9 12-15-2004 § 165-85 ZONING § 165-88 F. Asphalt and concrete mixing plants. G. Brick, block and precast concrete products. H. Farming, agriculture, orchards, nurseries, horticulture, dairying and forestry. I. Accessory uses. J. Business and directional signs. K. Public utilities, including poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes, meters and sewer facilities. § 165-86. Performance standards. All uses shall conform to applicable state or federal regulations governing noise and vibration. The Zoning Administrator may require the submission of a copy of data submitted to state or federal agencies pertaining to these performance standards with the required site plan. § 165-87. Landscaping. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise. sight, dust or other adverse impacts. § 165-88. Setback and yard requirements. A. Front setback. (1) All principle and accessory structures shall be set back seventy- five (75) feet from any road, street or highway right-of-way. (2) Excavations shall be no closer than one hundred (100) feet from any road, street or highway right-of-way. The Planning Commis- sion may reduce the required front setback for excavation to fifty (50) feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adiacent properties has not been reduced. 16625 § 165-88 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-90 B. Side and rear setbacks. All principle and accessory structures shall be set back at least twenty-five (25) feet from any side or rear property boundary. (1) No structure shall be closer than one hundred (100) feet from any property line zoned RA, RP, R4, R5 or MH 1. The Planning Commission may reduce this required setback to fifty (50) feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. (2) Excavations shall be no closer than one hundred (100) feet from any property zoned RA, RP, R4, R5 or MH I. No excavation shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet from any dwelling or platted residential subdivision. The Planning Commission may reduce these required setbacks to fifty (50) feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. (3) All crushing or screening machinery shall be set back at least three hundred (300) feet from any property boundary. If such equipment is fully enclosed within a building which maintains the effective protection afforded adjacent properties, the Planning Commission may reduce this yard requirement to a minimum of two hundred (200) feet. § 165-65. Height limitations. No structure shall exceed forty-five (45) feet in height. § 165-90. Additional requirements. All uses in the EM District must conform with all state, federal and local regulations. All mining operators shall submit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the operations plan required by state agencies with the required site plan. 16626 Recommendations for Local Planning Significant intensification of uses should be avoided in the undevel- oped core battlefield areas of Cedar Creek, Third Winchester, and Kernstown, except where current Comprehensive Plans call for such an intensification. Undeveloped core battlefield areas currently outside of the Urban Development Area or other development designations should not be designated for urban development in Comprehensive Plans. Rezonings should be avoided in undeveloped core battlefield areas where those rezonings would result in uses not normally found in rural areas. Changes to more intensive uses in and around pristine battlefield core areas should involve the inclusion of the land in a historic overlay zoning district to control the appearance of such uses and to protect viewsheds. Special care should be taken to protect the key battlefield sites iden- tified by this plan and to avoid unnecessary distractions from the historic character of those sites. 22 Frederick County, there are approximately 12,000 acres of battlefield core areas that retain historic integrity. These core areas include some j TO ble 4 0 Battlefield Stuq ;end Core Areas in 17C de.. ick !County and Wjnchestia Retaining % Retaining Integrity % Integrity Study Area Core Area Integrity Integrity Lost Lost Battlefield (acres) (acres) (core acres) (core area) (core acres) (core area) Cedar Creek 15,607 6,252 5,601 89.6% 651 10.4% Opequon 11,670 4,914 2,321 47.2% 2,593 52.8% 2nd Winchester 22,274 3,113 1,624 52.2% 1,489 47.8% 2nd Kernstown 5,861 2,203 1,098 49.8% 1,105 50.2% 1st Winchester 4,041 1,393 301 21.6%1 1,092 78.4% 1st Kernstown 4,029 1,554 1,097 70.6% 457 29.4% Total _ 63,482 19,429 12,042 62.0% 7,387 38.0% Source: National Park Service, Study of Civil War Sites In the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, jSe tember, 1992 pristine areas where very significant battlefield events occurred. Cedar 'Creek After the Confederate defeat at the Third Battle of Winchester on Sep- tember 19 and at Fisher's Hill on September 22, 1864, Jubal Early knew that he must successfully engage General Philip Sheridan. Early knew that he needed to prevent Sheridan from returning detachments of his force to General Grant, who at the time was opposing General Robert E. Lee at Petersburg,. He knew that to accomplish this task, he would have to mount an offensive against Sheridan at Cedar Creek. In October of 1864, General Philip H. Sheridan was called to Wash- ington, leaving General Horatio G. Wright in command of a Union force of 45,000 men. General Jubal A. Early's Confederate force, now 18,000 strong, was monitoring the movements of the Union troops. Early on the morning of the 19th, hidden by fog, the Confederate forces attacked the Union VIII Corps with a terrifying rebel yell. The Union troops were quickly routed, with their southern flank battered by General J. B. Kershaw's Confederate troops coming north from Bowman's Mill. From the west, General G.C. Wharton's Confederate 24 Battle of Cedar Creek Battle Actions Confed. Movement Union Movement Confederate Positions �I Union Positions L� Confederate Cavalry Union Cavalry Q Camps y.� � f(OIMI.I, . 9.v.lapll.ot SCALE INFEET 2409 9 2400 *W 7200 9000 troops swept the Union XIX Corps to the northeast. At the far western end of the battle, General T. L. Rosser's cavalry encountered Custer's unit and drove thein to the east. Colonel T. H. Carter's artillery, positioned on Hupp's Hill; bombarded Union positions. Most of the Union army panicked and fled. The only organized resistance the Confederates encountered was the Second Di- vision of the Union VI Corps led by General George W. Getty, The Second Division made three valiant stands: first at the southern end of the ridge at Cemetery Hill, then along Old Furnace Road running west, from where Lord Fairfax Community College is today, and eventually holding a line half a mile north of Old Furnace Road. Confederate victory seemed certain at this point. Fresh from his trip from Wash- IN ington the night before, Sheridan rode from Winchester to the bat- tlefield and arrived about 10:30 LI 0 a.m. He established his com- mand post near the Valley Pike and began to reorganize his forces. The VI Corps was on the left, adjacent to the Valley Pike with the XIX Corps on the right. Sheridan rode along the reestab- lished battle line as the troops re- sponded with a mighty cheer. During the early afternoon, Early attacked along the Union line. His failure to defeat the Union forces ear - Belle Grove, on the Cedar Creek Battlefield her in the day proved fatal as his troops were thrown back. At about 4:30 p.m., Sheridan ordered General Getty to lead an attack with the VI Corps. After much desperate fighting, Getty's troops broke the Confederate line. The entire Confederate army fled south back across Cedar Creek to Strasburg and beyond. The Union pursuit continued after dark, ending at Fisher's Hill. The Confederates suffered 2,910 casualties: 320 killed, 1,540 wounded, and 1,050 missing. The Union forces snatched victory from the jaws of defeat that day, but the price was high. The Union suffered 5,665 casualties: 644 killed, 3,430 wounded, and 1,591 missing. Early's defeat at Cedar Creek ended Confederate efforts to invade the north, and Sheridan's string of victories in the Shenandoah Valley 26 I' t �t AJ amp Much of the Cedar Creek core area remains undeveloped, rural and pristine. Scattered single family residential development has occurred. The Chemstone Corporation quarry is located and operated in the St rateg es For Cedar Creek Provide funding and other support to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation in their efforts to acquire, preserve and use battlefield land. Do not rezone land in the Cedar Creek battlefield core area for uses that are not nor- mally found in rural areas. Work closely with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to prepare a resource man- agement plan for the Cedar Creek battlefield which describes appropriate preservation treatment for structures, earthworks and other features. Such planning should include a professional evaluation of appropriate stabilization and preservation treatments. Work closely with the Town of Middletown to promote the Town as a center of visitor services and as a vital part of the historic interpretation. Work closely with the Chemstone Corporation to enlist their support and to address ap- pearance issues. Use Cedar Creek as an important demonstration area to show the type of progress that can be made. 27 continued. The victory at Cedar Creek, along with the fall of Atlanta, helped reelect President Lincoln. The Cedar Creek battlefield area incorporates a long stretch of land along Route 11 South, from Cedar Creek to the north of Middletown. Focal points of fighting were at Belle Grove, the Heater House, Ceme- tery Hill, Dinges Farm, and the D. J. Miller House. The Cedar Creek Foundation has purchased 158 acres of the battlefield sites including land surrounding and to the immediate north of Belle Grove. This site includes the Heater House. Additional land to the south of Belle Grove has been targeted for possible preservation to protect view - sheds, remaining earthworks, and other significant areas. Other sig- nificant areas include the historic Town of Middletown and areas to the west and north of Middletown. The Mount Carmel Cemetery on Lug Cemetery Hill is a particularly significant. I' t �t AJ amp Much of the Cedar Creek core area remains undeveloped, rural and pristine. Scattered single family residential development has occurred. The Chemstone Corporation quarry is located and operated in the St rateg es For Cedar Creek Provide funding and other support to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation in their efforts to acquire, preserve and use battlefield land. Do not rezone land in the Cedar Creek battlefield core area for uses that are not nor- mally found in rural areas. Work closely with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to prepare a resource man- agement plan for the Cedar Creek battlefield which describes appropriate preservation treatment for structures, earthworks and other features. Such planning should include a professional evaluation of appropriate stabilization and preservation treatments. Work closely with the Town of Middletown to promote the Town as a center of visitor services and as a vital part of the historic interpretation. Work closely with the Chemstone Corporation to enlist their support and to address ap- pearance issues. Use Cedar Creek as an important demonstration area to show the type of progress that can be made. 27 .� .. �.a,' .. southwesternortions of the core r p o e area. The Torn of Middletown is central to the core area and retains significant historic character. rL hI d Winchester /Qpeciu®u On September 19, 1864, Union soldiers under the command of Gen- eral Philip H. Sheridan crossed the Opequon Creek along Berryville Pike with the hopes of destroying General Juba] Early's Confederate troops. General Early had sent General John Gordon and General Robert Rodes and their divisions to Martinsburg to launch attacks in Maryland, leaving the Confederate forces in Winchester at less than half strength. General Sheridan planned to have two cavalry divisions strike from Flow the north and the VIII Corps from the south. The main attack was to come from the east, with the VI and XIX Corps, who had to navigate h 1i First Woods of Third Winchester First Woods, on the Nash, Caleb Heights, Huntsberry, and Regency properties, across the Middle Field, on the Huntsberry and Caleb Heights property, toward the Second Woods, where General Gordon's Confederate troops waited. Confederate artillery north of Redbud Run played havoc with the flanks of the Union attacking line. Birge's brigade reached the Second Woods, on the Hackwood, Caleb Heights, and Regency properties, and came upon General Gordon's main Iine and were staggered. 29 L e narrow Berryville Canyon. The Un- ion infantry, with their wagons bogged down in the narrow confines of Berry- ville Canyon, dashed Sheridan's hopes of quickly taking Winchester. This kept the XIX Corps in the canyon until after- noon. By this time, General Early had discovered the Union plans and had re- called both Gordon and Rodes. The currently pristine areas to the east of the Hackwood House were the scene of intense fighting in the Third Battle of Winchester. At about noon on the 19th, a Union division of four brigades led by Birge, Molineux, Sharpe, and Shank launched its attack from the 1i First Woods of Third Winchester First Woods, on the Nash, Caleb Heights, Huntsberry, and Regency properties, across the Middle Field, on the Huntsberry and Caleb Heights property, toward the Second Woods, where General Gordon's Confederate troops waited. Confederate artillery north of Redbud Run played havoc with the flanks of the Union attacking line. Birge's brigade reached the Second Woods, on the Hackwood, Caleb Heights, and Regency properties, and came upon General Gordon's main Iine and were staggered. 29 CEBE Land Status ILegond statu r. J6 REZONING APPLICAT1 ON #04-06 ORRICK CEMETERY, INC. Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 20, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner 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: April 5, 2006 Pending Board of Supegwisors: April 26, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 33.61 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 22.06 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District with proffers. IL®CTIO1'1,T: The property is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Senseny Road (Route 657) and Greenwood Road (Route 656) with road frontage along both roadways. MAGISTE A L DISTRICT: Red Bud PRGEPERTY Ml'� NUI"BER: 55-A-201 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONI G & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Areas) South: RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Areas) East: RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Areas) West: RP (Residential Performance) B2 (Business General) Use: Residential and vacant Fire station and church Use: Residential Country store and residential Use: Residential Residential Use: Residential Retail Rezoning #04-06 — Orrick Cemetery, Inc. March 20, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: Mixed Use — Commercial and Residential (all age -restricted) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 656 and 657. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Orrick Commons rezoning application signed December 2005 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. While the proposed proffers appear acceptable, VDOT offers the following comments: 6.1— acceptable; 6.2 — acceptable; 6-3 — acceptable; 6.4 — acceptable; 6.5 — initially acceptable, but VDOT reserves the right to require additional dedications upon review of the site plan/entrance design. It should be noted that if 250' of separation from the proposed Greenwood entrance and Greenpark Drive cannot be achieved, the developer may be required to align the Greenwood entrance with Greenpark Drive. This would also require the developer to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT. 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 Marshal: Maintain access during all phases of construction. Municipal water supply for firefighting must be available as soon as combustible materials arrive on site. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. Site Suitability: Include a discussion of the existing power line right-of-way and the impact on the proposed road network and related utility development. Provide a detailed wetlands delineation with the master development plan (MDP) submittal. A copy of the MDP should be submitted to the Corps of Engineers for their review and comment. Refer to page 5 of 6, D. Transportation: The discussion references the requirement for a right turn lane on westbound Senseny Road for vehicles turning north onto Greenwood Road. Considering this location is outside of the proposed rezoning boundaries, indicate if sufficient right-of- way is available at this location. Refer to page 6 of 6, F. Site Drainage: Indicate what types of low impact development techniques will be employed within the proposed development. Also, delineate how much of the existing vegetation will be preserved as riparian buffers. All permanent storm water management facilities shall be highlighted in the MDP. Refer to page 6 of 6, G. Solid Waste Facilities: This discussion indicates that the homeowners' association (HOA) will be responsible for trash collection within the residential portion of the project. However, the proffer statement, paragraph 3.2 indicates, "if they decide to use a commercial collection company". This latter portion of item iii should be removed from the proffer statement, thereby making this a definite requirement of the HOA. Refer to page 3 of 7, proffer statement, paragraph 5.1: We applaud the use of BMP facilities. However, the maintenance of these facilities shall be included in the responsibilities of the HOA or commercial Rezoning #04-06 — Orrick Cemetery, Inc. March 20, 2006 Page 3 property owners. Refer to page 10 of the Traffic Impact Analysis by Patton Harris Rust & Associates: Revise the data in Table Il to reflect the actual commercial development of 158,000 square feet, proposed in the Introduction paragraph (page 1 of 6) of the impact analysis. Frederick County lnspections: No comment at this time. Shall comment at the time of site plan and subdivision lot review. Frederick -Winchester Service Authori : No comment. Sanitation Autlzori : I concur with the water & sewer comments made in the application package Frederick-Whachester Health P ,artment: No objection if water and sewer are to be provided. De artment of Parks & Recreation: The proposed plan appears to provide a monetary proffer consistent with the county model for this housing type. The developer has also indicated that a public recreational park, including playground equipment equivalent to monetary value of the required recreational units, will be located within the 3.5 acres of open space provided. Plan also shows a bike trail, meeting Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department standards, along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road which is to be maintained by the development. Frederick Ceunty Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 175 single family and multi family units will have no impact on the school division upon build -out due to the units being age restricted. Winchester Re ionai Airport: While the proposed development lies within the airport's Part 77 surfaces and airspace, it appears that the proposed site plan should not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated January 30, 2006 from Robert T. Mitchell, Jr., Esquire. :-historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmark Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It is also noted that the National Parks Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that his proposed rezoning would directly impact. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated January 26, 2006 from Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. Rezoning #04-06 — Orrick Cemetery, Inc. March 20, 2006 Page 4 Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies this property as being zoned A-2 (Agriculture General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were 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) Coml2rehensive Policy Flag The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. I -]J Land Use The site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The site is not within the limits of any small area plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The land use plan identifies the entire Senseny Road corridor for residential uses. However, the Plan (6-72) does call for neighborhood business uses in the vicinity of residential areas. Given this key intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, and the existing B2 zoned properties at this intersection, developing the western portion of the Orrick property for neighborhood commercial development and the eastern portion for residential, if done in a compatible manner, could be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The multi -family housing, in the center of the site, as proffered on the Generalized Development Plan, provides a transition between the retail portion of the site and the single family portion of the site. Siting elderly housing adjacent to retail/office uses is desirable, and with the safeguards called for in the Comprehensive Plan when multi -family units are adjacent to single family units, the mix of uses could be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While Senseny Road is not specifically a business corridor, the business design standards in the Comprehensive Plan are relevant to this application. The Plan calls for landscaping along the roadway, screening adjoining uses, and controlling the size, number and location of signs. Staff Note: The on-going Urban Development Area (UDA) Study has preliminarily designated this area for a neighborhood center. Before this could happen, community input would be Rezoning #04-06 — Orrick Cemetery, Inc. March 20, 2006 Page 5 sought and policies and standards would need to be adopted. As these steps have not taken place, the general policies in the existing Comprehensive Plan, which call for high quality design and compatibility between uses and housing types would need to be followed. Given the lack of details concerning the residential portion of the site, the county will need to be confident that the multi family housing will be compatible with the existing single-family housing and that the commercial uses will be complementary with residential uses. Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Senseny Road and Greenwood Road as improved major collectors. This translates to a four -lane divided boulevard section, such as is being implemented with Warrior Drive. The idealized intersection design in the Comprehensive Plan (6-15) illustrates appropriate features including raised medians with landscaping, landscaping along the edge of the right-of-way, and sidewalks. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan designates Senseny Road as a short-term designated route. Staff Note: The applicant is partially implementing the Eastern Road Plan. On Senseny Road a new lane is beingprovided. However, the applicant has not committed to a road section with landscaping and a median. Along Greenwood Road, given the current road configuration and access needed for the Greenwood Fire and Rescue, a median in not proposed by the County at this time. The applicant should however, address the landscaping issue on Greenwood Road. 3) Site Suitabiliti°/lEnvirronment No steep slopes exist on the property. No portion of this site is within the 100 -year flood plain according to the Flood Insurance Study Map for Frederick County. U.S.G.S. maps show one stream and one pond on the property, both in the northeast corner. The applicant has prepared a Wetland Delineation Report and a Request for Jurisdictional Wetlands Determination. That report documented two wetlands in the southeast corner of the site and one circular ditch holding water, that is not a jurisdictional water of the U.S. The wetlands will be further analyzed further at the MDP and site plan stages. Some mature woodlands, which may form part of the landscape requirement, are located on the eastern portion of the site. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick Coup . , Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel fall under the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association, which is the predominant association on land located east of Interstate 81. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. No soil types on this site are classified as prime farmland soil. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Rezoning #04-06 — Orrick Cemetery, Inc. March 20, 2006 Page 6 Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7t'' Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 11,789 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that the study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the project at Level of Service C conditions or better, given the proffered improvements. Option B of the TIA (pages 14a and 14b) was prepared after the original TIA, and incorporates the realignment of the Greenwood Road entrance with existing Green Park Drive. Improvements to the intersection of Senseny Road and Channing Drive (turn lanes and signalization) have been proffered by the developers of the Channing land bays when the first site plan is submitted for their B2 area. The TIA shows level of Service D(F) at this intersection without the signalization proffered by others, but this failing level of service is reached with or without the Orrick development. Staff Note: The TIA modeled 144,200 square feet of retail use and 175 elderly housing units. The proffer statement limits the development to 158, 000 square feet of retail floorspace and current county ordinances limit the residential units to 184; therefore traffic may be higher than that modeled in the TIA. D. Sewer and Water Water and sanitary sewer facilities are available via the Lynnehaven Subdivision to the east. The majority of the site will be served via gravity flow from west to east. Using the standards water consumption rates for single family attached/multi-family residential uses and general consumption/office uses, the proposed development is projected to consume approximately 59,200 GPD (gallons per day) of water and produce equivalent sewer flows. C. Community Facilities The applicant has proffered $2,912 for each residential unit to offset the impacts to community facilities. This amount is consistent with the County's new Development Impact Model. It excludes the amount for schools because this is a proffered age -restricted community. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated December 6, 2005 and Revised February 13, 2406 Generalized Development Plan — Dated November 15, 2005 A) Land Use Commercial floorspace shall not exceed 158,000 square feet. A minimum of 55,000 square feet of commercial floorspace shall be constructed prior to occupancy of any residential dwelling. Adult retail uses are prohibited and car washes are prohibited adjacent to residential properties. All units will be age -restricted and will comprise a mix of single family and multi- family units. Rezoning #04-06 — Orrick Cemetery, Inc. March 20, 2006 Page 7 B) Homeowners Association The residential homeowners association will own and maintain all common areas including a 3.5 acre park which, by proffer, will be open to the public. Staff Note: The Director of Public Works has indicated a preference for having the homeowners association responsible for trash collection within the residential portion of the site. C) Transportation The applicant will install a traffic signal at the project entrance on Senseny Road, provide a left turn lane on eastbound Senseny Road at that entrance, and provide a new westbound lane on Senseny Road from the eastern end of the property to the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. The applicant will install a new northbound lane on Greenwood Road from the intersection of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road to the project entrance on Greenwood Road. The applicant will install signalization at the entrance on Greenwood Road when requested by VDOT. All other road improvements to Senseny Road and Greenwood Road will be completed prior to occupancy of any commercial buildings. The applicant will dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way on Senseny Road and 15 feet of right-of-way on Greenwood Road to VDOT. Access along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road will be limited to one entrance on each. The applicant will connect the residential and commercial portions of the site. The site access on Senseny Road will have a boulevard entrance. Inter -parcel connectors with adjacent properties will be identified at the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage. Staff Note: The Eastern Road Plan calls for Senseny Road to be improved to a major collector. The county standards calls for a four lane divided section with a landscaped median. While sufficient right-of-way may not exist for a full median with trees, a portion of the median could be provided with this project such that a full median can be provided when the south side of Senseny road develops. The applicant is encouraged to provide street trees along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road and on each side of the proffered boulevard entrance, consistent with earlier plans shown to staff. The proffer statement should include timing for the dedication of additional right-of-way to VDOT. The applicant has proffered to construct Farmington Boulevard on their property. However, as there is no timing to this proffer, the county is not assured of its completion. D) Design Standards The principal facade and any other facade facing Senseny Road or Greenwood Road of any commercial building will be limited to a cast stone, stone, brick, formed concrete, glass, wood stucco or other masonry. All commercial buildings will have standing seam metal roofs. Staff Note: Earlier renderings presented to staff for this project showed buildings on the pad sites close to Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, with the parking lots hidden behind. Staff Rezoning #04-06 — Orrick Cemetery, Inc. March 20, 2006 Page 8 has encouraged the applicant to commit to this layout. Staff also has concerns with the use of formed concrete as a possible dominant building material. The apartment units will have facades of stone, brick, smooth face block, wood, cement board siding, stucco and glass. The apartment structures will incorporate non -symmetrical massing, bays and columned porches. Staff note: As stated above, the county will want to be assured that the multi family units are compatible with the surrounding single family units. The design proffers are vague and do not guarantee a compatible design. E) Parks and Recreation The applicant will design and construct a 3.5 acre park to be open to the public, but owned and maintained by the residential homeowners association. The applicant will provide a 10 foot asphalt pedestrian bike trail along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. StaffNote: There is no timing associated with the trail proffer. Staff suggests that the applicant consider installing the trail at the time of road improvements. In addition, it is unclear if the trail will be directly adjacent to the road or whether landscaping will be placed in between. The latter is encouraged for safety and aesthetic reasons. F) Signage The applicant will limit freestanding entrance signs at the proposed entrances to one monument style sign. Each of these signs shall be limited to 20 feet in height. Pylon signs will be prohibited on the site. Staff Note: The wording of this proffer is vague and may allow two signs on each road. Staff suggests greater clarity to insure the intent of the proffer. Given the proximity of this site to residential uses, the applicant has been encouraged to consider smaller signs. G) Monetary Contribution For each residential unit the applicant has proffered: $1519 for parks and recreation; $508 for fire and rescue; $227 for general government; $468 for public safety; and $190 for library; $2912 for capital improvements, plus $500 for road improvements to Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. Rezoning #04-06 — Orrick Cemetery, Inc. March 20, 2006 Page 9 Staff Note: Recent rezonings in the Senseny Road area have proffered larger contributions toward road improvements. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/05/06 PLANNING CONVAISS-10-N A -6E T pNG: This application is somewhat consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The County will need assurances that the multi -family units will be compatible with the neighboring single family homes. For the commercial component, the applicant should carefully consider road standards and corridor appearance standards as they relate to the median and street trees, and placement of buildings closer to the street. This could become the county's first neighborhood center, but the County needs to be assured, based on its currents policies and standards, that the development is of a high quality and compatible with its surroundings. Fallowing the requirement Lop a public hearing, a recommendation by the Flcannina Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning %his rezoning aapEwatiot � would beaporopHate. The applicant should be pre aped to a uatedP address all concerns raised by the Planning Coinniissia a. Applicant: Residential Units (number) SFD SFA MFD Non -Residential (sq. ft.) Retail Office UTR� ® IMIODU ,E Orrick Commons � 184 Units 92 0 92 55,000 Sq. Ft. 55,000 Sq. Ft. 0 Sq. Ft. Total capital facilities impacts to mitigate $ 2,976,608 Total revenue from commercial component $ 3,206,871 10 Year average of expenditures toward capital items 18% Revenue to assign as credit from commercial component $577,237 Total capital facilities impacts left to be mitigated $ 2,399,371 Total $2,976,608 $2,399,371 $13,040 Total Cost of Total Net Cost of Capital Facilities Capital Facilities Per Unit Fire And Rescue $115,922 $93,442 $508 General Government $51,916 $41,848 $227 Public Safety $106,817 $86,102 $468 Library $43,278 $34,885 $190 Parks and Recreation $346,848 $279,586 $1,519 School Construction $2,311,828 $1,863,508 $10,128 Total $2,976,608 $2,399,371 $13,040 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL o� A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE 0. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. McLoUGHLIN, JR. ATTORNEYS AT LAW I a 7 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 FAX 540-662-4304 E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.Com January 30, 2006 Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Orrick Commons (Orrick Cemetery Company, Inc.) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Susan: 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. A paragraph should be added to the initial paragraphs which contains a description of the property, to include a description of the general location of the property, the title owner, the acreage, and a citation to the land records (deed book and page number, or instrument number) where the owner of the property acquired title. - 2. With respect to the proffer set forth in paragraph l.1 and 1.3, these paragraphs really do not constitute proffers, as they merely say that the property in the B2 district and RF district will be developed in accordance with the B2 zoning regulations and the RP regulations, respectively. This is not aproffer to do something HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy January 30, 2006 Page 2 which is more than is already required by ordinance. The second sentence of each of these two proffers would appear to be redundant, and also suggests that the County may approve development on the property which is not in accordance with the zoning ordinance regulations. 3. With respect to the proffers set forth in paragraph 1.2, which sets forth a maximum of 158,000 square feet of commercial development, I would note that this proffer does not contain a proffer for a minimum square footage of commercial development (except as may be implied by proffer paragraph 1.6). 4. While the second paragraph on page 1 of the proffers states: "The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or include the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein", it is my recommendation that the individual proffers be more specific as to when the proffered improvement will be completed. This would apply to proffer paragraphs 6.2 (traffic signal, construction of left turn lane, construction of right turn lane); proffer paragraph 6.5 (dedication of right-of-way); proffer paragraph 6.6 (interconnected pedestrian network); and proffer paragraph 8.1 (construction of 3.5 acre park). 5. With respect to the proffer contained in paragraph 6.6 (interconnected pedestrian network), I would recommend that the proffer set forth the minimum 5 �, ti _ 1., .� ._ a ,. aesign requirements for Cele pedestrian net"w'od , uldcSs t.uv�� r.c�uifuri�eittS are adequately addressed by ordinance. 6. I would note that in proffer paragraph 7. 1, the last two sentences are very general in nature. If the architecture and color scheme are important to the County's consideration of this rezoning request, then these last two sentences should be made somewhat more specific. FALL, MONAHAN, ENOLE, MAHAN 6I MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy January 30, 2006 Page 3 7. Paragraph 9.1 does not really constitute a proffer, as the applicant would be required to meet the landscaping requirements of the Frederick County Code in any event. The second sentence of this paragraph does not constitute an enforceable proffer. rq, :fY�7rn Sgt�d to limit signage to that shown on Exhibit A and thereby prohibit free-standing signs? If so, that should be specifically stated. 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. ,, Vtry.. truly yours, Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. RTM/ks COUNTY of FR—FDEPJCK Departm; ent of Planning and Dev&opnnent 5401665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 January 26, 2006 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Orrick Commons Dear Patrick: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for Orrick Commons. This application seeks to rezone 22.06 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (Business General) District and 33.61 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District. In general, staff is supportive of this mixed-use project at an important crossroads in the Senseny Road corridor. I would also point out that the emerging Urban Development Area (UDA) study is supportive of this type of neighborhood center. Staff's review comments are listed below. 1. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site is not within the limits of any small area plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The land use plan identifies the entire Senseny Road corridor for residential uses. However, the Plan (6-72) does call for neighborhood business uses in the vicinity of residential areas. Given this key intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, and the existing B2 zoned properties at this intersection, it is reasonable to develop the western portion of the Orrick property for neighborhood commercial development. 2. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Senseny Road and Greenwood Road as improved major collectors. This translates to a four -lane divided boulevard section, such as is being implemented with Warrior Drive. The applicant will need to ensure that the application addresses expansion plans for these roads and that all road improvements, especially turn lanes, respect the long-term road center line. 3. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for properties along business corridors. These include landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs. While this is not specifically a business corridor, it will be a commercial node at a prominent 107 Porth Kent Street, Suite 20 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Orrick Commons January 26, 2006 crossroads and similar standards should be applied. While the application speaks of design guidelines, few are included in the proffer statement. These design elements should all be incorporated into this application. 4. Illustrative Site Plan. The applicant has provided staff a copy of an illustrative site plan. This is not part of the rezoning application and is not proffered. However, there are many good design features on the site plan. These include siting the commercial building close to Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, with the parking out of view of the street; a boulevard style main entrance on Senseny Road; and landscaped parking lots. I would encourage you to consider making these part of the proffer statement. 5. B2 (Business General) Uses. The applicant should consider restricting some of the uses allowed in the 132 District, such as car washes, due to the proximity of this property to residential uses. 6. Impact Analysis - Transportation. The applicant has noted a desire to accommodate automobile and pedestrian traffic. I would strongly suggest that the applicant consider a commitment to specific design features including curb and gutter, sidewalks throughout the development and a multi-purpose trail along both Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. Again, ensure that the pedestrian access is consistent with the long term plans for Senseny Road and Greenwood Road 7. Interparcel Connections. The properties adjacent to the Orrick Property along Senseny Road could redevelop in the future. It would be beneficial for the Orrick development to leave opportunities for inter -parcel connections to these properties. 8. Road Network. Verify with VDOT that all proposed roads and related improvements in the power line easement will be allowed. 9. Impact Assessment Statement — Wetlands. The application notes the presence of one intermittent stream in the northwest corner of the site. County and USGS maps indicate that there is another stream in the northeast corner of the site. This should be addressed. 10. Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was based on 144,200 suare feet of commercial development. The proffer statement calls for up to 158,000 square feet of commercial floorspace. Traffic im qpacts will thus be greater than those modeled in the TIA. Please correct. Page 3 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Orrick Commons January 26, 2006 11. Traffic Impact Analysis. TIA Table. l lists 2008 "Other Developments". The TIA has double counted one project. The Butcher Property is the same as Briarwood III, which is now known as Steeplechase. It will contain 69 single- family detached units. 12. Traffic Impact Analysis. TIA Figure 9 shows the 2008 Build -Out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service. Site Driveway #1 on Greenwood Road is projected to have level of service B(D). The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service C or better on roads adjacent to and within new development. Even with the suggested improvements in the TIA, Level of Service C is not provided at site Driveway #1. Similarly, Level of Service D(F) is projected for the intersection of Channing Drive and Senseny Road. As you are aware, the improvements to this intersection are proffered by others, but the other responsible party is not obliged to put in the improvements until his first B2 site plan is submitted or until residential traffic warrants the improvements. Given this proposed B2 rezoning, it is possible that the improvements by others may not take place for many years. (I would note that the D(F) level of service at this particular intersection will result with or without this proposed development.) 13. Traffic Impact Analysis. It is important to understand that the application must address transportation based on the Comprehensive Plan as well as the impacts projected in the TIA. 14. Proffer StateYrent — Dared Use. Proffers 1.1 and 1.3 are unnecessary as they repeat the Zoning Ordinance. Proffers should be an enhancement to County ordinances, not a restatement of ordinances. 15. Proffer Statement — Land Use 1.4. The applicant has proffered a maximum of 175 age -restricted units provided as a mixture of single family detached and multi -family units, as allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. I suggest that the maximum number of units not be specifically proffered. Since the County is undertaking its UDA study and densities may change, deleting the maximum number of units will keep options open. Also, I would suggest using the word single family, rather than single family detached. Again, this keeps options open. 16. Proffer Statement — Horne Owners Association — 3.2. This proffer states that the HOA will not be responsible for open space dedicated to public use. This contradicts proffer 8.1 which states that the HOA will be responsible for the 3.5 acre park which will be open to the public. Page 4 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Orrick Commons January 26, 2006 17. Proffer Statement — Transportation. The transportation proffers are missing a timing element. Each proffer must state specifically what event triggers the proffer; for example - before the issuance of the first building permit. 18. Proffer Statement — Transportation 6.2. The applicant will need to verify with county staff and VDOT that there is sufficient right-of-way to accommodate the long range road plans. 19. Proffer Statement — Transportation 6.4. This proffer refers to a transportation proffer associated with the Channing Drive Rezoning. The developer of that project is not obligated to build or provide funding for a portion of the new turn lane at Senseny Road and Greenwood Road until he begins his commercial development. Therefore, the applicant may be responsible for 100% of the improvements called for in proffer 6.4. Please restate proffer. 20. Proffer Statement — Transportation 6.5. The applicant will need to verify with county staff and VDOT that this is sufficient right-of-way to accommodate long range road plans. 21. Proffer Statement — Transportation 6.6. This would be an appropriate place to include the pedestrian design features sought in paragraph 6 above. 22. Proffer Statement — Building Materials. This would be an appropriate place to include the design features sought in paragraphs 3 and 4 above. 23. Proffer Statement — Park. Proffers go beyond ordinance requirements. Therefore, the County will view the 3.5 acre park and its amenities as above and beyond the Zoning Ordinance requirements for open space and recreation units 24. Proffer Statement — Landscaping. Proffer 9.1 as written is unnecessary as it repeats the Zoning Ordinance. This would be an appropriate place to include the enhanced landscaping sought in paragraphs 3 and 4 above. 25. Proffer Statement — Signage. Proffer 11.1 as written is somewhat redundant as it repeats the Zoning Ordinance. The reference to Exhibit A is too vague. This would be an appropriate place to include limits on the number, size, design and placement of signs as sought in paragraph 3 above. 26. Generalized Development Pian (GDP). The GDP is an opportunity to illustrate many of the design features that will be included in this application. Page 5 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Orrick Commons January 26, 2006 27. Generalized Development Plan (GIMP). It appears from the Proffered GDP that the entrance to the property on Greenwood Road does not line up with Green Park Drive. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-29, requires new driveways to align with other access features. The entrance on Greenwood must align with Green Park Drive. The County will not accept a proffered GDP that conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance. 28. Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The GDP should show that a road connection will be provided between the commercial portion of the site and the residential portion. It may not be in the best interest of the future residents of Loganberry Avenue to have that road as the connection between the commercial development and Farmington Boulevard. Internal access within the Orrick site would be a better option. Also, road access from Farmington Boulevard to Ladyslipper Road will need to be provided. 29. Generalized Development Plan (GIMP) - Commercial Entrances. The GDP shows two main entrances to the commercial portion of the site: one on Senseny Road and one on Greenwood Road. The applicant should make explicit that no other commercial entrances will be provided along Senseny Road or Greenwood Road for the future outparcels. 30. Development Impact Model. As you are aware, Frederick County has a new Development Impact Model. Staff only runs the model for applications with a mix of commercial and residential development, and only gives credit for commercial floorspace that is proffered. Therefore, staff has run the new model for this development based on 55,000 square feet of retail space, 88 single family detached units and 87 multi -family units (the mix currently allowed by the Zoning Ordinance). The results of the model run are attached. The results are only relevant for this precise retail floorspace and the 88/87 split. Any other combination of floorspace, number of residential units or types of residential units will lead to a different result. The applicant is expected to address the impacts of development as contained in the model output. 31. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County School Department, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, Winchester Regional Airport, Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffer statement has been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Page 6 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Orrick Commons January 26, 2006 Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. 32. Adjoining Property Owners. Please add two properties (PIN# 55-A-194 and 55D -1-34A) to the list of adjoiners. Also, a number of the adjacent property owners have changed; please update. Six PINs (55J-1-9-194 through 55J-1-9- 199) are incorrectly listed; please correct. 33. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $8,617.00 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. I look forward to working with this you on this unique project. Sincerely, % Y } Susan K. Eddy, AICP `• Senior Planner SKE/bad Attachment cc: Paramount Development Corporation, c/o David Harper, 607 Briarwood Drive, Suite 5, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29572 Orrick Cemetery, Inc., 501 S. Braddock St., Winchester, VA 22601 Bl * NIS(Medical Support District) 52 t8u�il—, G.111.1 Diltlid) ��) R4 (R.,id—UM, PI.11ld C.,,,,jty B3 hd..(W Tl—ftwh District) 1�� R5 (Residential R-11fi-al Community District) REZ # 04 — 06 .1ldl Rd:,jj 41� EM (E—dw, M-Ilflltl,i,g D,,h-t) 0 RA (RU.1 A,— Di.tfit) -4 , ll� HE Education Dlltlid) 0 RP(R,,id-tW Peftl.— District) Orrick Cemetery Ail ltl MI lnd,,t,i,l, Light District)'Ur'.., M2 (Industrial, General District)55 -A - 201 MHI ftbdH— --m—y District) E 0 1M ;)CO 400 Feet Orrick Commons Proffer Statement PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. #: &�-I&RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) and B2 (Business General) PROPERTY: 55.6708 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcel 55-A-201 (the "Property") RECORD OWNER Orrick Cemetery Company, Inc. APPLICANT: Paramount Development Corporation PROJECT NAME: Orrick Commons ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 6, 2005 REVISION DATE (S): February 13, 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property'), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP and B2 conditional 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 County Supervisors (the "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. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Orrick Commons" dated November 15, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Page 1 of 9 Orrick Commons Proffer Statement LAND USE: 1.1 Commercial development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 158,000 square feet, in the location depicted on the GDP. 1.2 Residential development shall be provided as a mixture of single family and multi -family units, the mixture of which will be dictated by the Frederick County Code. The locations of the single family units and multi -family units shall be located as generally depicted on the GDP. 1.3 Except to the extent otherwise prohibited by the Virginia Fair Housing Law, the Federal Fair Housing Law, and other applicable federal, state, or local legal requirements, all dwelling units shall be identified as "age -restricted" and shall be restricted to "housing for older persons" as defined in Va. Code Ann. § 36-96.7, or a surviving spouse not so qualifying. No persons under 19 years of age shall be permitted to be regularly domiciled or to reside permanently therein. The restriction provided for herein shall also be in the form of a restrictive covenant with respect to the residential portion of the Property, and any Homeowners' Association created with respect thereto shall have assigned responsibility for the enforcement and administration of the said covenant. 1.4 Prior to occupancy of any residential dwelling, the applicant shall fully construct a minimum of 55,000 square feet of commercial building space as indicated on the GDP. 1.5 Adult retail uses shall be prohibited on the Property. Car washes shall be prohibited adjacent to residential properties. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, design standards, and this Orrick Commons Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 3.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a homeowners' association (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as maybe required for such HOA herein. Page 2 of 9 Orrick Commons Proffer Statement 4 5 3.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, if they decide to use a commercial collection company, (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 HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument and (v) responsibility for payment for maintenance of streetlights. WATER & SEWER-- 4.1 EWER 4.1 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. The cost of all water and sewer improvements will be borne by the Applicant. ENVIRONMENT: 5.1 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 which results in the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. TRANSPORTATION: 6.1 Transportation improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent with the study entitled "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property," prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, dated October 11, 2005 (the "TIA"). The Applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. 6.2 The Applicant shall install a traffic signal at the project entrance on Senseny Road (Route 657). In addition to signalization improvements, the Applicant shall construct a left turn lane at said intersection for the eastbound lane of Senseny Road as well as a right turn lane for the westbound lane of Senseny Road. (See 1 on GDP). The lanes will be installed within existing right of ways. 6.3 The extension of Farmington Boulevard through the project shall be designed and constructed to include traffic calming measures acceptable to VDOT. (See 2 on GDP) Page 3 of 9 Statement Orrick rommos 6.4 The Applicant shall design and construct a right turn lane for the westbound lane of Senseny Road (Route 657) at the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road (Route 656). (See 3 on GDP). Said turn lane shall be constructed from the proposed entrance on Senseny Road to the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. Additionally, the Applicant shall install a right turn lane for the northbound lane of Greenwood Road (Route 656) to serve the proposed project entrance. 6.5 The Applicant shall dedicate 10 feet of additional right-of-way along Senseny Road (Route 657) and 15 feet of additional right-of-way along Greenwood Road (Route 656). 6.6 The Applicant shall construct an interconnected transportation network to connect the B2 and RP zoned portions of the Property for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Said pedestrian system shall be identified during the master development plan (MDP) and/or site development plan (SDP) process and shall include a connected sidewalk system within the commercial and residential portion of the Property. A connection between the commercial and residential portions of the Property shall be made in the location depicted on the GDP. (See 4 on GDP) 6.7 Transportation improvements along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road shall commence at the outset of construction of the commercial portion of the Property and shall be completed prior to occupancy of any commercial building. 6.8 The Applicant shall enter into a signalization agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation that is binding for a period of five years from the date of final rezoning approval with an option for an additional five years for the installation of a traffic signal at the proposed entrance on Greenwood Road. If or when, in the opinion of VDOT, a traffic signal is required, the Applicant shall construct a traffic signal at said entrance. The signal shall be installed within 180 days of receiving written notice from the Virginia Department of Transportation (See 5 on GDP). 6.9 Access to the commercial portion of the Property shall be limited to a single access point on Greenwood Road and a single access point on Senseny Road in the locations depicted on the GDP. Site access on Senseny Road shall be constructed utilizing a boulevard design that incorporates a landscaped median with street trees. 7. DESIGN STANDARDS 7.1 All buildings within the commercial area of the Property shall be constructed using compatible architectural style and materials. Design elements shall be compatible with Winchester and will respect the continuity and character of the existing architectural fabric of the Page 4 of 9 Orack Commons Proffer Statement surrounding community. The principal fagade in addition to any facade fronting Senseny Road and/or Greenwood Road of all commercial buildings shall be limited to one or a combination of the following materials: cast stone, stone, brick, formed concrete, glass, wood, stucco or other high quality, long lasting masonry materials. Metal panels shall be prohibited as a construction material for all commercial buildings. 7.2 All buildings within the commercial area of the Property shall incorporate standing seam metal roofing treatments as a unifying design element. 7.3 All facades of any apartment structure located on the Property shall be constructed using a combination of the following materials: stone, brick, smooth face block, wood, cement board siding, stucco, and glass. Any apartment building constructed on the property shall utilize a mixture of building materials in an effort to relate to the surrounding area. 7.4 Any apartment structures located on the Property shall incorporate non - symmetrical massing, bays, and columned porches to more effectively relate to surrounding properties. 8. PARKS AND RECREATION 8.1 The Applicant shall design and construct any necessary improvements for an approximately 3.5 acre park in the location depicted on the GDP to be included as part of the required open space for the residential portion of the Property. Park shall include, at minimum, walking trails and a water feature utilizing an existing pond. Said park shall be open to the public and shall be maintained by the Property HOA. 8.2 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail to Department of Parks and Recreation standards in lieu of sidewalks along the Property frontage on both Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. Said trails shall be 10 feet in width with an asphalt surface and shall be constructed in the locations generally depicted on the GDP. The trail crossing of the proposed boulevard style entrance on Senseny Road shall be designed at the time of Site Plan to provide for a safe connection of the proposed trail. 8.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,519.00 per dwelling unit for parks and recreation purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit Page 5 of 9 Orrick Commons Proffer Statement LIGHTING PLAN 9.1 Low impact outdoor lighting meeting dark sky criteria will be utilized with a maximum pole height of 25 feet high using full cutoff luminaries. Floodlighting will be prohibited. 10. SIGNAGE 10.1 Freestanding commercial signage along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road shall be limited to monument style signs at the proposed entrances on Greenwood Road and Senseny Road. Maximum height for said signs shall be 20 feet. 10.2 Pylon style signs shall be prohibited on the Property. 11, SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING CONTAINERS 11.1 Location of solid waste and recycling containers, utility equipment storage will be contained within fenced enclosures. 12. FIRE AND RESCUE 12.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $508.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit. 13. GENERAL GOVERNMENT 13.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $227.00 per dwelling unit for general government purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit. 14. PUBLIC SAFETY 14.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $468.00 per dwelling unit for public safety purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit. 15. LIBRARY 15.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $190.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each dwell u.1. Page 6 of 9 Orrick Commons Proffer Statement 16. FUTURE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 16.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $500.00 per dwelling unit for future improvements to Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit. 17. Interparcel Connections 17.1 Interparcel connections with adjacent properties shall be identified during the master development plan (MDP) process. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Page 7 of 9 S. ----------- ---------- 21 A -Do kJ 000, Orrick Commons Proffer Statement Paramount Development Corporation Title: ,y��r��IZ�,•�ryvd��. STATE OF VIRGE-4-A, AT LARI GE FR -:DDE r K COUNTY, To -wit: �t he foregoing instrumen was acknod e b - re me this day Of 1200 , y My comma§ on xpires Notary Public Respectfully su� itted, ` Page 7 of 7 Patton Harris Rust 8 Asso cl ates, Pc oc,�cN sump Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. landscape Architects. O R R I C K COMMONS PRS "6 sa SOMe'°° GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN off wH one TWP NOVEMBER M MM N0. 06Cn-m T 8<068]21]9 CNECNm SrJ1L GATE RE96b aM0 /ANO MtE F 8<9.666.009] REVISION FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA sHm 1 OF 1 Orrick Commons ORRICK COMMONS REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT November 2005 A. Introduction Impact Analysis Statement This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the conditional rezoning of the 55.67 acre property identified as parcel 55-A-201. The subject acreage is owned by the Orrick Cemetery Company, Inc. and is located in the Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Senseny Road (Route 657) and Greenwood Road (656) with frontage along both roadways. The site is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). This application proposes the rezoning of the 55.67 acre parcel to a roughly 60/40 split of residential and commercial which equates to 33.61 acres of RP (Residential Performance) and 22.06 acres of B2 (Business General). The site is intended as a mixed use commercial and age restricted residential center anchored by a Food Lion shopping center (Exhibit A). The proposed 158,000 square feet of commercial uses will be complemented by a mixture of single family and multi -family age restricted residential uses totaling a maximum of 184 units per ordinance requirements, all of which will be developed in a functionally and aesthetically unified manner. The proposed rezoning will establish a high quality senior housing development and provide commercial space that is greatly needed for the residential uses that prevail along the Senseny Road corridor. The presence of significant commercial uses within the project will result in a synergistic relationship between land uses that will enhance the economic vitality of the area and achieve a more sustainable form of development than has been the historic pattern in the area. The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies the planned use of the site as residential land uses. While the proposed rezoning includes both residential and commercial components, it is evident that a retail center at the intersection of two major collectors is in the best interest of the County, most notably the residents that reside within the vicinity of the site. The proposed rezoning utilizes complimentary land uses to provide a development that is preferable in such a key location to the single use pattern that has predominated within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The proposed rezoning includes proffers that will appropriately and effectively mitigate the impacts of this development program and assure its completion Page 1 of 7 Rev. 3/10/06 Orrick Commons Impact Analysis Statement in the manner envisioned by the Applicant. The mixed use commercial center land use envisioned for the site is compatible with the surrounding community and is in the best interest of the County at large. As such, the Applicants submit that this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. B. Comprehensive Policy Plan The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan is the sole document depicting the planned land uses for the subject acreage. This document envisions suburban residential land uses North of Senseny Road and South of Valley Mill Road from the Winchester City Limits to the proposed location of the future Route 37 bypass. While this area is responsible for capturing a large amount of residential growth in the County, it fails to provide a space for the retail and service needs of this new growth. The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies that retail and service areas need to be located with easy access to sufficient markets and to have good visibility from major throughfares. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan identifies a need to insure the quality of commercial areas through the use of performance and design standards. The applicant is confident that the proffered design guidelines for the commercial component of the proposed development will create a commercial center of exceptional quality. The proposed rezoning would allow a commercial development program that would develop in a manner that is harmonious with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The current Comprehensive Plan identifies the average density of the Urban Development Area (UDA) should not exceed 3 dwelling units per acre. The overall density of the site shall be dictated by the requirements set forth in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The 33.61 acres that represent the residentially zoned portion of the project would be allowed 5.5 dwelling units per acre. Historically, the UDA as a whole has developed well below the 3 unit/acre threshold, allowing for some areas of higher density when appropriate. This proposal utilizes a mixed use concept where higher densities are more fitting, providing for a mixture of housing types in close proximity to retail and service areas. The proposed development program would include age restricted condominiums serving as a transitional area between the age restricted single family units and the commercial portion of the property. While the overall density of the site is slightly greater than the number stipulated by the Comprehensive Policy Plan, it recognizes the now prevailing notion that the County's UDA should become more urban in character in order tv capture new growth in an area that can be easily served by public infrastructure and Page 2 of 7 Rev. 3/10/06 Orrick Commons Impact Analysis Statement services. Additionally, the proposed transition of multifamily to single family residential uses provides for a more appropriate transition from the commercial area to the single family use that prevails in the surrounding area. The proposed rezoning of the subject acreage from RA to RP and B2 is generally consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. C. Suitability of the Site 1. Site Background and 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 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. Location and Access The subject parcel is located North of Senseny Road and East of Greenwood Road at the intersection of these two roadways. The Property contains approximately 340 feet of road frontage along Greenwood Road and approximately 815 feet of road frontage along Senseny Road. Two tax parcels, 55-A-197 and 55-A-198, are located adjacent to the site and comprise the remaining road frontage of Senseny and Greenwood at their intersection. Bounding the site to the North is the recently approved Steeplechase subdivision (formerly Briarwood III) and the Briarwood Subdivision. Bounding the site to the East is the Lynnehaven Subdivision. Access to the site will be provided at both Senseny and Greenwood. Access will also be provided with a connection to Loganberry Drive in Steeplechase. Additionally, Farmington Boulevard will travel through the site along the Northern boundary as it connects Channing Drive and Greenwood Road. 3. Site Suitability A small area of wetlands and an intermittent stream are the only identified environmental features on the site. These features are minimal and manageable through the zoning and site engineering process. In all cases, disturbance will be limited in accordance with applicable regulatory standards. Page 3 of 7 Rev. 3/10/06 Orrick Commons Flood Plain Impact Analysis Statement Flood plain data for the subject parcels is delineated on the Flood Insurance Study Map for Frederick County prepared by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Panels #510063-011513 and #510063- 01206, effective date July 17, 1978. The site is located entirely in Flood Zone C, which denotes areas of minimal flooding outside of the 100 -year flood plain. Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies a single wetland feature on the site, a small pond. In addition, an intermittent stream channel is located on the northwest corner of the property. A riparian buffer, as required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, will prevent impacts to the stream channel. All wetlands associated with the stream channel shall be delineated at the master plan phase of the project. Soils and Steep Slopes The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert- Berks-Blairton soil association, which is the predominant association on land located east of Interstate 81. The characteristics of this soil association and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. No areas of steep slopes (areas of 50% slope or greater) exist on the Property. The subject site has topographic characteristics that make it ideal for the proposed development program. D. Transportation The Orrick Commons project will be served by a multi -modal transportation network designed to safely and efficiently accommodate automobile and pedestrian traffic. The transportation improvement program proffered with this application will interconnect the various uses planned within the project, and further integrate the project with the surrounding community. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area, as well as actual traffic counts. Using trip generation figures from the i. T .E. Trip Generati01-1 Manual, 7th Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will Page 4 of 7 Rev, 3/10/06 Orrick Commons Impact Analysis Statement produce 11,789 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions. The external road system serving the site is comprised of Senseny Road (Route 657) and Greenwood Road (Route 656). The applicant has proffered a maximum of one entrance on each of these roadways to enhance the safety of the corridor and to increase the aesthetic appeal of the development. The TIA indicates that traffic signals would be required at the entrance on Senseny Road as well as Greenwood Road in order to maintain the guideline level of service "C" as indicated by the Comprehensive Plan. The primary entrance for the site shall be designated by a boulevard style entrance on Senseny Road. The applicant has proffered both the boulevard style entrance and traffic signal with associated turn lanes at this location. Additionally, the Applicant has proffered to enter into a signalization agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation for the signalization of the commercial area's secondary entrance on Greenwood Road. Development of the site will allow for the construction of Farmington Boulevard through the residential portion of the property to provide a link between Greenwood Road and Channing Drive. The Applicant has proffered traffic calming measures along Farmington Boulevard to ensure the safety of the residential development for pedestrians. Signalization will also be necessary at the intersection of Channing Drive and Senseny Road, which will be required with or without the introduction of project -generated traffic. Rezoning 15-99 for the Channing Land Bays provides for signalization at the intersection of Channing and Senseny. The Eastern Road Plan calls for Greenwood Road and Senseny Road to be improved major collectors. In addition to proffering the right-of-way necessary for the ultimate construction of a major collector road in both locations, the Applicant has proffered to construct the right turn lane for West bound Senseny from the proposed entrance on Senseny Road to the intersection of Senseny and Greenwood. This lane will ultimately become a portion of the second West bound through lane for Senseny Road. Lastly, the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $500 per dwelling unit to be contributed towards future improvements of Senseny and Greenwood Roads. E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply Water and sanitary sewer facilities are available via the the Lynnehaven Subdivision to the East. The majority of the site will be served via gravity flow Page 5 of 7 Rev. 3/10/06 Orrick Commons Impact Analysis Statement from west to east. This infrastructure will be expanded pursuant to Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) requirements to serve the entire site. Project build -out will consist of a maximum of 184 age restricted units as currently allowed by ordinance and approximately 158,000 square feet of office and/or general commercial uses. Using the standard water consumption rates for single family attached/multi-family residential uses and general commercial/office uses', the proposed development is projected to consume approximately 59,200 GPD (gallons per day) of water and produce equivalent sewer flows. F. Site Drainage The vast majority of the site naturally drains north and northeast, eventually draining into Abrams Creek. It is anticipated that low impact development techniques together with good erosion control practice will mitigate adverse stormwater discharge impacts. The preservation of riparian buffers containing existing vegetation will provide significant mitigation of nutrient losses. Actual specification of temporary and permanent facilities will be provided with final engineering and will comply with all County, State and Federal regulations. G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Solid waste from the project will be deposited in the Frederick County landfill following collection via private carrier(s) contracted by the homeowner's association (HOA) for the residential portion of the project and by the individual commercial/employment users. H. Historic Sites and Structures The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any structures of historic importance on the subject site. Moreover, pursuant to the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, the subject site is not included in any battlefield study area and does not contain any core battlefield resources. I. Impact on Community Facilities The Applicant has proffered that a minimum of 55,000 square feet of commercial space shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the first residential dwelling unit. The Applicant has proffered the following amounts 1 Water consumption/sewage generation rates: single family attached/multi-family residential uses — 150 GPD/dwelling unit; office/general commercial uses — 200 GPD/1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Page 6 of 7 Rev. 3/10/06 Orrick Commons Impact Analysis Statement as determined by the Frederick County Impact Model in addition to the $500/unit dedicated towards future improvements to Senseny and Greenwood Roads: Fire and Rescue: General Government: Public Safety: Parks and Recreation Library: Total: $508 $227 $468 $1,519 $190 $2,912 Page 7 of 7 Rev. 3/10/06 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick- Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Paramount Development Corporation 607 Briarwood Drive, Suite 5 Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29572 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engneers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 P-TMartinsburg,H"'L _T West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 October 11, 2005 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Orrick Property development located along the east side of Route 656 (Greenwood Road), north of Route 657 (Senseny Road) in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is comprised of 75 age - restricted detached residential units, 100 age -restricted attached residential units, a 6,000 square foot day care facility, 25,000 square feet of office, 80,200 square feet of retail, a 15,000 square foot pharmacy with drive-thru, a 6,000 square foot bank and two (2) 6,000 square foot restaurants. Access is to be provided via three (3) site -driveways located to the east of Greenwood Road, north of Senseny Road and south of Farmington Boulevard Extended, respectively. The proposed development will be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2008. In order to consider future roadway networks within the study area, PHR+A assumed partial completion of Channing Drive and Farmington Boulevard Extended by the Year 2008. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Orrick Property development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Orrick Property development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: o Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Orrick Property development, o Distribution and assignment of the Orrick Property development -generated trips onto the completed roadway network, Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property ProjectNumbe11, 20 5 -+—&,October 11, Page I i � Page No Scale Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Orrick Property in Frederick County, VA A Traffic Impact Analysts of the UMCK rroperry Project Number: 13783-1-0 PH"+ October 11, 2005 e2 Page 2 ,ti r IJ r 4 L j — yt.�j • _ t Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Orrick Property in Frederick County, VA A Traffic Impact Analysts of the UMCK rroperry Project Number: 13783-1-0 PH"+ October 11, 2005 e2 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the following intersections: Senseny Road/Greenwood Road, Senseny Road/Channing Drive Greenwood Drive/Greenpark Drive and Greenwood Road/Farmington Boulevard. In order to determine the ADT (Average Daily Trips) along the study area roadway links, a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10% was assumed. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour HCS -2000 levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis ct the Orrick Property PURA+ Project Number:127$3_1_n October 11, 2005 Page 3 11 No Scale Figure 2 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Existing 'Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysts of theyrricic rroperi ProjectNumbobeT 1 , 2005 -� } October 11, 2005 Page 4 f� No Scale r b 0 3° o Q Gre go � enn'Tl,� a41 Ar )* Gte ,aY ep#1 SITE ca...Iar r? ►�� Signalized 656 (A�4��'' Intersection P_ LOS=B(B) B(B) 1 657 (B)Bqt r 656 E° Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement 1 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) —P -4- Figure 3 Existing Idane Geometry and Levels of Service PHR� A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783-1-0 October 11, 2005 Page 5 2008 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to determine the 2008 background traffic conditions, PHR+A utilized the methodology provided in the report titled: A Traffic Impact Analysis of Lambent -Ward Proper , by PHR+A, dated November 04, 2004. Accordingly, the existing traffic counts were increased by applying a five percent (5%) annual growth rate to the existing traffic volumes along Route 656 (Greenwood Road) and Route 657 (Senseny Road) (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2008 base conditions. In order to consider future roadway networks within the study area, PHR+A assumed the partial completion of Channing Drive and Farmington Boulevard Extended by the Year 2008. 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 2008 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 3a through Figure 3f are included in the Appendix section to illustrate the traffic volumes/assignments relating to each of the background developments. Figure 4 shows the 2008 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2008 build- out lane geometry and levels of service. HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Urrick Property Project Number: 13783-1-0 PtA October 11, 2005 ' Page 6 kP Fable 1 2008 "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary * Includes Giles Farm, Toll Brothers, Coventry Court and miscellaneous residential. * In 2008 traffic analyses only 65% of the total trips generated along Channing Drive are considerd. P,jR+A I- I A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783-1-0 October 11, 2005 Page 7 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount ADT In Out Total In Out Total Butcher Property 210 Single -Family Detached 65 units 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Total 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Fieldstone 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 40 54 45 25 71 630 230 Townhouse 207 units 15 76 91 75 37 112 1,801 Total 29 116 145 120 62 183 2,431 Lambert -Ward Propertyyf4�11� 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 I1LI s, 210 Single -Family Detached 69 units 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 _ Mise Other Developments a".ong Channing Drive* _ 210 Single -Family Detached 870 units 155 464 618 473 278 751 8,700 230 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 272 585 857 862 670 1,532 J7,476J * Includes Giles Farm, Toll Brothers, Coventry Court and miscellaneous residential. * In 2008 traffic analyses only 65% of the total trips generated along Channing Drive are considerd. P,jR+A I- I A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783-1-0 October 11, 2005 Page 7 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) I: Figure 4 2008 Background Traffic Conditions PHR+A A I' aj7ic Impact AnalYsIS of me vrrick rroperw Project Number: 13783-1-0 October 11, 2005 Page 8 rl No Scale W, 657 / V I Signalized Intersection U L B(C) P� r C(B) (C)B � ll I Pq SITE 656 Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS--B(C) Signalization SB - I Left � I V q� i8)$- ftm,* Seus "Y Road *M { Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of service A Trak Impact Analysis o/ the Orrick Property Project N October 11g 20050 �` Page 9 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tri Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Orrick Property development. Site layouts of residential and commercial developments are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 2 2008 Proposed Development: Orrick Paramount Trip Generation Summary TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the proposed Orrick Property development trips (Table 2) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Orrick Property assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Urrickt'roperrV Project Number: 13783-1-0 Pi--,R+A October 11, 2005 Page 10 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 75 units 8 14 22 24 16 40 424 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 4 8 7 4 11 348 565 Day Care 6,000 SF 41 36 77 32 36 68 476 710 Office 25,000 SF 54 7 62 18 89 107 459 820 Retail 80,200 SF 84 53 137 260 281 541 5,884 881 Pharmacy w/ DT 15,000 SF 23 17 40 63 66 129 1,322 912 Drive-in Bank 6,000 SF 41 33 74 137 137 274 1,351 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 Total 327 231 558 1 622 680 1,302 1 11,789 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the proposed Orrick Property development trips (Table 2) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Orrick Property assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Urrickt'roperrV Project Number: 13783-1-0 Pi--,R+A October 11, 2005 Page 10 No Scale RN a' 0 30 afi C?" r F Site- Dr, Greengazk Dr, �,�hv o 0 656 l-� Y G®% Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages PH"A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783-1-0 October 11, 2005 Page 11 ti ■, 1� b i No Scale 4P 0 pq o ti 4` n1 H 656 l Iv�� o `Oil, U� � Site-DrwaY #] Creenpark lir qC cs`o i So c= �. osenvRo� ° (68)23 33(62) 657 > ti� q N (261 )13� mar SS(163) se 657 40-M 42(122) yRoa (6)3 --p (149)78 J � N � 656 AM Peak Hour(PM 1Peak Hour) g� ...a. Figure 7 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A I Panic Impact Analysis Oi Me vii'cn 1 iyP-, o v Project Number: 13783-1-0 PHP,,--+-A- October 11, 2005 Page 12 jI l b ^L rV1 No Scaleb~ �ry 69(1 (ISI)47t C i�oU o /, ^may O BIYd H � 656 02(29 f°x II F 0 C> S _ BIYQ Site. tlrjVeµe , Green ark Dr. Y #ISIT ry C-0)G°aro s PO 6;1 (55 49(125 vhi (2 5)87c� �3wq 7j(4g ) (7)g6 �c4w N co ^� 0 9 1 � 134(120) � 320(SIO) 657 �r 156225) 11 )37c, s,` SQ (62) (250)94 r._%� � ,� h73,� ease�yR a6p8) (585)280 (61)63—% ■ =$ W N N A A � � 656 Aver ace Daily AM ]Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure S 2008 Bi ild-out Traffic Conditions A Trak Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: PZL RV+ 13 783-005H 33 005 P October 11, 2005 Page 13 �b `tsite_Driveu, 12 ark Dr. 657 U 657 (D)C U CJ d656 -1- 656 Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS—B(C) WB - 1 Right +e%4 unsignauzeu New Intersection Unsignalized "New i Intersection Intersection" /I 1,JI'h �_-N: No Scale SB _ILeft " ^ SjrA(IJ)r Or�i�way�, 656 �b `tsite_Driveu, 12 ark Dr. 657 U 657 (D)C U CJ d656 -1- 656 Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS—B(C) WB - 1 Right +e%4 unsignauzeu New Intersection Intersection" i Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(C) LOS=B(C) Signalization G SB _ILeft a SITE roS' � z � • o C m+ O` a w * oa ise`e�yRoad V��Q �$ U Signalized "New Signalized "Suggested Intersection Intersection" Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(C) LOS=B(C) Signalization G SB _ILeft �U A, C 657 �C)B ®� Senseny Road i Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and revels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis ojthe Orrick Property Project Number: 13783-1-0 _._ October 11, ��--- ttPagee 14 14 No Scale Average Daily Trips AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 1 Option B: 2008 Build -out 'Traffic Conditions 9 ■ No Scale *� 656 v GreenF k T7 *�i' signalized "Suggested 1� B(E)* Intersection Improvements" ; LOS=B(C) B - Iiza N NB Right I 1 656 fi 1 B(C) (CIB Greenpark Dr. SITE _ Site -Driveway #I� 656 Two -Way Left Turn Lane aDenotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement ID.- P + A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Honr)�p Figure 2 Option B: 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service �.t4�- �0 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the build -out of the proposed Orrick Property development are acceptable and manageable. Assuming the improvements shown in Figure 4 and Figure 9, all intersections except Greenwood Road/Site-Driveway #1 will maintain levels of service to "C" or better during 2008 background and build -out conditions, respectively. The intersection of Greenwood Road/Site-Driveway #1 would maintain levels of service to "D" or better during 2008 build -out conditions. The following reiterates the off-site roadway improvements recommended for each of the study area intersections: © Senseny Road A Channing Drive: In order to achieve acceptable levels of service, this intersection will require signalization and a southbound left -turn lane in 2008 background and build -out conditions. The developer is not responsible for this improvement. r� Senseny Road (a, Greenwood Road: In order to achieve acceptable levels of service, this intersection will require a westbound right -turn lane in 2008 build -out conditions. This improvement is currently proffered by others. Greenwood Road (a Site -Driveway #1: This intersection will be constructed by the developer with unsignalized (STOP sign) traffic control. Senseny Road n, Site -Driveway In order to achieve acceptable levels of service, this intersection should be a signalized intersection with southbound left and right -turn lanes in 2008 build -out conditions. The developer would be responsible for the design and installation. s Farmington Boulevard (c-6, Site -Driveway #3: This intersection will be constructed by the developer with unsignalized (STOP sign) traffic control. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property � Project Number: 13783-1-0 G1 October 11, 2005 R+AnI- Page 15 D6pN SefiM Patton Harris Rust & urvewAdscape tesrpc ORRICK CEMETERY Engineers. Sre, Planners. Landscape Architects. oavm aiE ^"'rs'�'sw'°'°° LOCATION MAP UECEMaER 2005 ` Hµ" i r s.o asr.:, `HEa�v scut ,•_ 200• Na. acsanenon wn: Asa nvro xmv wre A. 1 v sa .ess.waa REV1510N FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OF i Ex. Greenwood Fire & Rescue EX. INTERMITTANT STREAM (WETLANDS) O,II� 0 �1 O aV sENS�N Y ROA,) GHAPH/CSC.4L6 Ice 4 r:sr"�iasra Patton Harris Rust 8 Associates,pc ORRICK COMMONS °- Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. landscape Architects. NVI MENTAL FEATURES PLAN ss�sN w>� „r e.,, o;�,ainy soeai. swi, zoo TRP N mbar 19. 2005 s� + T 6ao6)z,l' ODI NIS rro. mm nrsn rsws rrsys DmA e sacs ms FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA REV SION - t OF i w N/F GREENWOOD SOC UNTEER FIRE CO ! 1 i J j ' 1\ 1 ORRICK OUTPARCEL A Al 7.53 ACRES 76 ACRES +/— i —• I L _ _ 1 OWNED �---- OWNED Y OTHERS BY OTHERS 1 i OWNED ABY OTHERS, SUNT, 1 1 1 — --- _-1 \ S S N NY P EXISNNG NxN SANE EXISTING TAPER EW EXISIING TRXFTC S,, SITE PIAN VICINITY PLAN SHOP 50 1 FOOD LION ORRICK 34,928 SF OUTPARCEL #5 I I 2.0 ACRES +/— ORRICK [ OUTPARCEL #7 ouxrsTEx A. - I I 1.3 ACRES 1 - _._._._._.__.____-_._________._____ ------------ ___—_____� _ �.-=_—___��__ _______ FUTURE ROA- tims-_—_____—___—_!— ______—____ =— ___________.1. --------- — 0.53 ACRES +� 4— x.11 1 t U ) li t9 J 1 1) _ _________________� _._._._._. O t. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.—._. i 4HP o SF 17 500 1 i I % SHOP SF le o SF ORRICK i SHOP 100 s I OUTPARCEL #5 / SHOP nu y 2.26 ACRES +/- 52 -I SHOP , HO 3 I FUTURE OFFICE / MEDICAL ) I SOJA,SF ti t Dora +eu» --_ i IIj --—•--•--------•—TIj -----•--------•— OU PARCEL #4 0.94 ACRE +/-i I 1 I I I 1 1 !) I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) I I I I 1 ) I I O / I OUTTPARCEL #2 I 1.2 ACRES 1 ORRICK OUTPARCEL #] 1 1 i o IX r N 1 I I ORRICK 1E / 1 OUTPARCEL jE3 ffff u s 1 . rnTPAINL ! 1.19 ACRRtt i (`,ccn�nr i U EXISNNG NxN SANE EXISTING TAPER EW EXISIING TRXFTC S,, SITE PIAN LnAl Nil so pi A it I -10 L6 -"I mr! W kin on » p! TR i -g TA Ike" IN REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff Fee Amount Paid $ . Zoning Amendment Number Date Received o4 PC Hearing DateBOS Hearing Date r Ok _ 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: Name: Paramount Development Corporation Telephone: (843) 361-4433 Address: c/o David Harper 607 Briarwood Drive Suite 5 Myrtle Beach South Carolina 29572 2. Property 0irmer (if different than above) Name Address: Orrick Cemetery, Inc. Telephone: (540) 722-4463 c/o 501 S Braddock St Winchester. VA 22601 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Patrick R. Sowers Telephone: (540) 667-2139 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Address: 117E Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 - 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 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: Orrick Cemetery, Inc. Paramount Development Corporation Orchard Development 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Vacant B) Proposed Use of the Property: Mixed Use Commercial/Residential 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Senseny Road (Rt 657) and Greenwood Road (Rt 656) with road frontage along both roadways. 2 9_ Signature: 1 (we), the undersigned, -Jo eby resp4cfl'ully malk,e zpplication and petition the Frederick County Boal of Supervisors to, amend the -zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (.we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes_ I (ave) understF-nd that t#te-sign issued when this application is submitted :rust be placed at the front property line at least sever days -prior -to the Planning Commissianpublic heFrIng rand the Board of Super -visors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby -ceriify ghat this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (cur) knowledge. Date . Z ♦3'- Owner(s) ` •, ` .' a _ Date t Date (4 2�r`. Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right -of --way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) _ Name: Greenwood Vol. Fire Company 809 Greenwood Rd Property#: 55-A-199 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Greenwood Baptist Church 781 Greenwood Rd Property#: 55-A-192 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Bettie E. Winslow 711 Greenwood Rd Property #: 55-A-184 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Briarwood, LC 205 N. Cameron St Property #: 55-A-200 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Chris S. and Carla A. Hammond 210 Trefoil Ct Property#: 55J-1-6-118 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: David R. and Kay E. Jarl 212 Trefoil Ct Property#: 55J-1-6-119 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Briarwood Estates HOA Property#: 55J -1-9-193A Name: Stephen P. and Angela C. Pforr 120 Teaberry Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-194 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: John B. and Elizabeth C. Tullis 122 Teaberry Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-195 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Alberto C. Otoya 124 Teaberry Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-196 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: John Shields 126 Teaberry Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-197 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Michael J. Rudolph 128 Teaberry Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-198 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Mark and Malinda A. Dowsett 130 Teaberry Dr Property#: 55J-1-9-199 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Ronald C. and Elizabeth A. Dishong 215 Ladyslipper Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-204 Winchester, VA 22602 4 Name: Charles R. Campbell 401 Farmington Blvd Property#: 55K-1-2-25 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Gene and Laurie L. Orr 400 Farmington Blvd Property#: 55K-1-1-24 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: James E. and Karen S. Neaverth 118 Sesar Ct Property#: 55K-1-1-14 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Therese M. and Christopher E. Collins 120 Sesar Ct Property #: 55K-1-1-13 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Paula K. McDonald 121 Sesar Ct Property #: 55K-1-1-12 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Lynnehaven HOA Property #: 55K -1-1-24A Name: Russell W. and Velma Moreland 2105 Senseny Rd Property#: 65-A-23 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: George T. Damko 2097 Senseny Rd Property#: 65-A-22 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Rocky J. Rhodes et als 2085 Senseny Rd Property #: 65-A-21 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Charles D. Lloyd 2045 Senseny Rd Property#: 55-A-203 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Charles D. Lloyd 2045 Senseny Rd Property #: 55-A-202 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Shane P. Taylor 2037 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-1-8 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Henry J. Agregarrd III 2031 Senseny Rd Property#: 65A-1-7 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Skip and Vickie A. Baker 2025 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-1-6 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Ernest H. and Lena Lawrence 2019 Senseny Rd Property#: 65A-1-5 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Melvin G. Saville Jr. 2015 Senseny Rd Property#: 65A-1-4 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Genoa T. Kees 2009 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-1-3 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Valley, LLC 2003 Senseny Rd Property#: 65A-1-2 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Edward G. and Mary L. Sinkoski 1997 Senseny Rd Property#: 65A-1-1 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Myra C. Hughes 1986 Senseny Rd Property#: 65A-2-1-8 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Gregory S. and Janet M. Puffinburger 1978 Senseny Rd Property#: 65A-2-1-7 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Michael C. Dorgan 1968 Senseny nu Property#: 65A-2-1-6 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Donald E. Strauss 1958 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-2-1-5 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Franklin B. Anderson 1948 Senseny Rd Property#: 65A-2-1-4 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Kenneth L. and Shirley A. Mason 1930 Senseny Rd Property#: 65A-2-1-3 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Kenneth L. and Shirley A. Mason 1930 Senseny Rd Pro ert #: 65A-2-1-2 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Cora V. Clark 1932 Senseny Rd Pro ert #. 65A-2-1 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Cora V. Clark 1932 Senseny Rd Pro ert #: 55-A-196 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Timothy and Mary Stafford 1905 Senseny Rd Property #: 55-A-197 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Green Sen, LLC 1893 Senseny Rd Property#: 55-A-198 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: TCG Management, LLC 847 Lake St Clair Property #: 55-A-194 Winchester, VA 22603 Name: Country Park Homeowners Association RR 5 Box 525 Property #: 55D -1-34A Winchester, VA 22603 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.as Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) Orrick Cemetery Inc (Phone) 540 722-4463 (Address) 501 S Braddock St Winchester VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Deed Book 337 Page Number 179 and is described as Parcels: 201 Lot: Block: A Section/Tax Map 55 Subdivision: N/A do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates vc (Phone) 667-2139 Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits X Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: N/A —' This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, ,I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of, fuL� 2006, Signature( State of Virginia, City/County of .}..` .YP f a To -wit: I a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify thaf the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared be(o e me i, , I.A—A +1 1-�insdiction aforesaid this % –day of..-,� 2006. and has acl- v�,,..&., .e same . /. t`s My Commission Expires: AY , Jotary Public , 39 a � y .p9. $w \` /'' Residential Performance (RP) ' '1 �`.� 33.61 Acres General Commercial (B2) ,'9^ ,� esgs• / 2157 22.06 Acres N7r3q'gq iv C6 ^/ �Ngg4 .�HeS /• yam' cs mss' \f CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT BEARING CHORD DELTA Cl 5759.58' 1 74.04' 1 37,02- 1 N74 -24.03-W I 74.04' I 044'11' C2 11429.16*1 80.47 1 40.23' 1 N7434'02'W 1 80.47' 0'24'1 gilbert w. clifford &associates .ww N.,. I. R1:�"8 ORRICK COMMONS "� . a..aQ. vwn.. VMS. wew.•a °"" pa "°` OVUM REZONING BOUNDARY EXHIBIT raywp� F s o.ees. FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1 OF 1 LINE TABLE LINE I BEARING LENGTH L1 I N69'52'58'W 47.12' L2 I N69'00'30'W 179.88' L3 N68'5822'W 60.81' L4 N69'31'12'W 157.62' L5 N15'25'06'E 138.60' L6 N7434'S4'W 75.00' L7 S15'25'06'W 21.11' L8 N73'05'54'W 78.50' L9 N13'46'06' 67.85' gilbert w. clifford &associates .ww N.,. I. R1:�"8 ORRICK COMMONS "� . a..aQ. vwn.. VMS. wew.•a °"" pa "°` OVUM REZONING BOUNDARY EXHIBIT raywp� F s o.ees. FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1 OF 1 ADDITIONAL ADJOINERS: TMP 55—A-197 TMP 65—A-21 N/F RAY B. & N/F RICHARD L. RHODES FRANCES J. TAYLOR & CORA F. RHODES DB 291, PG 362 DB 543, PG 97 TMP 55—A-198 TMP 65—A-22 N/F GREEN SEN, L.L.C. N/F GEORGE T. DAMKO INST #040021106 DB 505, PG 845 TMP 55—A-202 TMF' 65—A-23 N/F CHARLES D. LLOYD N/F RUSSELL W. & & PENNY L. RITENOUR VELMA MORELAND DB 942, PG 17 DB 344, PG 311 TMP 55—A-203NSF BR N/F CHARLES D. LLOYD MANO DB 820, PG 345 TRACT 7 , TMP 55—A-184 \ N/F BET77L E. \ W7NSLOW n o \ DS 416, PG 645 0 1M,o SS'A'ACT `797 r�`7Eiy EN7��'\ NOTES: �Acr 'T9i Y ROAD 1. FREDERICK COUNTY TAX MAP: 55—A-201. (60" R/µ� 2. BOUNDARY INFORMATION 15 BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD RUN PURSUANT TO THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE RECORDED IN D8 337, PG 179 AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. DATE OF LAST FIELD INSPECTION: AUG. 30, 2005. 3, BASIS OF MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREON IS A FIELD RUN GPS SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THIS FIRM DURING JUNE 2005, WHICH TIES THIS PROJECT TO NGS (CORS) PID AJ 4467 HAG2. 4. CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN HEREON (INTERIOR FENCE LINES, UTILITY STRUCTURES, BUILDINGS, ROADS, STREAMS, HEDGES, PARKING) ARE DERIVED FROM PHOTOGRAMMETRIC AERIAL MAPPING FLOWN JUNE 14, 2005, COMPILED BY McKENZIE SNYDER, INC. OF ASHBURN, VIRGINIA. 5. PURSUANT TO AN EXAMINATION OF HUD FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP(10063 0115B & 510063 01208 BOTHSEFITY ECTIVEULYAL 7, 1978; NEL Nos, STHE SUBJECTPROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE C (AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING). 6. THE LOCATION OR EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OR DAMAGED AREAS OR WETLANDS (IF ANY) IS NOT DETERMINED BY THIS SURVEY. 7. ADJOINING PROPERTY INFORMATION WAS DERIVED FROM THE FREDERICK COUNTY PARCEL MAPPING SERVICE JUNE 13, 2005. LEGEND: TMP TAX MAP PARCEL HPB HIGHWAY PLAT BOOK DB DEED BOOK PG PAGE AC ACRES IPF IRON PIPE FOUND IRF IRON ROD FOUND — PPF PINCH PIPE FOUND IRS IRON ROD SET N/F NOW OR FORMERLY INST # INSTRUMENT NUMBER R/W RIGHT OF WAY ? rk CENTERLINE s SUBD SUBDIVISION SW SIDEWALK STM SIR STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURE A UTILITY POLE (WITH GUY) a LIGHT POLE 8 or FH FIRE HYDRANT FLAG POLE HEDGE/BUSH NVPC NORTHERN VIRGINIA POWER COMPANY 9. WITH REFERENCE TO THE COURSE N64'38'51"W, 375.73' ESTABLISHED BY THIS SURVEY: THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL 2, TMP 65—A-22 CONTAINED IN DB 505, PG 845 (DERIVED FROM DB 190, PG 246, REFERENCED IN DB 337, PG 179) IS AMBIGUOUS. BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY AND INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES, THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE COMMON LINE IN THE FIELD (IF ANY) BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND PARCEL 2, TMP 65—A-22 IS NOT READILY APPARENT. SAID COURSE WAS ESTABLISHED BY (GENERALLY) HOLDING THE EXISTING WIRE FENCELINE (THE APPARENT LINE OF POSSESSION). IF THE COURSE ESTABLISHED BY THIS SURVEY IS NOT COMMON WITH PARCEL 2, TMP 65—A-22; THEN THERE IS A PROBABLE GAP BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES. S �O / 2s Fc�o Fs y Ty 1L �� o ✓9s cot, i' NSrq�,R .Pp10D,� ` `WOODED AREA—, < �2 D 2y 5� c�Pc 200 100 0 100 200 1 =20G' BOUNDARY SURVEY PROPERTY OF: ORRICK CEMETERY COMPANY, INC. DEED BOOK 337, PAGE 179 RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1 = 200' DATE: AUGUST 30, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & hssoclets, pc I Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Londaccpe A.LL 117 Feet picc dilly Street,Sulfa.^.CJ p F + WinGtestor, Vf ;71nta 22601 1 —tl¢S T 540.687.2119 F 5aO.865.0493 SHEET 1 OF 1