Loading...
PC 12-06-06 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia December 6, 2006 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for themeeting............................................................................................................... (no tab) 2) November 1, 2006 Minutes.............................................................................................. (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Rezoning 416-06 for the Tasker Road and Warrior Road Proffer Revision, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to revise proffers concerning the rezoning of 31.83 acres to B2 (General Business) District. The proffer revision addresses the hours of operation on the property. The properties are located in the northwest, southwest and southeast quadrants of the intersection of Route 642 and Route 1141, in the Shawnee and Opequon Magisterial Districts, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 75-A-104, 75 -A -104E, 75 -A -105A, 75 -A - 105B, 75 -A -105C, and 75 -A -105D. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B) 6) Rezoning #19-06 for Seefried Property, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 27.24 acres from MH1 (Mobile Home Community) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District and 48.77 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1, totaling 76.01 acres, with proffers, for industrial use. The properties are located west of Interstate 81 adjacent to Fort Collier Industrial Park and Arcadia Mobile Home Park, approximately 1,000 feet east of the intersection of Fort Collier Road (Route 1322) and Brooke Road (Route 1328), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 54-A-89 and 54-A- 91. Ms. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (C) FILE COPY 7) Rezoning #17-06 of Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers, for a retail center. The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-99 and 43-A-100. An additional property to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, is identified by Property Identification Number 43- A-98. This property is located east of Interstate 81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (D) PUBLIC MEETING 8) Master Development Plan #14-06 for Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Bury+Partners, to develop 59.65 acres of B2 (General Business) District and 95.57 acres of M1 (Light Industrial) District for commercial and industrial uses. The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of Interstate 81, Exit 317, and Martinsburg Pike intersection in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 and 43-A-111. Ms. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (E) 9) Rezoning 414-06 for Glaize Property, not scheduled for this meeting. Please see Memo. Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (F) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 10) 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Mr. Henry.........................................................................................................................(G) 11) 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 November 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; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gary R Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel; and City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner; Susan Eddy, Senior Planner; Candice E. Perkins, Planner II; Mark R Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of September 20, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee -10/23/06 Mtg. Comrmssioner kr:z reported the follo wing i-Sormation horn the Transportation Corntl�i; : 1) A new approach for transportation proffers for small commercial areas that cannot contribute enough funds to make transportation improvements themselves was tabled so additional information could be obtained. It was Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1889 Minutes of November 1, 2006 0 0 n V y -2 - suggested that information to determine the effect of this approach for both small and large commercial tracts along the entire Route 11 corridor be studied. 2) A resolution was passed to expedite the discussion with the city on the existing bus route in order to determine whether to apply for an additional grant. 3) Metropolitan Planning Organization Update — There is a public meeting scheduled on November 13, 2006 from 4:00-7:00 p.m. in the conference room of the Our Health building to discuss the Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan. The I-81/ Rt. 37/Shady Elm local assistance project has been accepted by VDOT to be performed by their on-call consultant at no charge to the MPO. There was a recommendation to bring all of the suggested local assistance projects before the Transportation Committee for their information. 4) A private citizen recommended that a study be made to establish a utility corridor along the proposed Rt. 37 so there would not be as much land condemned to establish both. 5) The December meeting is scheduled for December 18, 2006, at 8:30 p.m. Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) —10/26/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported two items for discussion at the DRRS meeting. He said the first was the definition in the zoning ordinance for community centers and the other was the parking of commercial vehicles in all zoning districts in the County. Economic Development Commission Commissioner Kerr reported that a joint work session with the Economic Development Commission and the Chamber of Commerce is scheduled for November 15, 2006. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #12-06 of Carriage Place, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 30.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, and 15.18 acres from M111 (Mobile Home Community) to RP District, totaling 45.44 acres, with proffers, for 165 single-family attached and detached homes. The properties are located south and adjacent to Route 7, east and adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. The properties are further identified with PINs 55-A-161, 55 -A -165A, 55 -A -166,55-A- 167, 55-A-1 067A, 55-A-168, 55-A-1 74A, 55-A-1 74B, and 55-A-1 74D in the Red Bird Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 60 Days Frederick County Planning CommissionD N � V V Page 1890 Minutes of November 1, 2006 -3 - Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy reported that the proposed plan calls for 73 single-family detached units and 92 townhouses. Ms. Eddy said the site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); however, the site was not within the limits of any small area land use plans. She said that because there were so many environmental features on the site, she wanted to point out that the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for protecting natural resources, including stream valleys. Ms. Eddy next talked about the transportation issues. She explained that the adopted Eastern Road Plan shows Valley Mill Road being relocated to a new location beginning east of Millrace Estates, across the Adams and Haggerty properties, and then meeting up with the Spine Road, in the vicinity of future Route 37, with traffic going in either direction to Senseny Road or Route 7. She said that all of the projects within this area are expected to have their traffic go onto the re-routed Valley Mill Road and also to contribute towards its construction. Ms. Eddy said this particular application does not conform to this aspect; instead, this project routes its traffic over to Valley Mill Road and vehicles can either go across the one -lane bridge or out to Route 7 at the cross over. She pointed out that Route 7 is classified as a major arterial road. She added that in order to carry out this transportation plan, the applicant will have to cross the floodplain and the creek, they will need to upgrade a portion of Valley Mill Road, they will need to install a traffic light at Route 7, and they will have to construct turning lanes on Route 7 in both the east and west direction, all at a significant expense for the applicant. Ms. Eddy further added that none of these improvements are called for in the Comprehensive Policy Plan; she commented that all of this money could be more effectively spent funding the transportation improvements that are called for in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Ms. Eddy next talked about the agency review comments. She stated that the HRAB was concerned about Valley Mill Farni, which includes a historic house and mill, and is on the national register of historic places and the Virginia Landmarks Register. When the HRAB reviewed this rezoning, they did not know the entrance would be so close to the Valley Mill Farm. In addition, Ms. Eddy said the Public Works Department had questions about the steep slopes and wetlands; the Parks and Recreation Department requested details on internal trails and connections to adjacent developments; and VDOT had hesitation about the rezoning because it did not support the County's long- range transportation goal. Ms. Eddy continued by reviewing the applicant's proffer statement with the Commission. In conclusion, Ms Eddy stated that the application was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan because it did not conform to the Eastern Road Plan; she added that staff is not satisfied that environmental features are being protected. Mr. Clay Athey, attorney, was representing the owners and applicants of the Carriage Place rezoning application. Mr. Athey stated that they initially proposed to staff and VDOT entrances directly onto Route 7, however, safety concerns were raised about the possibility of "U -turning." Mr. Athey said they next proposed an access out to existing Valley Mill Road and then up to its intersection with Route 7; he said that Valley Mill Road lines up directly with one of the two on-off ramps for proposed Route 37. Mr. Athey said their plans are to improve the intersection with traffic -control devices, so that when Route 37 is constructed, an intersection will already have been established. He said they have also provided a proposed connector, if the right-of-way is acquired across the Stafford property back to Valley Mill Road. In addition, he said they have provided $641,000 in direct transportation proffers over and above the proffer model to help accomplish the County's goals. He pointed out that their property borders two existing highways, Route 7 and Valley Mill Road; he said they have site distance to establish an entrance on either one of these roads, and they feel they have a right to access those roadways. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., consultant with PHR&A, the design and engineering firm for the project, came forward to address the HRAB issues for the proposed rezoning. Mr. Maddox explained that the initial proposal for direct access on Route 7 would have created a break in the vegetative buffer and was one of the issues rarsed by the HRAB. He said tyke HRAB preferred to have a continuous vegetat,_ve buffer along Rote 7. ix r. Maddox said everyone seems to feel this access alternative, described by Mr. Athey, is a much better approach in order to meet that goal. In addition, initial meetings with the HRAB indicated the historic groups' desire to have interpretive kiosks in safe locations off Route 7. In subsequent discussions, however, it was decided this would not serve the purpose desired and an equivalent amount of money was voluntarily proffered by the applicant for fencing Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of November 1, 2006 B Page 1891 n Til V LJ U w — 4 — and improvements at Star Fort, which everyone agreed would be a better alternative. Mr. Maddox commented that the access alternative described by Mr. Athey does not eliminate any options the County has for closing Valley Mill Road and the one -lane bridge. He explained, however, that it does depend on Route 37 being fixed in that location; Haggerty Road will intersect with it on the east and Valley Mill Road will be on the west. Mr. Maddox believed that any traffic that can be brought through Valley Mill Road to Route 7, and not the Haggerty Road location, will be good traffic planning because traffic will not be concentrated at only one point along Route 7. He said there will be multiple access points at safe locations, with traffic signals. Mr. Patrick Sowers, also with PHR&A, came forward to address issues relating to the environmentally -sensitive areas of the site. Mr. Sowers said the proposed layout does affect some of the more environmentally -sensitive areas of the site, but the reason for doing so was to create a better transportation system, with a connection to Route 7 through a signalized intersection with Valley Mill Road. In addition, Mr. Sowers commented that a traffic signal is already proposed on the spine road by the Haggerty rezoning, regardless if Valley Mill Road is there or not; their objective was to use the existing traffic signal to more appropriately address the transportation needs of the County, instead of funneling all of the traffic to one location. At this point, Chairman Wilmot opened the public comment portion of the meeting. The following person came forward to speak: Mr. Tim Stafford said he represented his family, the owners of Valley Mill Farm, an adjoining property. Mr. Stafford said his family was opposed to the rezoning as it was presented. He mentioned some previous informational meetings that various public and county officials had with him about this project; he said tonight was the first time he heard about the applicant's proposed entrance onto Valley Mill Road. Mr. Stafford was concerned about any construction proposed by the applicant through this floodplain area. He said that in years past, adjoining properties have been developed. He said the creek continues to flood, trees continue to fall, and with every storm, the flooding gets worse and encroaches closer to his home. Mr. Stafford said this applicant is proposing to construct a road system across a floodplain and is stating that the water will not back up on his property. Mr. Stafford said it was his family's intent to keep this property as a homestead. He said when this project was first presented to him, the applicant was going to go out on Route 7; he said he understood the concerns, but he was opposed to the applicant's new proposal, which involved construction across a wetland. He was also concerned about all the potential traffic coming across the front of his property. He commented that he had been working with the County on their plan for their new road which would cut across the bottom of his land; he said his family was present to make things right; but they were not going to be taken advantage of. No other member of the public wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Athey returned to the podium to address the comments made by Mr. Stafford. Mr. Athey said the Eastern Road Plan calls for the applicant to acquire a right-of-way across Mr. Stafford's land back to Valley Mill Road; he thought it was clear that Mr. Stafford was not interested. Mr. Athey said the applicant is left with this being the only reasonable access option; he said the proposed Route 37 entrance and exit aligns directly with Valley Mill Road, at a stop -lighted intersection. Mr. Athey did not think this option was inconsistent with satisfying the Eastern Road Plan; he said that VDOT could still cul-de-sac the road between the bridge and Route 7 and still satisfy Mr. Stafford's needs. Mr. Lloyd Ingram, a VDOT representative, was next called to the podium for his comments. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of November 1, 2006 Page 1892 -5 - Commissioner Mohn asked how accurate the interchange design was that is being shown; he asked if VDOT had accepted the applicant's access proposal as a better scenario than a direct access to Route 7; and, regarding signalization, he asked about the interim impact on Valley Mill Road and if there were concerns about having this signal and the Haggerty signal so close to each other on a major arterial highway. Mr. Ingram said the interchange shown is basically conceptual and has not yet been engineered. Mr. Ingram said it was VDOT's opinion that the latest entrance proposal was a better scenario than d1rect access onto Rou*-' ,. m LL ,., , , whic�� heir opinion, was a fatal flaw and presented safety issues for the traveling public and local residents. With regards to the signalization issue, Mr. Ingram said the one -lane bridge will be a bottleneck, but will keep the flow of traffic through there relatively low; he added that traffic signals will be installed when they are warranted and spacing was sufficient enough to allow a synchronized system. With regard to the environmental aspects, Commissioner Kriz asked if there was anything that would prevent the applicant from coming through the area as they have shown. Mr. Ingram replied that VDOT's environmental division would have to be satisfied with the mitigation proposed by the applicant before VDOT would take it into the State System. Commissioner Mohn said he appreciated the interpretation of the Eastern Road Plan and how this may or may not fit in with the ultimate vision of re -aligning Valley Mill Road; yet, he felt there was something to be said for the fact that the Eastern Road Plan could potentially still be implemented with the applicant's proposed scenario. He asked the staff for their opinion and if this could be viewed as a compromise to achieve the broader goal. Ms. Eddy replied that one of the primary reasons for re-routing Valley Mill Road was to get the traffic off this portion of the road; she said it takes a lot of development to pay for that kind of road improvement, so, a portion of the issue is this project not being a part of the bigger whole. Ms. Eddy said the second part of it is not having all of the traffic spilling out to Route 7, which is more immediate. Commissioner Mohn asked Mr. Maddox what environmental analysis had been done with regards to the environmentally -sensitive areas, in light of Mr. Stafford's concerns. Mr. Maddox replied that U.S. Corps of Engineers and FEMA floodplain permits will allow only a marginal increase in impact; he said the hydraulics, hydrology, and engineering design will have to satisfy a number of agencies before this could be approved. Mr_ Maddox said there is no single item that would preclude this from being approved, as long as the engineering meets requirements. Mr. Maddox added that the implementation of the County's Eastern Road Plan would also necessitate crossing the stream and those same impacts will have to be met. Mr. Maddox next took some time to talk with the Commission about the adjoining Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park and why access through that park was not feasible; he also talked about the improvements to Woods Mill Road and why those improvements did not create a free-flowing intersection. Chairman Wilmot asked if the applicant's proposed transportation plan moves the County any closer to the implementation of the Eastern Road Plan. Secondly, she asked if there was an alternate Eastern Road Plan that perhaps may involve some of the concepts presented this evening. Commissioner Triplett inquired if the proposed crossover might ever be eliminated or if the future traffic signal might be in the way of the on -and -off ramps for Route 37. Mr. Ingram replied that they may have to be shifted somewhat; he thought it was safe to say there would be an interchange and a traffic light in the area. Conunissioner Unger raised a concern about creating a worse traffic situation on Valley Mill Road ;with potential future development along Eddy's Lane. Mr. Ing ann talked about future plates to cul-de-sac Eddy's Lane and VDOT's other long-range plans for this area. Frederick County Planning CommissionD n N F � Page 1893 ILJ^L{j Minutes of November 1, 2006 Frederick County's Transportation Planner, John A. Bishop, came forward with his comments regarding the applicant's proposed access. Mr. Bishop said if this proposed access is viewed as a simple question, whether it is better to go onto Route 7 or to Valley Mill Road, the answer is yes, it is safer to go onto Valley Mill Road. He said that, unfortunately, by using Valley Mill Road, a Pandora's Box of other issues could be opened The first being that Valley Mill Road is planned to be relocated, so although the Eastern Road Plan does not say specifically that this crossover will be closed, it can be inferred by the relocation. He said the primary reason for the relocation is that the existing geometry would be very difficult to improve to the point where it can adequately meet future development. Further, with the Haggerty and the Adams rezonings, there is a requirement that Eddy's Lane have access through there; so, by allowing this, the idea is presented that it will never close. Mr. Bishop said it was not just the 1,600 trips from this development, but the additional trips from those new developments would then have the opportunity to come up Eddys Lane and Valley Mill through an area that is very hard to adequately fix. As you enter Eddys Lane off of Route 7, there is a very short tangent where it is perpendicular to the roadway before it starts curving around the hillside. He explained that considering the amount of long-term traffic, the one side is unlikely to be able to handle the traffic without some major redevelopment of Valley Mill Road where it currently enters Route 7. He said this, in turn, could affect where the Route 37 ramps need to go. Commissioner Kriz commented that the applicant's revised proffers were just handed out this evening and the Commission has not yet had the opportunity to review those. Commissioner Mohn said he recognized the fact that, on a certain level, the applicant has tried to work the cards they were dealt to make a scenario work; he said he was not completely opposed to something along the lines of what they are proposing, assuming it fits in and compliments the Eastern Road Plan. He added that the Transportation Planner's comments were helpful to clarify the issues. Conunissioner Mohn said he would like to know more from the applicant about the conceptual design of this intersection, not only how things will potentially line up, but the scope of improvements he thought it would be significant. Connnissioner Molm said he would like more information on two things—one, understanding the scope of the improvements and second, getting more information on the environmental impacts. Although he was not asking for a full-scale engineering study, he wanted something that helps the Commission visualize and see how this will take shape; he thought it was currently a little too conceptual. Commissioner Mohn said he would also like to see more clarity on what the system would look like relative to the proposed improvements of the Eastern Road Plan, if it comes to fruition. In addition, he requested some clarification and answers to those issues from VDOT as well. Other Commission members agreed and recognized the many layers and issues involved with the proposal. Commissioner Mohn next moved that the application be tabled for a period of 60 days to allow for the additional analysis previously mentioned to take place. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table Rezoning Application # 12-06 of Carriage Place, submitted by Patton, Hams, Rust & Associates, for 60 days, to allow time for additional analysis and information to be provided, as follows: to provide the Commission with a conceptual design of this proposed intersection, not only how things will potentially line up, but the scope of improvements; and, to provide more information on the environmental impacts. This information should be presented in a manner that helps the Commission to visualize how this will take shape. Also, additional clarification should be provided:,r� what the system would look like relative to the proposed improvements of the Eastern Road Plan. Additional clarification and answers to those issues was sought from VDOT as well. (Note: Commissioners Light, Ours, and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commissionp Page 1894 Minutes of November 1, 2006 D R 1 CI j I � dC Rezoning 914-06 of the Glaize Property, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 1.38 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The property is located on the southwestern quadrant of the intersection of Northwestern Pike (Route 50)/Round Hill Road (Route 803)/Retail Boulevard. The property is further identified with PIN 52-A-252 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, Action — Tabled for 30 Days Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that Round Hill Road has been rerouted and is directly adjacent to this site. Ms. Eddy said the applicant is seeking all uses that would be allowed in the 132 District by the zoning ordinance. She said the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and it is within Phase II of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan, which supports commercial development. She said the Round Hill Land Use Plan includes design standards recommended for signs, including size and number, and for frontage improvements, which calls for a 20 -foot landscaped strip along Route 50. Ms. Eddy noted that the landscaped strip calls for the inclusion of street trees, ornamental shrubs, and a pedestrian facility using either a sidewalk or bicycle trail. Additional design standards include placing the buildings closer to Route 50 and positioning screened parking behind the buildings, not on Route 50. Ms. Eddy reported that with this application, the applicant is proposing a ten -foot trail on Route 50, but it is shown on the GDP in the public right-of-way. She explained that this would preclude the County and VDOT from future anticipated road widening. She added that the applicant has proffered parking lot landscaping; however, he has not provided the 20 -foot landscaped strip along Route 50. Ms. Eddy said that the application, therefore, does not conform to the design elements of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Regarding the transportation aspects, Ms. Eddy said the improvements to the Route 50 corridor are being pursued by the County and VDOT; however, this item has not been addressed by the applicant. These include future road widening and pedestrian signalization at key intersections; she said that staff believed the applicant should participate in these efforts. She added that the applicant will be constructing an additional lane on Round Hill Road and he will be providing curb and gutter along the frontages. Mr. John Lewis of Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. was representing the property owner, George W. Glaize, Jr., in this rezoning application. Mr. Lewis said the issues raised by the staff were design issues that he would prefer to address at the site plan stage because, at this point in time, they are uncertain what the uses will be. Commissioner Kriz explained that this was the first rezoning coming in for this expanded SWSA area and he expected many more to follow; he said the Commission needs to set a standard with regards to what is expected of applicants to meet the design requirements of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Commissioner Kriz stated it was obvious the applicant is not meeting the requirements of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Commissioner Oates commented that the applicant is benefiting from the County's recent SWSA expansion. He said that with that expansion, it was clearly spelled out what the County expected in the way of right-of-way improvements* and standards. Commissioner Oates believed that having the design standards in place was paramount for this property to be rezoned. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commissioni� n r Page1895 Minutes of November 1, 2006 M J ((1 Gj�, Mr. Lewis agreed to meet with the staff and re -work the rezoning application with the design elements expected. Commissioner Kriz moved to table the rezoning application for 30 days to allow time for the applicant to meet with the staff and work out the design elements expected. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table for 30 days Rezoning Application # 14-06 of the Glaize Property, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 1.38 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The 30 -day time period is to allow the applicant to meet with the staff regarding the design elements of the Round Hill Land Use Plan that are expected to be incorporated on this site with the rezoning of the property. (Note: Commissioners Light, Ours, and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN TO ALTER THE EASTERN ROAD PLAN. Action — Recommended Approval Transportation Planner, John A. Bishop, reported that the Planning Commission discussed the Eastern Road Plan at their meeting on October 4, 2006; he said the Planning Comnussion desired to keep Victory Lane on as a minor collector, which has been implemented; and to also include consideration of the extension over to Route 277 from Warrior Drive extended. Mr. Bishop said the Board of Supervisors heard these comments at their discussion on October 11, 2006; he said the Board also received the generalized cross section map. Mr. Bishop said the Board had some concerns, not specifically with the content of the Eastern Road Plan, but with procedural -type issues. He said that those concerns included how the plan would be updated and their desire to see the most current version of the Eastern Road Plan during consideration of rezoning applications and other such land use actions. Mr. Bishop proceeded to give the Commission some general history of the Eastern Road Plan. He showed a slide of the current plan and the proposed draft plan depicting all of the additions which have occurred through planning efforts and through the MPO. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. No issues or concerns were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendment to the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan to alter the Eastern Road Plan with the addition of the six lanes of Route 50 out to Poor House Road. (Note: Commissioners Light, Ours, and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission I flD n Page 1896 Minutes of November 1, 2006 IJI I 1� ILLLjI PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan 1_113-06 for Cedar Meadows, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to develop 30.6 acres of RP (Residential Performance) zoned property with 140 single-family, small -lot detached units. The property is located on the west side of White Oak Road (Route 636), approximately 2,600 feet south of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road (Route 642). The property is further identified with PINS 75-A-106, 75-A-107, 75-A-114, 75-A-115, 75-A-116, and 86-A-153 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the master development plan (MDP) for Cedar Meadows is a proposal to develop 140 proffered age -restricted, single-family small lot units on a tract of land which was rezoned in 2006 with proffers. Ms. Perkins noted that access to the site is proposed via a private, gated road network which will access White Oak Road. She said that during rezoning, the Board of Supervisors granted a waiver of Section 144-24C(2)C which permitted this development to be constructed with a complete network of private streets. Ms. Perkins next reviewed the proffers associated with this MDP. Ms. Perkins raised a concern by the staff regarding the monetary contribution to offset the impacts of development. She suggested that the recreational unit tabulations not include the $25,000 figure; she explained that if this development is not implemented for a number of years, the per wilt cost of the recreational facility could increase. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, was representing Mrs. Beverley B. Shoemaker, the property owner, on this MDP. Referring to the staff's comment on the tabulation for the recreational unit, Mr. Wyatt said that if there was a concern about having the recreational unit value stated because of the possibility that the amount could increase overtime, he would modify the information. He suggested keeping the required number of recreational units, which is about 13.5, eliminate the actual value, and add a statement noting that the required recreational wilt value would be approved by the Frederick County Parks Director at the time of construction. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. A Commission member asked Ms. Perkins if the staff was comfortable with the revision suggested by Mr. Wyatt and Ms. Perkins replied yes. No other issues or concerns were raised. A motion was made by Commissioner Morris to approve the MDP with the applicant's suggested amendment. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and was unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan 413-06 for Cedar Meadows, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to develop 30.6 acres of RP (Residential Performance) -zoned property with 140 single-family, small -lot detached units with an amendment to the recreational unit tabulations to state the required number of recreational units, to eliminate the monetary value, and to add a statement noting that the required recreational unit value would be approved by the Freder.Ck County Parks Director at the time of r_.{ingLniftiQn, (Note: Commissioners Light, Ours, and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission n n � � Page 1897 Minutes of November 1, 2006 I U I I((JJ^LL{j 0 -10 - DISCUSSION Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment 06-06 of Clearview, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC,toexpand the Urban Development Area iU A) and Serer and Water Service Area (S«SA) to encou pas, 130 n7 acres to enable residential land uses. The four properties are located south of Hopewell Road (Route672) and west of Interstate 81. The subject parcels are identified with PINs 43 -A -75,44-A-1, 44-A-3, and 44 -A - 3B in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. Planner Candice E_ Perkins reported that this Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) request by Clearview consists of four parcels, totaling 130.07 acres, zoned RA (Rural Areas). Ms. Perkins said this was one of the two CPPA requests that the Board of Supervisors requested further study. She said subject parcels are not within the limits of any small area land use plan and are located over a mile from the Urban Development Area (UDA). The subject parcels are also outside of the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) designates this area around the interchange of Hopewell Road as commercial to enable interstate businesses. Ms. Perkins said the applicant is requesting that the UDA and SWSA be expanded to include these four parcels so the property can be developed as an age -restricted housing development. She noted, however, that the extension of the UDA would enable all ages and residential housing types. Ms. Perkins added that if this property is rezoned at the maximum allowable density for the site, the potential for the introduction of 520 residential units is possible for this area. The approval of this CPPA will introduce future high-density residential land uses into an area with no adjacent high-density residential and a transportation network not designed for this use. She noted that in the past, the County has not extended the UDA in a noncontiguous manner. Ms. Perkins said that comments from the Sanitation Authority stated that while water is available, the sewer capacity here is insufficient to serve existing land within the SWSA. If the proposed Clearview property is incorporated into the SWSA, it will eliminate development potential from properties within the NELUP which are already located within the SWSA Ms. Perkins said the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) considered this request at their October 10, 2006 meeting. The CPPS's primary concerns was that the character and context of the proposed use did not fit in with surrounding rural land uses; she said the members were satisfied with the current rural use of this area and unanimously recommended to the Planning Commission that the CPPA request be denied. Commissioner Kriz, a member of the CPPS, said there was no adjacent UDA, the proposal was out of character with existing uses in this area, and the proposal did not fit at this particular time. Commissioner Mohn, also a member of the CPPS, agreed that Commissioner Kriz and the staff had appropriately summarized the views of the CPPS. He raised the issues of compatibility and context, and it represented a substantial leap of the UJDA from its current boundary. Other Commissioners agreed and could not support the CPPA request. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of November 1, 2006 Page 1898 -11 - OTHER CITIZENS PLANNING EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF VIRGINIA (CPEAV) Chairman Wilmot noted that Commissioner Morris has presented the Commission with information pertaining to new planning issues from the General Assembly which he brought back from the annual meeting of the CPEAV. Commissioner Morris said the items have already been passed and become effective July of 2007. Chairman Wilmot also announced that CPEAV is having an advanced seminar for the Certificate Program graduates on November 29, 2006, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS Chairman Wilmot announced that the Blue Ridge Association of Realtors is willing to provide the Commission with 15-20 minutes of discussion on homeowners associations. She said the presentation was scheduled for November 15. Since the Commission's agenda was full for that particular evening, the Commission agreed to move the presentation to another date. CORRIDOR STANDARDS Commissioner Oates raised the subject of corridor standards. He said that since the Eastern Road Plan will soon be approved with the graphic cross section for roads, he thought it would be a good opportunity for the Commission to decide where sidewalks, landscaping, and bicycle trails could be tied into the cross sections. He suggested this as a study project for the upcoming year - AGE -RESTRICTED HOUSING Commissioner Kriz asked the staff for information on the percentage of age -restricting housing in Frederick County. Mr. Lawrence said the department maintains this information and he would forward it to the Commission. Commission members suggested this may be a good discussion item for the Commission's next retreat. rtedenck County Planning Commission D� nD Page 1899 Minutes of November 1, 2006 -12 - ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the meeting adjourned by a unanimous vote at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning CommissionH I I�`' Page 1900 Minutes of November 1, 2006 F � C7 • REZONING APPLICATION #16-06 TASKER ROAD AND WARRIOR ROAD COMMERCIAL Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: November 17, 2006 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: December 6, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: January 10, 2007 Pending PROPOSAL: To revise the proffers associated with rezoning RZ#002-98, Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial, as they pertain to the hours of operation on the commercial properties. LOCATION: The properties are located at the northwest, southwest and southeast quadrants of the intersection of Route 642, Tasker Road, and Route 1141, Warrior Drive. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee and Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 75-A-104, 75 -A -104E, 75 -A -105A, 75 -A -105B, 75 -A -105C, and 75 -A - 105D PROPERTY ZONING: B2 (Business General) PRESENT USE: Commercial and vacant. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential PROPOSED USES: Commercial development. Rez #16-06, Tasker & Warrior Commercial Page 2 November 17, 2006 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History In 1998, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved rezoning application RZ #002-98, a request to rezone 35.6774 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) with proffers. The resulting commercial properties provided the commercial focal point for the Tasker Road Land Bays project. The properties subject to the original rezoning were 75-A-104, 105, and 117. Rezoning #002-98 contained various proffered conditions which are generally summarized as follows: Transportation improvements to offset impact of development. A traffic Impact study was to be conducted using VDOT procedures for each site development use proposed within the Tasker Road and Warrior Drive Commercial site at the time of site plan review. Improvements will be constructed by the applicant as required by VDOT regulations for the predicted traffic impacts based upon the specific use proposed. This proffer condition has been, and continues to be, implemented by the applicants. Restricted uses. The applicant will restrict the use of the property by not allowing the following uses. Automotive Dealers Gasoline Service Stations (pumps at convenience stores are allowed). Hotels and motels Car washes Golf Driving Ranges and miniature golf courses Batting Cages Membership organizations Civic, social, and fraternal organizations Funeral homes and crematoriums Drive-in theaters Restricted hours of operations. The applicant shall restrict hours of operation by requiring businesses to be closed from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Monetary contribution to offset impact of development. The applicant will pay Frederick County for the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company the sum of $6,545.97 at the time the first building permit is applied for and issued. Rez #16-06, Tasker & Warrior Commercial Page 3 November 17, 2006 This monetary contribution was paid on 5/4/06 by the property owner in conjunction with the development of the CVS Pharmacy. 2) Request to revise Proffers The applicant has submitted this current rezoning application to modify the proffers associated with original rezoning, particularly as it pertains to the hours of operation for the commercial properties. The property subject to the new rezoning is the same as the original rezoning. However, the parcel identification numbers are different due to subdivision of the parent tract. Further, the acreage is less. This is due to the dedication and construction of state road infrastructure including Warrior Drive, Lynn Drive, and the expansion of Tasker Road. The proposed revisions to the proffer statement contained in Rezoning # 16-06 are generally summarized as follows: Restricted Hours of Operations. The applicant shall restrict hours of operation by requiring businesses to be closed from 12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. This is a modification from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. as originally approved. The net result of the modified hours of operation would be to enable the commercial businesses to remain open for one additional hour in the evening and to open one hour earlier in the morning. It is anticipated that this will enable the commercial businesses a greater opportunity to serve the members of the community, while still maintaining a degree of sensitivity to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. All other proffers. The applicant has maintained the proffer addressing the transportation improvements provided in conjunction with the commercial development. It should be noted that since the original rezoning occurred, Warrior Drive has been completed through the property, and the intersection of Warrior Drive and Tasker Road has been signalized. Additional lane improvements at the noted intersection have been secured with adjacent rezoning applications and development. The restricted uses remain exactly the same as originally proffered. The applicant has eliminated the proffer which provides for a monetary contribution to offset impact of development to Fire and Rescue Services. As noted, the applicant made a payment in the amount of $6,545.97 to Frederick County for the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company at the time the first building permit was applied for and issued. Specifically, it was paid on 5/4/06 by the property owner in conjunction with the development of the CVS Pharmacy. Each of the current landowners of property which was contained within the original rezoning approval are participating in this rezoning application and have executed the new proffer statement dated April 8, 2006 (revised October 17, 2006). Rez #16-06, Tasker & Warrior Commercial Page 4 November 17, 2006 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/06/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The subject properties are presently zoned B2 and the continued commercial development of the property remains consistent with the original rezoning application. The project maintains its consistency with the goals and policies of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed modifications would enable the commercial properties to operate for an additional hour in the evening and an additional hour in the morning. The modification of the proffer statement would not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Frederick County, Location in the, County Application Taker & Parcel ID: 75 - A - 104,75 - A - 104E, 75 - A - 105A, 75 - A - 10513, 75 - A - 105C, 75 - A - 105D Zoning B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General District) 'r B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) W EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) w HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RAZ (Rural Area Zone) RP (Residential Performance District) Location in Surrounding Area 0 125 250 50JD Frederick County, Location in the County Application Tasker & Parcel ID: 75 - A - 104,75 - A - 104E, 75 -A -105A,75 -A-10513, 75 - A - 105C, 75 - A - 105D Long Range Land Use Rural Community Center Residential Business ® Industrial Institutional Recreation 1�0 Historic ® Mixed -Use ® Planned Unit Development Location in Surrounding Area '00611 Tasker Road and Warrior Road Coiiunercial Rezoning October 17, 2006 TASKER ROAD AND WARRIOR ROAD COMMERCIAL PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# ?� B-2, Business General District with Proffers to B-2, Business General District with Revised Proffers PROPERTY: 31.83 acres +/-; Tax Parcels #75-((A))-104; 75 -((A)) -104E; 75 -((A)) -105A; 75-((A))- 10513; 75 -((A)) -105C; and 75 -((A)) -105D (here -in after the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Jasbo, Inc.; JEM VII, LLC; H.N. Funkhouser & Co.; Treybul Company, LC, Ervin Properties, LLC APPLICANT: Jasbo, Inc.; JEM VII, LLC; H.N. Funkhouser & Co.; Treybul Company, LC, Ervin Properties, LLC (here -in after the "Applicants") PROJECT NAME: Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: April 8, 1998 REVISION DATE: October 17, 2006 Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicants hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # &:� for the rezoning of 31.83± acres from the B-2, Business General District with Proffers to establish 31.83± acres of B-2, Business General District with Revised Proffers, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this Applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The Property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Jasbo, Inc., JEM VII, LLC, H.N. Funkhouser & Co., Treybul Company, LC, and Ervin Properties, LLC being all of Tax Map Parcels 75-((A))-1.04, 75 -((A)) -104E, 75 -((A)) -105A, 75 -((A)) -105B, 75 -((A)) -105C, and 75- ((A)) -105D and further described by Deed Book 634 Page 499, Deed Book 922 Page 875, Instrument Number 050015374, Instrument Number 050023431, Instrument Number 050008207, and Instrument Number 050008205. File #4806/EAW Greenway Engineering Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial Rezoning October 17, 2006 PROFFER STATEMENT Transportation improvements to Offset 'Impact of i eveloprnert The Applicants hereby proffer that a traffic impact study will be conducted using VDOT procedures for each site at development use proposed within the Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial site at the time of site plan review. Improvements will be constructed by the Applicants as required by VDOT regulations for the predicted traffic impacts based upon the specific use proposed. Restricted Uses The Applicants hereby proffer to restrict the use of the Property by not allowing the following uses: Automotive Dealers Gasoline service stations (pumps at convenience stores are allowed) Hotels and Motels Car Washes Golf Driving Ranges and miniature golf courses Batting Cages Membership Organizations Civic, Social, and Fraternal organizations Funeral homes and crematoriums Drive-in theaters Restricted Hours of Operation The Applicants hereby proffer to restrict hours of operation by requiring businesses to be closed from 12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. File #4806/EAW Greenway Engineering Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial Rezoning Signatures October 17. 2006 The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Jasbo, Inc. B y: I n— l �- 0 b Bee ley B. Shoemaker, resident Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/Gnty f Gr'ivac_y-ick- To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I+�iay of (C fz�l�e� 2006 by �C''�'c';rlQ�% C� . lol�c'dV1C�kP�, Qr`e,5064,) " �G 70 Notary Public My Commission Expires Fe1��vzi~..2rL�C+lj File #4806/EAW Greenway Engiacering Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial Rezoning Signatures October 17. 2006 The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: JEM VII, LLC 6 `� i a - ,c i✓ C� Y� z - James E. Martin, Manager Date _ 3-I1� fX ommonwealth of-�'.i�i-a, C`-ity/County of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me tQ-t day of ` 20 by J Notary Public My Commission Expires File #4806/EAW Greenway Engineering Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial Rezoning Signatures October 17, 2006 The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: H.N. Funkhouser, Co. By: ,d Robert W 0 ytor, President Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/e mny of NI.I -mc To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I day of 20pf by � Notar Public My Commission Expires File #4806/EAW Greenway Engineering Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial Rezoning Signatures October 17, 2006 The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, ns null successors in the i tPrest of the Applicant and owner. in the event the irederick assigns �.... suc.. ,�.,. n -- County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Treybul Company, LC Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of Uy i` n &l't -C3 t --- r To Wit: Date The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of QCJ 2060 by \,j C' VI VI C , LX- W l 5 My Commission Expires N6JryWblic File #4806/EAW Greenway Engineering Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial Rezoning Signatures October 17, 2006 The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, uSs1g.^s and gi"rePcenrs 1n the interest .^f the Apl2iieaiai and vvviler. ul the even' the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Ervin Properties, LLC By: David A. Ervin, Pfesi4mt / Date Commonwealth of Virginia, �o City/may of 1'\ To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisday of 1 20Ctrby Not Public My Commission Expires I File #4806/EAW Greenway Engineering 0 0 T— I/ ZA, Legend Subject Parcels Parcel Boundaries Zoning B2 (Business, General District) RA (Rural Areas District) RP (Residential Performance District) Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data 4Z) Location and Zoning Map + 0 4— 75 '0 A% (OVIA-C/ 0 4(o Oz /7�—t 0 0 0 "v4 Ix 'Uv/ / A 0 SPP `j T—, 6: C.) -L"G:CT 0 CEDAR MOUNTAIN DR Feet 1500 250 0 500 1,000 FISHERS HILL C1 0 4q CO "�IWACE06N, ' I I CC I , A-�HURCH TASKjn— -F , I ?I) 37 U)WF- < Q F- W cr_ LU < LU z [Tubject Parcels a- < :2 z < 0 Z0 M 0 LU LU STEPHENS CITY ir z 0 > U) >: F5 F- 00 Ir 0 N 0 < z 2E Z) o� /S�F9Fr Er< z UJ 0 Lij LU J§' z 0 Z C3 LL PDQ 0 = d LIJ U) C) LO Ir 0 06 LU M Cr a) 277 11 �e LLJ -J Z LL 0 r 0 -r- 52 OVERVIEW U) g n a LLJ 0 CM w W _J < CL tE 0 01 U) �- •,, ^' — `^t -' � .... h, , r'+rvt . � �, -..-. -q- - ---_�:.: - - •/i� P'°�YC''�• - .F , #yS`r.. - —� „ {. �.,so• _—._.,�,; � - _-__ LL�-. - e"..� iyl., - -_ - ' o - _ "IF ,w ,i• �- RL r z r LiDR Aerial O n. -, �eria Overview a: �NEus cr roy ICK�H a w -. x%UJ Qg+, _�_z p ESfW 7 LAOt UREL �1"i T R , N W yam' -rALADAORr, Oft W �, :. -.. ,. -.� ` ^°•.. a•A =E �„ ',"",r•, ;�'. PSS _ A�! ; n N •. - j - ww a N/ ' ,.,,..... ,�`/ ��.yj eICK N "9 A O ik RURCR r ye RD f 0 0.1 *® , f.. - �� 4 ,ePp�. r . Q, �, .. Sim.. �,, :l " A • O h 4. ►. � `` �► m .1` ;" . `' is � �, r� 9: q1i� N x3 ` 40 • � i- �► , , ne _7% •, F4' �"_:. � Jam. k+xx9. A i0 ",,,,,,,, F. I-. „r,� of AJ, , F 2cc o :. " + • . •„P. Jl� f ,' ”' _� a�_ ,� . Ef]aNfq Cf�(1 k r r, e •� - ` "q • h sq 8�4Y$ w ray ROIU{`• N ._ �: � � , ,.. -,, ., '� Ir " �' _ �RR CT �� of �. :x Y ,•,� No o CIS CY � _ g SKERC o RD > v. . 1� LL (sly "'.cIly > t 9n. t _ - e3 f1oN{�E� ' x 1. . / MOUNTAIN _ -'' _ . a- _. ,J �T t I. — ccM ccCa Al a, FISHERSHiLLCT >Y jY1 ♦ . `L d F v • 'a #� 1 , rp. 0 Ir Aw �• ...- q -• >" A r # W /A*. .a+ ��2 /tic pj� , kBURNsF®` ` 0"P OF i. J U ❑ .`ao� rr A rim: RD DR Q tr i IF +7 - — �. t O �: I A � t R ,® O> 2 3` /' a - a: — Z W W • wt h • x o Q Q Y o Legend ; "ui LO Qfr Feet o U) C) Subject Parcels .o rr w T ® Q . �,� . 500 250 0 500 1,000 Y o Parcel Boundaries Er o 'a fi Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data e R GREENWAY UNNINEERING i 151 Windy Hill Lane Windlester, Virginia 22602 Founded in 1971 September 15, 2006 Frederick County Planning Department Attn: Mike Ruddy, Deputy Director 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial Proffer Revision Dear Mike: Please find attached information pertaining to a conditional rezoning modification request for the Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial project located in the northwest, southwest and southeast quadrants of this intersection, and identified as Tax Parcels 75-((A))-104; 75 -((A)) - 104E; 75 -((A)) -105A; 75 -((A)) -105B; 75 -((A)) -105C; and 75 -((A)) -105D. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #002-98 with proffers on April 8, 1998 for this project. These proffers established transportation improvements, land use restrictions, hours of operation and monetary contributions for this project. The proposed modifications to this proffer statement pertain to the current hours of operation, which restrict operations between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The Applicants desire to change these hours of operation to restrict the hours of operation between 12:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. The purpose of this revision is to provide better service to the residents within this area of the County, particularly for the commuting residents. Additionally, the proffer statement has been revised to eliminate the monetary contribution for fire and rescue services, which was paid to Frederick County in May 2006. Please review this information and provide me with comments from your department and the County Attorney at your earliest possible convenience. Greenway Engineering will submit the final rezoning application, the special limited power of attorney documents, the signed proffer statement and the $3,000.00 rezoning application review fee once these comments have been received. Please contact me if you have any questions or if you need any additional information at this time. Sincerely, WJWa � • w' Evantt,AICP Greenway Engineering Cc: Ken Rice Engineers Surveyors Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commer§iolephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 Proffer Statement Revision #4806/EAW www.greenwayeng.com REZONING APPLICATION FORM , FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff: Fee Amount Paid Zoning Amendment Number Date Receive i 1 PC Hearing Date tth BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. 2. 3. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 Property Owner (if different from above) Name: Jasbo. Inc.. JEM VII. LLC. H.N. Funkhouser & Co.. Trevbul Company, LC and Ervin Properties, LLC being all of Tax Map Parcels 75- ((A))_-104, 75-((A))-I04E,.7.5-((A))7w105D, 75 -((A)) -105C, 75-((A))-10513, and 75 -((A)) -105A and further described by Deed Book 634 Page 499, Deed Book 922 Page 875, Instrument Number 050015374, Instrument Number 050023431. Instrument Number 050008205 and Instrument Number 050008207. Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt, AICP Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments Plat Fees Deed to Property X Impact Analysis Statement 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: J_asbo Inc. Beverley B. Shoemaker JEM VII LLC, James E. Martin Treybul Company LC John C. Lewis H N Funkhouser, Co Robert W. Claytor Ervin Properties LLC David A. Ervin 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: Commercial & Office Commercial & Office PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 75-A-102 Residential RA District 75-A-103 Residential RA District 75-A-117 Residential RP District 75D-4-4-109 Residential RP District 75D-4-4-110 Residential RP District 75D-4-4-111 Residential RP District 75D -4-4-137A Oen Space RP District 75L -3-1-1A Residential RP District 75L -3-1-8A Residential RP District 75L -3-1-8B Residential RP District 75L -3-1-8C Residential RP District 75L -3-1-9A Residential RP District 75L -3-1-9B Residential RP District 75L -3-2-6C Residential RP District 75L -3-3-77A Oen Space RP District 75M -4-3-141A Open Space RP District 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): The parcels comprising the Tasker Road_ and Warrior Road Commercial project are located in the northwest southwest and southeast quadrants of this inetrsection (Route 642 and Route 1141). Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model 7 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 or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number Tax Map Parcels 75-((A))-104,75 ((A)) -104E, 75 -((A)) -105D, 75 -((A)) -105C. 75-((A 105B, and 75 -((A)) -105A Service Districts Magisterial: Shawnee & Opequon High School: Sherando Fire Service: Stephens City Middle School: Aylor Rescue Service: Stephens City Elementary School: Armel 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 31.83± B2 District B2 District Retail: N/A Manufacturing: N/A 31.83± Total Acreage to be rezoned Note: Proffer Statement Modification Only — No Revisions To Existing Zoning District 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Prosed Single Family homes: N/A Townhome: N/A Multi -Family N/A Non -Residential Lots: N/A Mobile Home: N/A Hotel Rooms: N/A mare Footage of Proposed Uses Office: N/A Service Station: N/A Retail: N/A Manufacturing: N/A Restaurant: N/A Warehouse: N/A 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 bet of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): L cU -, Date: I ! (0 - I L k COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAIT: 540/678-0682 May 19, 1998 G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: REZONING APPLICATION 4002-98 OF TASKER ROAD AND WARRIOR ROAD COMMERCIAL; PIN's 75-A-104,105 and 117 Dear Steve: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of April 8, 1998. The Board approved your request to rezone 35.6774 acres, identified as PIN's 75-A-104,105 and 117, in the Opequon Magisterial District. The proffers that were approved as a part of this rezoning application are unique to this property and are binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt Deputy Director EAW/cc Attachment CC' Robert Sager, Opequon District Supervisor Bowman & Glaize Steve MelnikotT, VDOT Denny Linaburg, Fire Marshal O:WGENDASWPR DEN.LTRMKRWARR.REZ 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identifikation Numbers 75-((A))-104,105 & 107 Opequon Magisterial District JASBO, INC., FRED L. GLAIZE, III, FREDERICK DEVELOPMENT, INC. & JAMES I.,. BOWMAN "Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial" Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2 - 2296 eta of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #002-98 for the rezoning of 35.6774 acres from Residential Performance (RP) Zoning District to the Business General (B-2) Zoning District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successor or assigns. Transportation Improvements to Offset Impact of Development A traffic impact study will be conducted using VDOT procedures for each site development use proposed within the Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial site at the time of site plan review. Improvements will be constructed by the undersigned as required by VDOT regulations for the predicted traffic impacts based upon the specific use proposed. Restricted Uses The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for Frederick County, Virginia approves the rezoning of 35.6774 acres, lying along Tasker Drive in the Opequon. Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RP to B-2, the undersigned will restrict the use of the property by not allowing the following uses: REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 75-((A))-104,105 & 107 "Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial " Page 2 • Automotive dealers • Gasoline service stations (pumps at convenience stores are allowed) • Hotels and motels • Car washes • Golf driving ranges and miniture golf courses • Batting cages • Membership organizations • Civic, Social and fraternal organizations • Funeral homes & crematoriums • Drive-in theaters Restricted Hours of Operation The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for Frederick County, Virginia approves the rezoning of 35.6774 acres, lying along Tasker Road in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RP to B-2, the undersigned shall restrict hours of operation by requiring businesses to be closed from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Parcels to be Rezoned B-2 The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for Frederick County, Virginia approves the rezoning of 35.6774 acres, lying along Tasker Road in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RP to B-2, the undersigned reduces the rezoning request by eliminating parcel 1 as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tasker Road & Warrior Road" dated 2/10/98 by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning of 35.6774 acres, lying along Tasker Drive in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RP to B-2, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County for the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company the sum of $6,545.97 at LLhe time the first building permit is applied for and issued. REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 75-((A))-104,105 & 107 "Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial " Page 3 The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PROIERTY By: L Date:_ c7 Jasb'qJ Inc., .lames L. Bowman, President By: e-,zz-r -; ��' Date: Fred L. Glaize, III STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this LA day of f 'n ci_:.. 199.8, by `iUMGS LC. My Comrnissozr,,,— es Notary Public M STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this S day of 1998, by '��rz \L_ My Commission expires J�.� SN jmar Notary lVJhc REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 75-((A))-104,105 & 107 'asker Road and Warrior Road Commercial " Page 4 By: Ja L. Bowman By: G cr 7 - Frederick Development Co., Inc. Fred L. Glaize, III, Vice President STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The by Date: 5 1 4 14 Date: instrument was acknowledged before me this 4 day of M 0_: .1998, ,c s L - & o.,a cam, a. r• for Jasbo, Inc. My Commission expires J 3 2 Notary -Public Via- t_ m �-�-`- STA' E OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE Fl -POERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1998, by SCeA L Ca\o-t-t.c = "\�.c� Pres,dr�� ��du�c. 'moi Coz^� for Frederick Development, Inc. My Commis,Ron expires .� I\ Z5 cc t . Notiry Public �. t� a_h0 _ • • :7 REZONING APPLICATION #19-06 SEEFRIED PROPERTY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: November 21, 2006 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, Planner II 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: 12/06/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/13/06 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 27.24 acres from MH1 (Mobile Home Community) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District and 48.77 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 District, totaling 76.01 acres with proffers for industrial land uses. LOCATION: The properties are located west of Interstate 81 adjacent to Fort Collier Industrial Park and Arcadia Mobil Home Park, approximately 1,000 feet east of the intersection of Fort Collier Road (Route 1322) and Brooke Road (Route 1328). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 54-A-89 and a portion of 54-A-91 PROPERTY ZONING: MH -1 (Mobile Home Community) & RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: M 1 (Light Industrial) Use: Fort Collier Industrial Park South: MH -1 (Mobile Home Community) Use: Arcadia Mobile Home Park RP (Residential Performance) Use: Battleview Estates Subdivisions East: N/A Use: Interstate 81 RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential West: M1 (Light Industrial) Use: Fort Collier Industrial Park Rezoning #19-06 — Seefried Property November 21, 2006 Page 2 pI:OX "S_ T.7SES: 1_1dust_Ia1 land uses REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 1322, 1328, 11 and 7. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is NOT satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Seefried Property rezoning application dated October 3, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. The Traffic Impact Analysis supporting this rezoning request identified the following intersections as needing improvements to mitigate the additional traffic generated: Route 11/Welltown Road: An additional eastbound left -turn lane, northbound left -turn land and two southbound left -turn lanes will be required to maintain an overall intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 background and build -out conditions. Route ll/ Brooke Road: A separate westbound right -turn lane would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "C" during 2010 build -out conditions. Route 7/Fort Collier Road: An additional southbound left -turn lane and northbound left -turn lane will be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. Brooke Road/Fort Collier Road: Traffic signalization would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for both Scenarios #A and #B. Additionally, southbound left -turn lane and westbound right -turn lane would be required for Scenario #B during 2010 build -out conditions. Site Driveway #A/Fort Collier Road: Traffic signalization along the westbound left and right -turn lanes would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario #A. Site Drive #B/Brooke Road: A northbound right - turn lane would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario #B. The proffers do not address any offsite roadway improvements. 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 General Manual, Sixth 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. Staff Note: VDOT has not provided comments on the proffer statement revised on November 9, 2006. Fire Marshal: Plans approved as submitted. Public Works Department: Impact Analysis Statement: Provide individual detailed discussions related to the site drainage, environmental features (wetlands, karst geology, etc.) and solid waste disposal. The latter topic is included in the table of contents, but was not addressed in the detailed discussion. Impact Analysis — Access and Transportation: We applaud the applicant's pursuit of access through the existing pasta plant property to Brooke Road. We concur that this access represents the preferred method of ingress/egress to accommodate truck traffic. When this point of ingress/egress has been achieved, we recommend that the existing 50- foot access easement across the jail property be Rezoning # 19-06 — Seefried Property November 21, 2006 Page 3 vacated. Refer to page 2 of 5 Proffer Statement: We concur with the applicant's offer to construct a stormwater management pond using an impervious liner to avoid groundwater impacts. We would further recommend that a synthetic liner be used because of the potential for sinkhole development which occurred in the adjacent pasta plan stormwater basis. The geotechnical analysis should include geophysical methods to accurately evaluate and locate potential subsurface voids. The analysis should be extended to the area or areas proposed for stormwater management ponds. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: We have the water and sewer capacity and will be able to provide service to this site. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: Health Department has no objection to the rezoning request. Facilities to be served by public water and sewer. 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 Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does identify a core battlefield within this area, but further research displays that this parcel has lost its integrity with respect to historic value. Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Winchester Regional Airport: The applicant has not provided comments from the Airport. 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 populations upon build -out. Frederick County Attorney: The County Attorney has not commented on the proffers. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated November 15, 2006from Candice E. Perkins, Planner H. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies all of 54-A-89 as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) and 54-A-89 as being zoned split zoned A-2 and MH -1 (Mobile Home Community). With rezoning #14-83 the remainder of 54-A-89 was rezoned from A-2 to MH -1. Rezoning # 19-06 — Seefried Property November 21, 2006 Page 4 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 parcel 54-A-89 and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. I-]] Land Use The site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water 'Service Area (SWSA). It is not within the limits of any small area land use plan. The site is within the limits of the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. The plan shows a portion of this property with a residential designation and the remainder with no designation. The residential designation reflects the existing MH -1 zoning of the site and its proximity to the existing Arcadia Mobile Home Park. The request to M-1 for this site could be consistent with the existing use in the area because the majority of the site is surrounded by the existing Fort Collier Industrial Park and Interstate 81. Transportation The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service Category C or better for proposed industrial and commercial development. This proposed rezoning application does not provide for this minimum Level of Service. This proposal calls for up to 1,000,000 square feet of industrial uses on the site, which has the potential for 5,708 average daily trips. It is noted in the applicant's impact analysis that if the MH -1 portion of the site were to develop with a by right mobile home park, it has the potential for 1,044 average daily trips. Site Access As indicated in the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement under the Access and Transportation section, the proposed entrance into this project has not been determined. There are currently two alternatives indicated, Scenario A and Scenario B. Scenario A would utilize a 50' access easement that connects the property to Fort Collier Road through the new Frederick County Animal Shelter site which is currently under construction. Scenario B is a proposal to obtain a means of access through the existing Winchester Pasta site which would provide this site with access onto Brooke Road. It was Planning Staff's understanding that Scenario B would be utilized and obtained prior to this application being submitted for public hearing. At this time the only access through this site is through Scenario A. Rezoning # 19-06 — Seefried Property November 21, 2006 Page 5 3) Site Suitability/Environment It does not appear that the site contains any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes. A small area of floodplains identified on the northern tip of this property. This will need to be further addressed at the MDP stage and a wetlands delineation study will be required as well. The General Soils Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County,y,Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association, which is the predominant association on land located along the I-81 corridor in the Winchester vicinity. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service Category C or better for proposed industrial and commercial development. This proposed rezoning does not provide that minimum Level of Service. 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. The County's rezoning application requires applicants to model the worst possible scenario based on the use of the site. As only accessory office will be allowed with this development, the worst case scenario (industrial use) was modeled with this application. The TIA did not include all relevant background information, notably the low background for Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. The Conclusions from the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) state that the following are required: • Route 11 / Welltown Road: an additional eastbound left -turn lane, northbound left turn lane and two (2) southbound left -turn lanes will be required to maintain an overall level of service "D" or better during 2010 background and build -out conditions. Staff Note: It is noted that the identified improvements fail to improve the intersection above a level of service D. This improvement has not been proffered by the applicant. • Route 11 / Brooke Road: A separate westbound right -turn lane would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "C" during build -out conditions. Staff Note: Proffer 3.1 indicates that this improvement will be provided, however it contains a time limitation of two years from the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. — See analysis of proffer statement • Route 7 / Fort Collier Road: An additional southbound left -turn lane and northbound left -turn lane will be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. Rezoning #19-06 — Seefried Property November 21, 2006 Page 6 Staff Note: This improvement has not been proffered by the applicant. • Brooke Road / Fort Collier Road: Traffic signalization would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for both Scenarios #A and #B. Additionally, southbound left -turn lane and westbound right turn -lane (should be westbound left -turn lane) would be required for Scenario #B during 2010 build -out conditions. Staff Note: Proffer 3.2 indicates a partial funding of the required signalization in the amount of $75, 000 will be bonded and if the signal is not constructed within two years, the applicant will be released from all obligations. — See analysis ofproffer statement The turn lanes have not been proffered by the applicant. This TIA conclusion states that only a level service of D will be provided even with the proposed improvements, this fails to meet the standard minimum level of service of C. Sheet 13 of the TIA shows the 2010 Build -out lane geometry and levels of service. Scenario A and B are shown on this page. Both of the scenarios show all of the necessary improvements but many of these are not being proffered. A detail of the lane geometry as it would stand if this rezoning were to be approved with the proffers the applicant has actually committed to has not been provided and it unclear what the level of service is going to be after 2010 build -out. • Site Driveway #A / Fort Collier Road: Traffic signalization along with westbound left and right turn lanes would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario #A. Staff Note: This improvement has not been proffered by the applicant. • Site Driveway #B / Brooke Road: A northbound right turn -lane would be required to maintain overall intersection of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario #B. Staff Note: Proffer 3.4 guarantees that this improvement will be provided. B. Sewer and Water Sewage from this site will discharge in to the existing Red Bud Run regional pump station before transmission to the Opequon Wastewater Reclamation Facility. Using a standard rate of 30 gallons per day/employee at 10 employees/acre of industrial property, it is projected that the proposed development will produce 23,250 gallons of sewer per day. This wastewater pumping station is currently under improvement by the FCSA. Water service will be provided by looping from the existing 12 inch line located along the western property boundary. Water consumption for the property will be roughly equivalent to the projected sewage generation of 23,250 gallons per day. Rezoning #19-06 — Seefried Property November 21, 2006 Page 7 5) Proffer Statement — Dated October 3, 2006, Revised November 8, 2006 and November 9,2006 1. Monetary Contribution • $15,000 for fire and rescue • $3,000 for Sheriff's Office • $2,000 for general governmental purposes 2. Site Development • Development shall not exceed 1,000,000 square feet of gross floor area and office uses shall only be permitted as an accessory use to industrial uses • Stormwater management pond facilities shall be lined with an impervious surface to avoid groundwater impacts • The future access road shall be built to VDOT standards and have a minimum pavement width of 26 feet. • Street trees located a maximum of 50 feet apart shall be provided on both sides of the future access road. • A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any industrial structures prior to site plan approval. 3. Transportation • Within 120 days of rezoning approval, the applicant shall bond a westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Brooke Road and Fort Collier Road. This lane will be constructed within 180 days of receiving written notice from the County/VDOT. If formal request for the improvement is not made within 2 years of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy of the Property, the Applicant shall be released from the bond and shall not be liable for the turn lane. Staff Note: Regarding the intersection of Brook Road and Fort Collier, the applicant has not addressed the need for the southbound left turn lane. Also, the timing element of this proffer is completely inappropriate. If only a portion of the property is developed with a small use, the improvement might not be called for at that time. If the remainder of the property is developed after the two year time period and the improvement is called for, as proffered the developer would have no responsibility for the improvement. Staff Note: Per the TIA conclusions, if Scenario #B is used, a southbound left - turn lane and a westbound right turn -lane would be required for the intersection of Fort Collier Road and Brook Road in addition to the needed signalization. While the applicant has addressed the westbound right turn -lane the southbound left -turn iane has not been addressed • Within 120 days of rezoning approval, the applicant shall post a bond in the amount of $75,000 for partial funding of a signal at the intersection of Brooke Road and Fort Collier Road. If said traffic signal is not constructed within 2 years of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Property, the Applicant shall be released from the bond and shall not be liable for said Rezoning # 19-06 — Seefried Property November 21, 2006 Page 8 improvement. Staff Note: The light that this proffer is calling for is needed because of this ro osed develo went and the applicant is onlyproposing a portion of the light. The 2010 background traffic shows this intersection with a level of C or better, but as indicated on the 2010 build out conditions this intersection would require the intersection of Fort Collier and Brooke Road to be signalized to maintain a level of D or better. Generally with partial funding the proffer states that the amount will be provided to VDOT within a certain amount of days after requesting the funds, not a bond; this proffer has no caveat for requesting the funds. Also, if the remainder of the moneyfor the signal is not acquired within two years, the $75,000 is released from the bond and the developer is not responsible for the payment. • A direct connection between the Property and Fort Collier Road shall be prohibited. Staff Note: Given this proffer, it is unclear why TIA Scenario #A is even under consideration. Scenario #A is a direct connection from this property to Fort Collier Road; clarification on the meaning of this proffer is needed. Staff Note: Concerning the use ofscenario A, to maintain a level ofservice C, signalization of this intersection along with westbound left and right turn lanes would be required. The applicant has not addressed this. • If the project entrance is located on Brook Road, the Applicant shall construct a northbound right turn lane on Brooke Road at the project entrance prior to occupancy of the first industrial building. Staff Note: Since direct access to Fort Collier Road is prohibited byproffer 3.3 then Brook Road is the only option for access. Proffer 3.4 should be revised to take out "if '. Staff Note: The applicant has not addressed the following transportation improvements called for in their TIA: • Route I1/Welltown Road Improvements • Westbound right -turn lane at the intersection of Route HlBrooke Road. (needed to maintain level of service C) • Additional southbound left -turn lane and northbound left -turn lane at the Route 7/Fort Collier Intersection. (maintains only a level of service D) • Signalization for the Scenario 4A entrance onto Fort Collier Road. • Westbound left and right turn lane on Fort Collier Road for Scenario #A. • Southbound left -turn lane at the Brooke Road/Fort Collier Intersection for Scenario #B. Rezoning #19-06 — Seefried Property November 21, 2006 Page 9 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/06/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: While the land use proposed in this application is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, as described in the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan, this application fails to address and mitigate the transportation impacts associated with the proposal. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address the goals of the County. Specifically, the applicant should be mitigating the impacts identified in their TIA and the proffers should be worded to ensure that after two years have passed the developer is not released from all proffered transportation improvements. The applicant should be prepared to address theses issues. Following the requirement for a public Bearing, a recommendation by the Plannin,- Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezonine application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Patrick R. Sowers )From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:40 PM To: 'Patrick R. Sowers' Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; 'Eric Lawrence'; 'Mike Ruddy' Subject: FW: Seefried Property - VDOT Comments to Rezoning Proposal This is being resent since bulleted items were not able to be viewed previously. From: Funkhouser, Rhonda On Behalf of Ingram, Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:36 AM To: 'Patrick R. Sowers' Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; 'Eric Lawrence'; 'Mike Ruddy' Subject: Seefried Property - VDOT Comments to Rezoning Proposal - The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 1322, 1328, 11 and 7. These route are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Seefried Property Rezoning Application dated October 3, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. The Traffic Impact Analysis supporting this rezoning request identified the following intersections as needing improvements to mitigate the additional traffic generated: * Route 11/Welltown Road: An additional eastbound left -turn lane, northbound left - turn lane and two (2) southbound left -turn lanes will be required to maintain an overall )intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 background and build -out conditions. * Route 11/Brooke Road: A separate westbound right -turn lane would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "C" during 2010 build -out conditions. * Route 7/Fort Collier Road: An additional southbound left -turn lane and northbound left -turn lane will be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. * Brook Road/Fort Collier Road: Traffic signalization would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for both Scenarios ##A and #B. Additionally, southbound left -turn lane and westbound right turn -lane would be required for Scenario #B during 2010 build -out conditions. * Site Driveway #A/Fort Collier Road: Traffic signalization along the westbound left and right turn lanes would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario #A. * Site Driveway #B/Brooke Road: A northbound right turn -lane would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario #B. The proffers do not address any offsite roadway improvements. 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. 1 November 15, 2006 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Seefried Property Dear Patrick: COU�► ikkICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Seefried Property. This application seeks to rezone 27.24 acres from the MH -1 (Mobile Home Community) District and 48.77 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the Ml (Light Industrial) District. Staff's review comments are listed below for your consideration. 1. Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is within the limits of the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. The plan shows a portion of this property with a residential designation and the remainder with no designation. The residential designation reflects the existing MH -1 zoning of the site and its proximity to the existing Arcadia Mobile Home Park. The request to M-1 for this site could be consistent with the existing use in the area because the majority of the site is surrounded by the existing Fort Collier Industrial Park and Interstate 81. 2. Transportation Levels of Service. The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service Category C or better for proposed industrial and commercial development. This application does not provide that Level of Service. 3. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA does not meet County standards. A few examples of shortcomings include: the inclusion of a Winchester Gateway hotel at 100sf is unclear, the numbers provided for Russell-Glendobbin are incorrect, the figure provided for Rutherford Farm Industrial Park is shown as only industrial and the modeling does not account for the maximum possible use of the property. I would also point out that some of the :modeled improvements have not been proffered by anyone. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Seefried Property November 15, 2006 4. Impact Assessment Statement — Proposed Uses. The application states the rezoning is for Flex -warehouse uses and the TIA is based on 1,000,000 square feet of industrial uses. The proffer statement does not call for a specific use and unless a specific use is proffered, the County will assume the maximum possible development (office) as per the County's rezoning application, combined with the maximum possible floor space. At the maximum possible use, there is the potential for 1,881,OOOsf of office uses. A proffer to limit the square footage of the development to no more than 1,000,OOOsf would be appropriate as well as limiting office use on the site to accessory office only. 5. Site Access. Access to this site is proposed via scenario A or B; a definitive access point has not been provided. The impact statement indicates that the applicant is still pursuing access B. It was our understanding that this rezoning would not be brought forward until access point B was obtained. 6. Traffic Impact Analysis. As stated previously in the TIA and by the Virginia Department of Transportation, various transportation improvements are required to maintain acceptable levels of service at six different locations. The revised proffers submitted only address the westbound right -turn lane at the Route 11/Brooke Road Intersection (bullet point 2) and the northbound right turn -lane required for site driveway B (point 6). These proffers further state that these improvements will only be available for two years and if not utilized, the applicant will not be responsible for the improvements. Numerous other transportation impacts are noted in your TIA which has not been addressed (see VDOT Comments and TIA Conclusions). All impacts that this project creates should be mitigated by this project. 7. Two Year Stipulation for Proffers. The two year time period indicated in the transportation proffer is not appropriate. As proffered, if this development is not constructed within two years of the approval of the rezoning, the applicant has no transportation responsibilities. All transportation proffer improvements should be provided to mitigate the traffic impacts prior to the issuance of any building permit. 8. Proffer Statement (#2.1 and 2.2). Proffers 2.1 and 2.2 are already required by ordinance and need to be removed from the proffers. It is not appropriate to proffer ordinance requirements. 9. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works and the local Fire and Rescue Company. The proposed proffers have been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Page 3 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Seefried Property November 15, 2006 Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department, a copy will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. 10. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Provide a power of attorney for Seefried Properties, Inc. 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. Sincerely, 4 Candice E. Perkins Planner II Attachments cc: Patrick Barker William Lockhart, 1345 Baker Lane, Winchester VA 22603 Seefried Properties, 4200 Northside Parkway, Building 1, Suite 300, Atlanta GA 30327 CEP/bad PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # I q--66 Rural Areas (RA) and MH -1 (Mobile Home Community) to Light Industrial (M1) PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S): 76.00 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 54-A-89 (portion), 54-A-91 (portion) [the "Property"] William J. Lockhart et als & Arcadia Mobile Park, LLC Seefried Properties, Inc. Seefried Property October 3, 2006 November 8, 2006 November 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 M1 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. Monetary Contribution 1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $15,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first industrial building permit. 1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $3,000.00 for Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first industrial building permit. 1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,000.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first industrial building permit. 1 of 5 Proffer Statement 2. Site Development Seefried Property 2.1 Development of the Property shall not exceed 1,000,000 square feet of gross floor area. Furthermore, office use on the site shall only be permitted as an accessory to industrial uses. 2.2 Stormwater management pond facilities shall be lined with an impervious surface to avoid groundwater impacts. 2.3 The Applicant shall construct the future access road to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet. 2.4 Street trees shall be located a maximum of 50 feet apart along both sides of the future access road. Said street trees shall be planted prior to occupancy of any building on site. 2.5 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any industrial structures prior to site plan approval. 3. Transportation 3.1 Within 120 days of rezoning approval, the Applicant shall bond a westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Brooke Road and Fort Collier Road. The Applicant shall construct said improvement within 180 days of receiving written notice from the County and/or VDOT. If formal request for improvement is not made within 2 years of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Property, the Applicant shall be released from the bond and shall not be liable for said improvement. 3.2 Within 120 days of rezoning approval, the Applicant shall post a bond in the amount of $75,000 for partial funding of a signal at the intersection of Brooke Road and Fort Collier Road. If said traffic signal is not constructed within 2 years of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Property, the Applicant shall be released from the bond and shall not be liable for said improvement. 3.3 A direct connection between the Property and Fort Collier Road shall be prohibited. 3.4 If the project entrance is located on Brooke Road, the Applicant shall construct a northbound right turn lane on Brooke Road at the project entrance prior to occupancy of the first industrial building. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES 2 of 5 Proffer Statement Seefized Property Respectfully submitted, William J. Lockhart et als Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of %q:.l`rK 2006, by In l J LcsT { My commission fres /,� Zpd Notary Public f� �/1, G,l' i;`J,s -Ii 3 of 5 Proffer Statement Arcadia Mobile Park, LLC BT.L� Date: Seefiled Property STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2006, by ch kt,-s Tic . My commission expires 1 fc�e, 2c�p7 Notary Public 4 of 5 Proffer Statement Seefiied Properties, in . s� ,� i i BY: � Date: r1/ 91tL Seefried Property 46bY STATE OF ,144AR4-9-E FRES , To -wit: CIO The foregoing Mstrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2 2006, by 4(xf S wusE r4.+ My co Notary Public 5 of 5 «ti j W 1►1 a u,,,�� o �jL4. D, . ..PN..... .F� EXPIRE � s -'cnp2TA 0�� COU�1111 Frederick County, Virginia IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE SEEFRIED PROPERTY Stonewall Magisterial District October 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 October 2006 Seefried Rezoning INTRODUCTION The 76.00 acre Seefried Property, identified as portions of tax map parcels 54-A-89 and 54- A-91, is ideally located for industrial uses. The Property is located adjacent to Fort Collier Industrial Park with access provided by connection the nearby interchanges of Route 37 and Interstate 81 as well as Route 7 and Interstate 81 (see Figure 1). Currently, 27.24 acres of the property are zoned MH -1 (Mobile Home Community) while the remaining 48.77 acres of the site are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). The subject site is bounded by MH -I to the South and M-1 (Light Industrial) to the North and West (see Figure 2). Interstate 81 forms the Eastern boundary of the site. This application seeks to rezone the Property from MH -1 and RA to M-1 for 1,000,000 square feet of industrial uses. The site is located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and Urban Development Area (UDA) and in close proximity to Interstate 81 and the Route 37 Bypass. Rezoning the subject acreage for industrial uses would allow the site to develop as an extension of an established industrial park to serve as economic development for Frederick County. LAND USE The Seefried Property is not identified within the study boundary of any of the County's small area land use plans. The site is, however, located on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan (EFCLRLUP). This document is intended to serve as a guide for the intended future land uses within the SWSA and UDA as properties within those growth boundaries develop. The EFCLRLUP identifies residential as the intended land use for a portion of the site with no intended future land use depicted for the remaining acreage (See Figure 3). This land use designation is a direct reflection of the Property's current zoning designations and can be attributed to the more generalized nature associated with the "bubble plan" concept used in the EFCLRLUP. It can be interpreted that the Seefried Property should be included within the large area designated for future industrial uses on the EFCLFJ UP, as depicted on Figure 3, that is located directly adjacent to the site and represents Fort Collier Industrial Park. FIGURE 1 .1299mmmm W6, rr ` u' � �.. .� u ` • .. � I I i 171 44ii1« 1 E%'vs;a •, �'ir �' � 1'' � Raz«diva:id R J _ y .a,.. rR '"ter• ��� I °,if�':.ra�l ..�r inti -T Eastern Frederic County Long Range Land Use Plan w -may. c ti o SEEFRIED PROPERTY Patton, Harris, Rust &Associates z s. EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY Cb LAND USE PLAN 117 r. P'icadq St. VnchesteG Vgho 72601 a VOKF' (544) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 � FREDE?AL'K C00'JMY, VbPGAVL4 FIGURE 3 October 2006 See ried Rezonin The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan states that new industrial uses should be located near interchanges and in the vicinity of the existing industrial areas. Using this policy as a guideline, the See ied Property is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan lan as aie Property would develop as an extension of the Fort Collier Industrial Park. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance identifies zoning district buffers that are required between zoning districts to address potential compatibility issues. The proposed rezoning would necessitate a Category C zoning district buffer along the Property's Eastern and portions of the Southern boundary where residential uses currently exist. This requirement would locate a minimum 100 foot buffer complete with an earthen berm and landscaping between the proposed industrial property and any residential uses adjacent to the site. Current development plans would locate a common shared buffer along the proposed zoning boundary line that would place the 75 foot inactive portion of the buffer on the remaining MH -1 and RA zoned acreage while the remaining 25 foot active portion of the buffer would be situated on the industrial zoned acreage. This common shared buffer would serve to meet the ordinance requirements of Frederick County while maximizing the potentialindustrial floor space of the site which would generate a greater positive fiscal impact. ACCESS AND TRASNPORTATION Currently, access is limited to a 50 foot access easement that connects the Property to Fort Collier Road through the newly constructed animal shelter site. In recognition of the limitations posed by the existing access easement with regards to accommodating truck movements, the Applicant is currently pursuing an alternative means of access through the existing pasta plant site identified as tax map parcel 54 -A -36J that would connect with Brooke Road (see Figure 4). This represents the preferred method of ingress/egress as it would better accommodate the truck traffic generated by development of the Property. 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.I.E. 1rip Generation Manual7I' Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development of 1,000,000 square feet of industrial use will produce 5,708 average daily trips (ADT). The TIA j modeled both possible entrances with the Fort Collier Road entrance identified as "Option A" and the Brooke Road entrance identified as "Option B" as depicted on Figure 4. FIGURE 4 October 2006 See ied Rezoning Trip distribution is evenly split with 50% of the traffic leaving Lhe site utilizing Route 7 while the other 50% would use Route 11 North. The vast majority of the vehicle trips generated by the site will travel either North on Route 11 or East on Route 7 with only 20% of the generated traffic traveling back through the City of Winchester. The TIA indicates several intersections that would be impacted by the proposed development. The analysis indicates that signalization would be needed at the intersection of Brooke Road and Fort Collier Road in order to provide a level of service (LOS) C. The TIA also indicates that a LOS C will not be realized at the intersections of Welltown Road and Route 11 as well as Fort Collier Road and Berryville Avenue in the City of Winchester. It's important to note that background traffic generation alone places each of theseintersections below a LOS C. The TIA also indicates that a West bound right turn lane would be required at the existing signalized intersection of Brooke Road and Route 11. Another important note is the fact that there are few undeveloped parcels that would utilize the subject area's transportation network. This will limit the impacts to the subject transportation system in the years following the projected 2010 build out of all projects modeled by the TIA. In addition to recognizing the proposed impacts of background traffic, consideration of this application should also account for the potential traffic impact that could occur through a by -right development scenario using the Property's existing zoning designation of MH -1 and RA. Currently, the 27.24 acre portion of the site zoned MH -1 could yield 218 mobile home units using a gross density of 8.0 units/acre. Using the equation indicated for mobile homes by the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7t' Edition, the portion of the Property zoned MH -1 could yield 1,044 ADT. The remaining 48.77 acres of RA zoned land could an' additional 90 ADT through a by -right development scheme. Removing the existing potential trip generation from the projected trip generation of the proposed industrial use indicates that the rezoning of the Property would have a net impact of only 4,574 ADT. The Property is also located in close proximity to the current railroad access that exists on the Winchester Pasta, LLC property. Rail access creates a more marketable industrial property and can -October 2006 Seefried Rezoning also reduce an industrial use's dependence on trucks. The potential rail access could result in a reduced traffic generation for the site. SITE SUITABILITY The site conditions relate very positively to the proposed development activities. The proposed rezoning would result in minimal impact on areas of steep slopes, stream channels, lakes, ponds, flood plain, or wetlands. A wetlands delineation would be required at the master plan phase of the project to verify if any regulated wetlands exist on site. 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, which is the predominant association on land located along the I-81 corridor in the Winchester vicinity. As per map sheet #30 of the Soil Survey, the site is comprised of four distinct soil types. All of the soil types identified on the site are suitable for development of the proposed industrial use as evidenced by the existing development pattern in the area. With a high elevation of approximately 695.0 feet near the Southern property line and a low elevation of approximately 655.0 feet at the Northern property line, the Property naturally drains to the North under Interstate 81 (see Figure 5). The general slopes across the site are 3% to 7%. During the engineering phase of the project, a stormwater management plan will be created to adequately and effectively retain stormwater in a manner that will avoid negative impacts on adjacent properties as well as Interstate 81 and the Red Bud Run watershed. An electric power line traverses the northern portion of the Property. Discussions with respect to burying or relocating the power line are on going and will be finalized prior to final engineering of the project. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY Sewage flows generated by the site will discharge into the existing Red Bud Run regional pump station before transmission to the Opequon Wastewater Reclamation Facility. Using a standard rate of 30 gallons per day/employee at 10 employees/acre of industrial property, it is projected that the FIGURE 5 October 2006 Seefried Rezoning proposed development would produce 23,250 gallons of sewer flow per day. This wastewater pumping station is currently under improvement by the FCSA. Water service will be provided by looping from the existing 12 inch line located along the Western property boundary. Water consumption for the property will be roughly equivalent to the projected sewage generation of 23,250 gallons per day HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any structures of historic importance on the subject site. According to the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virgin] , the subject site is included in the core battlefield area of the Third Battle of Winchester. The study also indicates, however, that the general area within the vicinity of the Seefried Property has lost integrity as a result of urban andindustrial growth in the area. As such, the development of the site will not further denigrate the interpretive quality of the Third Battle of Winchester core area. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES Discussions with County staff have indicated that the proposed industrial rezoning would yield a net positive fiscal impact of $7,500,000. Development of the Property for residential uses as a by -right development under the Property's existing zoning designation would yield a negative fiscal impact of $4,500,000. Rezoning the Property for industrial purposes would not only provide the County with the positive fiscal impact associated with 1,000,000 square feet of industrial use but also eliminate the potential negative fiscal impact associated with the potential by -right development scheme. Examining the proposed and potential by -right development schemes concurrently, it can be interpreted that the proposed rezoning results in a positive fiscal impact of $12,000,000. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Seefried Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Seefried Properties 4200 Northside Parkway Building 1, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30327 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Eng neers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 PMartinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 October 6, 2006 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Seefried Property located along the north side of Fort Collier Road, west of Brooke Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to be comprised of 1,000,000 square feet of industrial park with access to be provided via "Option A" a single (1) site -driveway along north side of Fort Collier Road or "Option B" a single (1) site -driveway along west side of Brooke Road. The project is to be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Seefried Property with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Seefried Property were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the study area, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Seefried Property, • . Distribution and assignment of the Seefried 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+, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Per the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) request, PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike) / Welltown Road, Brooke Road / Route 11, Brooke Road / Fort Collier Road, Fort Collier Road / Baker Lane and Fort Collier Road / Route 7. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 8.5% based on the published Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Trips) and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3 illustrates the respective existing lane geometry and levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis ofthe Seefried Property PH � Project Number: 14572-1-0 October 6, 2006 Page I No Scale a� �r -0 ' �yTja y5�[�C y_ 5tai FQri ,TM�� w; �e y'w S ITTE, . S MfinchAkr- est�r�=' vm �Ne Fl�hraaa r&hk y MYA+F7t�+.� � F . �t� t�t c�S � g ""iAq ttr C..emfiter� Q3 w�'! d k i 2. r - PH t �.L 1 Figure 1 Vicinity Map - Seefried Property in Frederick County, Virginia P 1 � L A Tra is Im act Anal sis of the Seefried Prope Project Number: 14572-1-0 October 6, 2006 Page, 2 No Scale ID- r I Figure 2 U PH RA AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Seefried Property Project Number: 14572-1-0 October 6, 2006 Page 3 No Scale Figure 3 PHf�±A Signalized Intersection LOS--B(B) o�d�ay SITE 10 Signalized `Intersectioi LOS--QQ r1-61, GJ1\ /~ ~ B(C) �t� (B)g `� �I r Signalized pa Intersection LOS=B(Q AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the See ried Pro er Project Number: 14572-1-0 October 6, 2006 Page 4 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data (between years 2002 and 2004) for Route 11 and Route 7 within the vlclnity ofthe site, PHP.+A applied a cons: rvative annual gry wih rate of 4.5 %per year t0 the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2010 base conditions. Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. PHR+A has also provided Figure A to show the location of each development in the Appendix section of this report. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 2010 Background Development Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Winchester Gateway 310 Hotel 100 SF 25 16 41 31 28 59 522 310 Hotel 100 SF 25 16 41 31 28 59 522 820 Shopping Center 160,274 SF 127 81 208 410 444 855 9,228 932 H -T Restaurant 7,500 45 41 86 50 32 82 954 944 Gas Station 8 48 48 96 55 55 111 1,348 Total Trips 301 227 527 681 690 1,371 13,651 Total Pass -b 19 19 39 70 70 140 1,586 Total Internal 27 27 55 29 29 58 691 Total "New" Trips 254 180 434 582 591 - 1,174 11,374 Orrick Paramount 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 50 units 6 10 15 18 12 30 300 252 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 20,000 SF 46 6 52 17 84 101 386 820 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 315 226 541 614 672 1,286 11,593 A Trak Impact Analysis ofthe Seefried Property PH 1� Project Number: 14572-1-0 October 6, 2006 5 Page 5 I Table 1 (continued) 2010 Background Development Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total ADT I Star Fort 1800 220 Apartment 60 units 7 27 33 33 18 210 Single -Family Detached 70 units 15 44 58 50_ 28 26 13 40 Total 15 44 58 50 28 174 98 Regents Crescent 2833 Chadwell Property 210 Single -Family Detached 28 units 7 22 29 22 12 23 13 230 Townhouse/Condo 42 units 4 21 26 20 10 23 13 36 Total 12 43 55 42 22 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park 210 Single -Family Detached 69 units 14 43 58 48 28 130 Industrial Park 420,000 SF 307 67 374 81 305 48 28 77 Total 307 67 374 81 305 3864223 Stephenson Village 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 210 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 237 465 702 445 261 706 1 10,059 Russell-Glendobbin 630 230 Townhouse/Condo 207 units 16 77 92 73 36 210 Single -Family Detached 200 units 37 112 149 128 72 20J7,229 2,000 180 Total 37 112 149 128 72 202,000 Stonewall Industrial Park 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 110 Light Industrial 165 acres 1,028 211 1,239 159 565 724 75 1,131 Total 1,028 211 1,239 159 565 724 7,229 P R+A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Seefried Pr�eHProject Number: 14572-1-0 October 6, 2006 Page 6_ 210 Single -Family Detached 180 units 34 102135 115 67 182 1800 220 Apartment 60 units 7 27 33 33 18 51 511 230 Townhouse/Condo 60 units 6 28 34 26 13 40 522 Total 46 157 203 174 98 272 2833 Chadwell Property 210 Single -Family Detached 30 units 8 23 30 23 13 36 300 Total 8 23 30 23 13 36 300 Butcher Property 210 Single -Family Detached 69 units 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Red -Bud Run 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Total 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Toll Borthers-Eddy's Lane 210 Single -Family Detached 80 units 16 49 65 55 32 88 800 Total 16 49 65 55 32 88 800 Fieldstone 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 40 54 45 26 71 630 230 Townhouse/Condo 207 units 16 77 92 73 36 109 1,801 Total 29 117 146 118 62 180 2,431 Misc Other Developments along Channing Drive* 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 230 Townhouse/Condo 130 units 1 11 53 64 50 25 75 1,131 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 Total 172 286 458 570 498 1,069 11,776 * Includes Giles Farm, Toll Brothers, Abrams' Pointe, Coventry Court and miscellaneous residential. P R+A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Seefried Pr�eHProject Number: 14572-1-0 October 6, 2006 Page 6_ 0 d g9l 'Ll ,� 15 No Scale 661 rs, ls�°4°p 0.0 °d7 s (ti z> fig^ � ti9 g4'~ 91ti�'1l ro s �s .E4° L 1~ s' .P� 99(198) (294 SITE �r°oke R°ad Sl 1 E b � o �=Ot N�0 A •F°�' s �� COfL"r� �m nlry ` cb Pn r318�,p p0a i �ss rJ %1 6Av J-9Jz��� 0� J e�y a b� 1�`294(365) h /--8440411) 7 It— 88(X 10) (120)37 (1623)684 �mm* (25)22 .� a AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) A Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Seefried Property PHP ProjectNumber: er 6, 2 1-0 006 October 6, 2006 7 Page 7 No Scale Figure 5 Intersection Improvements" LQS-D(D), SignaGzation SB - 2 Lefts EB & NB - I Left l -/j Signalized U Intersection U� LOS=B(C) 1� >C I rookeRow roy� j Signalized �o i Intersection r�C, _ °a LOS=F(F) 3ro�, SITE qri °c boa° Signalized °fr Intersection Co�Le LOS=B(B) q i +W, (C) e"+ ftwif (D)B .#Nfj' 19 ! Signalized U Intersection Q LOS=B(D) ANT Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Seefried Property Project Number: 14572-1-0 PH October 6, 2006 e8 Page 8 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Seefried Property. Table 2 Proposed Development: Seefried Property Trin Generation Summary TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Seefried Property. Figure 7 shows the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Seefried Property assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area roadway network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Seefried Property Project Number: 14572-1-0 +A H October 6, 2006 PPage 9 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total 130 Industrial Park 1,000,000 SF 498 109 607 171 642 812 5,708 Total 1 498 109 607 171 642 812 5,708 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Seefried Property. Figure 7 shows the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Seefried Property assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area roadway network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Seefried Property Project Number: 14572-1-0 +A H October 6, 2006 PPage 9 Uml Figure 6 PHR1\ Trip Distribution Percentages A Trak Impact Analysis o{the Seefried Property Project Number: 14572-1-0 October 6, 2006 Page 10 No Scale -I- % Aa`ti5 1 1 ll 9� Scenario # A Scenario # B �'S moi/ oa oa L��ioo�e�` �� Soo•F�� ` 0 Ago Pti� O y d.. r. SS0 d Sire S(3 Roa 1 SITE 0- 0". O" r''�z S 9r�sJ b N !� �A%.W199(68) (17)SO e a AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 7 2010 Development Generated 'Trips A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Seefried Property Project Number: 14572-1-0 October 6, 2006 Page 11 No Scale Figure 8 PHRn Scenario # A Scenario # B la �91ry���oa� b: til 6 6L �q�obb -, S o 493 433 �ft844(Q 8 f�i 88(110) ) <138,87�f (1623)684 a,,* (25)22 t � � Q h ap U I AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traff c Impact Analysis of the Seefried Property Project Number: 14572-1-0 October 6, 2006 Page 12 Signalized "Suggested ).11tCr$ee[ikR Improvements" Signaltzation SB-2Lefts FR & NB - I Left No Scale I ts" ht 11 Signalized A Intersection v LOS=C(E) Brooke Road i G W Sign 5liJ.Pd. "Suggested 1111frSeciinn improvements" Sign alization Sri • I Left ;�'It I Left lJ �� n)13. 7 II Po�b 0�0� Signalized Intersectioi LOS=F(F) 16 Scenario # A Scenario # B la51gnahwd `. "Suggested 11q Sigualiie,d. 4. ,' "Suggested intersection-' Improvements" -..Intersection Improvements" 105=C(D) Signalizanon WS—iC(C)' Signalization -. SB -1 Left 1 WB 1 Left n za SignalizedNew 2b Unsignalized New Intersection Intersection LOS--B(C)Intersection Intersection P J� SIT Al Intersection LOS=C(C) �L 4 «- (D)4 (D)B " WSignalized U Intersection W LOS=C(F) AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the See rigid Property PH R+A Project Number: ]4572-1-0 October 6, 2006 Page 13 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Seefried Property are acceptable and manageable. For each of the study area intersections, the following describes the recommended. roadway improvements as well as the associated HCS+ intersection levels of service: • Route 11 / Welltown Road: An additional eastbound left -turn lane, northbound left - turn lane and two (2) southbound left -turn lanes will be required to maintain an overall intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 background and build -out conditions. • Route 11 / Brooke Road: A separate westbound right -turn lane would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "C" during 2010 build -out conditions. • Route 7 / Fort Collier Road: An additional southbound left -turn lane and northbound left -turn lane will be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. • Brooke Road / Fort Collier Road: Traffic signalization would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "D or better during 2010 build -out conditions for both Scenarios #A and #B. Additionally, southbound left -tum lane and westbound right turn -lane would be required for Scenario #B during 2010 build -out conditions. • Site Driveway #A / Fort Collier Road: Traffic signalization along with westbound left and right turn lanes would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario #A. • Site Driveway #B / Brooke Road: A northbound right turn -lane would be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario #B. P B A Trak Impact Analysis of the Seefried Property Project Number: er 6,2006 October 6, 2006 Page 14 APPENDIX No Scale List of Developments: #1 -Winchester Gateway #2 - Orrick Property #3 - Star Fort #9 - Haggerty Property #10 - Chadwell Property #11 - Butcher Property #4 -Regents Crescent #12 - Red -Bud Run #5 - Rutherford's Farm Indust. Park #13 - Toll Brothers -Eddy's Lane #6 - Stephenson Village #14 - Fieldstone #7 - Russell-Glendobbin #15 - Misc. other developments along #8 - Stonewall Indust. Park Channing Drive Figure A 2010 "Other" Background Developments r. Ali d iy. 13l �3 ryv f 37 s. r e _ : QD E� 13,10, L`J11 + • t t : . y i - s F y s M � e Y List of Developments: #1 -Winchester Gateway #2 - Orrick Property #3 - Star Fort #9 - Haggerty Property #10 - Chadwell Property #11 - Butcher Property #4 -Regents Crescent #12 - Red -Bud Run #5 - Rutherford's Farm Indust. Park #13 - Toll Brothers -Eddy's Lane #6 - Stephenson Village #14 - Fieldstone #7 - Russell-Glendobbin #15 - Misc. other developments along #8 - Stonewall Indust. Park Channing Drive Figure A 2010 "Other" Background Developments REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed �v Planning Staff _00 zj hep nA.laNnt Pii,d .7 1 l.. �" Zoning Amendment.Number Date Rcceived PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicants: Name: Seefried Properties, Inc. Telephone: (703) 354.5511 Address: 5350 Shawnee Road, Suite 350 Alexandria, Virginia 22312 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: William J. Lockhart et als Telephone: (540) 662.0723 Address: 1345 Baker Lane Winchester, Virginia 22603 Name: Arcadia Mobile Park, Inc. Telephone: (540) 662.0723 Address: 1345 Baker Lane Winchester, Virginia 22603 3. Contact person(s) if other than above Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Telephone: (540) 667.2139 c/o Patrick Sowers Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street 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: - William J. Lockhart et als - Arcadia Mobile Park, Inc. 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: - Seefried Properties, Inc. Vacant/Wooded Industrial 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED. 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 Property is located West of I-81 adjacent to the Fort Collier Industrial Park and Arcadia Mobile Home Park approximately 1000 feet East of the intersection of Fort Collier Road and Brooke Road. 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. Parcel Identification/Location: Portions of tax map parcels 54-A-89 and 54-A-91 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: Stonewall Round Hill Round Hill Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School Millbrook James Wood Stonewall 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 27.24 MH -1 Ml 48.77 RA M1 76.0 Total acreage to be rezoned 2 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 2'd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Winchester Pasta, LLC P.O. Box 2080 Property #: 54 -A -36J Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Fort Collier Group, LLC 6231 Leesburg Pike, Ste 600 Property#: 54 -A -36N Falls Church, VA 22044 Name: Northwestern Regional Jail Authority 141 Fort Collier Road Property #: 54 -A -92B Winchester, VA 22603 Name: Goodman, T. P. & Susan M. 707 N Commerce Ave Property #: 54 -A -87A Front Royal, VA 22630 Name: Lockhart, Robert S. 1441 Baker Lane Property #: 54 -A -89B Winchester, VA 22603 Name: Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation P.O. Box 897 Property #: 54 -A -89C New Market, VA 22844 Name., Property#: Name: Pro ert #: Name: Property #: Name: Property #: Name: Pro ert #: Name: Property#: Name: Property #: Name: Property #: 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home Townhome Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant 12. Signature: Square Foote of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Flex - Warehouse Other 1,000,000 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) Date 3 Special Limned Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-6654395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) William J. Lockhart (Phone) 540.662.0723 (Address) 1345 Baker Lane, Winchester, Virginia 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 Deed Book 934 on Page 658 and is described as Tax Map Parcel 54-A-89 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates (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 (out) 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: 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 AhV . , 200 6 , Signature(s) ;�t�%a�- Y State of Virginia, City �of �ACo_,tTo-wit: Imo' i l 1 1 / MIf. I, L `t a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the persori(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same, before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this 4 f k day of N 6 J 207 . My Commission Expires: 310 Lcv Notary Public Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.ya.us 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) Arcadia Mobile Park, LLC (Phone) 540.662.0723 (Address) 1345 Baker Lane, Winchester, Virginia 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 Deed Book 350 on Page 481 and is described as Tax Map Parcel 54-A-91 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates (Phone) 540.667.2139 (Address) 117E Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 To act as my trile 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: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified.��f� In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this �! day of� S�i� 200 , Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/ ounty f t,Jf C 2 r��� ^�-}� To-wit:I� , Loc }� iZ ► C .� , I, L, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this / ¢ 71k _day oflVo j, 200 t� . My Commission Expires:_ 1* u< 1�-- C C_ Nota b l: I— – – I (b SEEFRIED PROPERTY Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates 0 \ I ZONING BOUNDARY 117 E. Picadilly St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 O � Q VOICE (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, MOW REZONING APPLICATION #17-06 RUTHERFORD CROSSING Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: November 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: December 6, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: January 10, 2007 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from M 1 (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers and to add proffers to one adjoining parcel. (The three parcels, including the portions not being rezoned, total 138.68 acres.) LOCATION: The properties to be rezoned are located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). An additional property to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, is located east of Interstate 81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43 -A -99,43-A-100 43-A-98 (subject to proffers) PROPERTY ZONING: B2 (Business General) District, B3 (Industrial Transition) District & Ml (Light Industrial) District; all properties are in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant & Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: M2 (Industrial General) Use: Warehouse & Commercial RA (Rural Areas) Vacant Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 2 M 1 (Light Industrial) plus FEMA Office IA (Interstate Area Overlay) South: M1 (Light Industrial) Use: Trucking & Residential RP (Residential Performance) Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential RA (Rural Areas) Residential, Agriculture & Commercial Nursery West: N/A Use: Interstate 81 B2 (Business General) Commercial B3 (Industrial Transition) Commercial RP (Residential Performance) Vacant & Residential RA (Rural Areas) Residential & Church PROPOSED USES: The proposed rezoning would create a retail center. The balance of the site would be used for industrial and office uses. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11 and I-81. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Rutherford Crossing rezoning application dated October 26, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Under Section C of the Transportation Enhancements, Item #2, Site Access Improvements, the verbiage notes the construction of two full entrances and two right-in/right-out entrances. While it addresses the spacing of the entrances, the documents that were submitted with this rezoning request do not identify the approximate locations. Under Item 3, Right-of-way Reservation: This appears to be a considerable change from the original rezoning which was titled "Right -of -Way Dedication". VDOT is requesting a reason for the change from dedication to reservation by the applicant. We have concerns with the way the current document is worded. Under Item 6, the Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound Off -Ramp Improvements: While we appreciate the applicant agreeing to prepare and process a Limited Access Break Study meeting FHWA and VDOT standards for the relocation of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off -ramp as well as preparing and processing of the Public Improvement Plan, we feel the proposed $125,000.00 to help construction of this facility falls far short of the monies needed to construct this key component of the transportation improvements in this area. During our meeting with the applicant, the Route 37 and Interstate 81 interchange were identified as a critical part of the County's transportation plan. The identified footprint of this roadway, a portion of which crosses the Rutherford Crossing property, needed to be preserved/dedicated as part of the proffer documents. This request has not been included in the current proffer document. The TIA prepared for this rezoning request did not take into consideration the Omps Property which was rezoned on the east side of Route 1 I and will have considerable impact on the level of service at the main entrance to the Rutherford Crossing properties. There were several other anomalies within the study that gives VDOT cause for concern about some of the conclusions that were derived from this study. Before development, this office will require a Rezoning 417-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 3 complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip General Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all 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. VDOT has not yet provided comments on the proffer statement dated November 7, 2006. Fire Marshal: Plans approved as submitted. Public Works Department: Besides eliminating B3 zoned areas from the project, the impact analysis has changed the stormwater management philosophy from onsite detention ponds to discharge to an adequate channel. Consequently, we focused our review on the drainage analysis prepared by Randy Kepler and dated May 22, 2006. Based on our review of the Hiatt Run drainage analysis, we offer the following comments: 1. Verify that the cross-section referenced in the report is representative of the channel cross-section between the Rutherford discharge point and Route 11. 2. Hydrograph No. 9 indicates that the storm flows derived from the Rutherford project are relatively insignificant compared to the total drainage from Hiatt Run. Also, this hydrograph indicates that the peak flows from Rutherford occur long before the peak arrives from the total discharge area. This fact should be highlighted in the report summary and serve as the main justification for allowing discharge directly to the receiving stream without onsite detention. This latter conclusion assumes that the receiving channel has an adequate cross-section. 3. Provide a map indicating the location of the channel section used to derive the total time of concentration. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: This rezoning will reduce wastewater demand by 50,000+ gal/day compared to prior approved rezoning. No comments. Sanitation Authority: We have sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve this site. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed development plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 close in surfaces. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB reviewed rezoning application #07-01 and a new . review with this proposed rezoning was not warranted. Please see attached letter from the HR,4B, dated July 19, 2001. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter from Robert T. Mitchell, Esquire, dated October 23, 2006 The County Attorney has not yet reviewed the proffer statement dated November 7, 2006. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated October 20, 2006from Susan K Eddy, Senior Planner. Rezoning # 17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 4 Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History On April 22, 2002 the County rezoned 113 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District and 3.7 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District, rezoned 21.8 acres from the RA District and 1.4 acres from the RP District to the B2 (Business General) District, rezoned 14.5 acres from the RA District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and rezoned all of those 154.4 acres to the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District (REZ #07-01). Parcel 43-A-111 (the FEMA site) was part of that rezoning, but is not part of this proposed rezoning. On July 14, 2004 the County rezoned 13.4 acres from the RA (Rural Area) District, the B2 (Business General) District, the B3 (Industrial Transition) District andthe MI (Light Industrial) District to the B2 and B3 Districts (REZ #06-04). This was a reconfiguration of 12.65 acres that was part of Rezoning #07-01, plus the rezoning of .75 adjoining additional acres. All proffers associated with Rezoning #07-01 were carried forward to Rezoning #06-04. Since parcel 43 -A- I I I (the FEMA site) is not part of the proposed rezoning, all proffers associated with Rezoning #06-04 remain with parcel 43-A-111. Staff Note: Throughout this report are many staff notes comparing the proposed rezoning to Rezoning #06-04, which is the by -right scenario. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. I-]] Land Use The subject properties are located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The subject properties are within the area covered by the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). The mix and location of proposed commercial and industrial uses are generally in conformance with the plan. While the NELUP shows more of the site for industrial use as opposed to commercial use, that plan shows general land bays. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 provided a greater amount of industrial and industrial transition land and thus was more in keeping with the land use proposed in the NELUP. The applicant is seeking this rezoning to allow for more retail uses, although they are able to accommodate considerable retail uses by -right in the existing B2 and B3 Districts. Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 5 The NELUP identifies the frontage of this property along Route 11 as developmentally sensitive and worthy of a higher standard of development. The landscape proffer (Proffer D-2) addresses some of this issue, but is vague. It would be clearer, if, for example, the applicant stated the landscape specifications such as the number of trees per linear feet. The NELUP calls for industrial land to be adequately screened from adjoining land to mitigate visual and noise impacts. Further, business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impacts. The applicant should consider extra screening against existing residences. The NELUP discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter -parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. Screening should be addressed and future inter -parcel connectors to adjacent sites considered. Consideration should also be given to screening along Interstate 81. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for properties along business corridors. These include landscaping and screening (noted above) and controlling the size and number of signs. Proffer F-1 only addresses signs at the entrances on Route 11. Signage all along Route 11 should be addressed. The proposed three Interstate Overlay (IA) signs may also be excessive. The Zoning Ordinance allows these signs to be up to 500 square feet in area. Given three such signs, 1,500 square feet of IA signage could be located on this site. A limit on the total IA sign square footage should be considered. Transportation The County's Eastern Road Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, identifies the Route 37 Corridor and a future Route 37/Route 81 interchange on a portion of this property. The NELUP calls for accommodating these road improvements. The applicant has proffered to not build on the land needed for Route 37 for a period of only five years. This is neither a land reservation nor a land dedication. Therefore, this application is not fully compliant with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff Note: Rezoning #06-04 did not proffer to dedicate or reserve land for Route 37. The County's Eastern Road Plan and the NELUP identify a collector road through this property. The road was planned to be a free-flowing, major collector between industrial sites. The applicant is proffering an internal road, with two 90 degree turns, that is not in the location shown on the NELUP. (The new road location is also not in the same location as the access easement for parcel #43-A-98.) The applicant is expected to construct this road on their property to established standards. The County standard for a major collector road (four -lane, divided median with landscaping) has not been proffered. From the signalized main entrance on Route 11 to the FEMA property, this road should be a four -lane section with a landscaped median. Beyond that point it may not be necessary to provide a four lane road as the adjacent Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 6 road master planned for the Carroll Industrial Park (MDP #08-05) will only have two lanes. Staff Note: A road location, in compliance with the NELUP, was proffered with REZ 406-04. This road location is also included on the approved Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Master Development Plan (MDP 404-02). This free flowing road would better facilitate industrial and office traffic than the proposed rezoning which provides a road through a shopping center with two 90 degree turns. The County's Eastern Road Plan identifies Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) from the main entrance of this proj ect south to the I-81 northbound on-ramp as a six -lane divided road section and from the main entrance north as a four -lane divided section. The applicant will be reserving right-of- way without financial compensation along Route 11 and will be constructing a third southbound lane of Route 11 from the main entrance to the Interstate 81 northbound on-ramp. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 dedicated the right-of-way for Route 11 and proffered the same road construction. The NELUP requires road capacity Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better on surrounding roads with proposed commercial or industrial development. LOS C will not be maintained with this proposal; therefore, the proposal is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. (See details under transportation impacts.) Staff Note: REZ #06-04 did not provide Level of Service C. Martinsburg Pike is identified on the Frederick County Bicycle Plan as a short-term destination. A bike trail, in lieu of the required sidewalk, should be provided in this location. The bike trail should be outside of the public right-of-way to allow for future road widening. Staff would also strongly suggest that the applicant consider a commitment to sidewalks throughout the development. It is very likely that the FEMA employees, and other future employees on the site, will walk to the retail/restaurant facilities. 3) Site Suitability/Environment Hiatt Run is located in the northern portion of this site. Approximately 28.3 acres in the northern portion of the site, in the vicinity of Hiatt Run, is within the floodplain. The applicant will need to comply with all state and local permitting requirements in this area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued Jurisdictional Determination Letter 02-BO133 on March 5, 2003 verifying that no regulated waters and/or wetlands exist on the subject property. There are no steep slopes on the site. The site contains mature woodlands that might be usable as natural buffers. The site contains prime agricultural soils. Rezoning # 17-06 —Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 7 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation 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. Two alternative scenarios were modeled. Scenario A modeled the proposed development and Scenario B modeled the by -right development allowed with REZ #06-04. Scenario A modeled industrial floor space, a home improvement store, a discount store, retail floorspace, five restaurants and a bank, for a total of 26,652 vehicle trips per day. Scenario B (by -right) modeled industrial floorspace, considerable office space, a discount store, a home improvements store, seven restaurants, a bank and a convenience mart with gas station, for a total of 28,859 vehicle trips per day. Through selective data input, the applicant has set up a comparison in which the by -right development appears to generate more traffic than the more heavily commercial proposed development. The two scenarios and associated uses are so contrived that both the County and VDOT question their validity. It is also important to remember that the TIA associated with Rezoning #07-01 projected only 9,744 vehicle trips per day. The County approved rezoning #07-01, with its proffered transportation improvements, based on this projected traffic volume. The applicant is now telling the County that in fact, the by -right development will generate 28,859 vehicle trips per day. The County's rezoning application requires applicants to model the worst case traffic. The worst case traffic was not modeled in either scenario. Neither scenario modeled the maximum floorspace of 1.4 million square feet. The precise mix of retail, office and industrial uses and the floorspace modeled are not proffered. It is entirely possible that a large amount of office space and very little industrial space will develop on this property (in either scenario), given the proximity to the FEMA site. Office space is a much higher traffic generator than industrial space. (It should also be noted that if the non -retail portion of the site develops with more office uses than industrial uses, the free-flowing NELUP collector road would be more beneficial than the collector road proposed with this rezoning.) Scenarios A and B both used incomplete background data. Neither modeled the North Stephenson, Inc. development, which is directly across Route 11. This industrial development (REZ #03-05) is projected to generate 5,874 vehicle trips per day. The Adams Development (REZ #11-04 and #02-05) further north on Route 11 was also not modeled as background. It is projected to generate 4,603 vehicle trips per day. The TIA shows that post -development, for both Scenarios A and B, roads will function at a Level of Service less than C. This is contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The intersections with LOS less than C will include: Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 8 • Route 11 and Old Charles Town Road; • Route 11/1-81 northbound on-ramp/Redbud Road (although the traffic signal proffered with this rezoning provides a benefit); • Route 11 and the I-81 northbound off -ramp; • Route 11 and the I-81 southbound ramps (although the traffic signal proffered with this rezoning and Rezoning #06-04 provides a benefit); • Route 11 and Welltown Road (This intersection shows failure even with additional turn lanes that no developer has proffered). B. Sewer and Water The site is projected to add 68,435 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. There is a newly constructed eight inch sanitary sewer force main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad line on the site. A regional pump station has been designed for this development by the applicant and will be installed by the applicant and dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The site is projected to utilize 136,870 gallons of water per day. There is an existing ten inch water main located on the east side of Martinsburg Pike and a newly constructed 20" water main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad line on the site. The Sanitation Authority commented that they have sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve this site. C. Community Facilities The current application does not address capital facilities. StaffNote: REZ # 06-04 provided a $10,000 monetary contribution for fire and rescue services, to be paid at the submission of the first site plan (the FEMA site). The monetary contribution was made on July 20, 2006. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated April 5, 2004 with latest revision dated November 7, 2006 This proffer statement was written in an unconventional format. Not all proffers relate to all owners. The County Attorney has not yet provided comments on this aspect of the rezoning. A) Maximum Building Structures All owners proffer to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire property. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 proffered to limit building structures to 1,400,000 square feet, but that rezoning included parcel 43-A-111, the FEMA site with its 160,000 square feet of office space. Rezoning # 17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 9 This proffer does not include parcel 43-A-111, therefore the floorspace should be scaled down appropriately. The County would have more confidence in the TIA if the proffer statement included more specific floor space limits tied to uses. B) Land Use All owners proffer to exclude truck stops. C) Transportation Staff Note: The proffer statement states that the transportation proffers are associated with Rutherford Farm, LLC. This is incorrect as proffer C3 is associated with multiple owners. 1. Signalization: A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11 and the main entrance when warranted by VDOT. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11 and the southbound ramps of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) when warranted by VDOT. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11/ the northbound on-ramp of Interstate 81 (Exit 317)/Redbud Road, when warranted by VDOT. Prior to the installation of the above three signals, a signalization timing analysis for lights on Martinsburg Pike from the main site entrance to Crown Lane will occur and the costs for any adjustments borne by the applicant if warranted by VDOT. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 included two of these three traffic signals. Only the signal at Route 11/1-81 northbound on-ramp/Redbud Road is new. REZ #06-04 proffered two signalization agreements prior to the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan (SP #32-06) was approved on October 10, 2006. The proffer statement should therefore not time the agreements to the first occupancy permits in the B-2 acreage. 2. Site Access: The total number of entrances along Route 11 will be limited to one full entrance and two right-in/right-out entrances. Travel lane and turn lane improvements at those intersections will be in conformance with the MDP dated October 24, 2006 and will be completed by December 31, 2007. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 did not limit the number of entrances. REZ #06-04 required road improvements at two Route 11 entrances to be completed within 12 months of the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan was approved on October 10, 2006. Therefore, these improvements must be completed by October 10, 2007. Failure to complete these improvements by October 10, 2007, which could happen under the proposed rezoning, could delay FEMA's certificate of occupancy. 3. Ri$zht of Way Reservation: Rutherford Farm, LLC has proffered to reserve right- of-way without financial compensation for the planned Route 11 improvements, within 90 days of VDOT permit approvals for these improvements. Virginia Apple Storage, Inc. has proffered to reserve right-of-way without financial compensation for the Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 10 planned Interstate 81 improvements, within 90 days of written request by VDO 1'. C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth have agreed that for a period of five years, they will not build upon the tract of land proposed to be used as part of the Route 37 bypass. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 required Route 11 land dedication prior to approval of the construction plans for these improvements. VDOT has verified that this land dedication has not taken place. REZ #06-04 required Route 81 land dedication prior to approval of the Master Development Plan (MDP) for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. The Rutherford Farm MDP (MDP #04-02) was approved on December 3, 2002, yet there is no evidence that this dedication has taken place. REZ #06-04 did not address Route 37 on this property. 4. Comprehensive Plan Road Construction: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to construct a portion of a major collector road, to base pavement and available for public access, from the main entrance on Route 11 to the cul-de-sac adjacent to parcel 43-A- 111 (the FEMA site), in the location depicted on the proffered zoning exhibit. Rutherford Farm, LLC will use reasonable commercial effort and diligently pursue this construction no later than December 31, 2007. This text does not guarantee a firm completion date. (The proffer does not include a description of the road section. The County's major collector road standard is a four -lane section with a landscaped median.) The remainder of the major collector road and internal roads will be constructed with each site plan submission. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 proffered a major collector road in the location shown in the NELUP and proffered road construction with each site plan submission. Approved MDP 904-02 also includes the road network to the FEMA site. The NELUP road network efficiently accommodates commercial and industrial traffic in a free-flowing manner. 5. Route 11 and I-81 Northbound Ramp Improvements: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to construct a third southbound lane on Route 11 from the main entrance to the I- 81 northbound on-ramp. This improvement shall be completed within one year of the approval of the first site plan for the B-2 portion of the site. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 required this road construction to be completed within 12 months of the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan was approved on October 10, 2006. Therefore, these improvements must be completed by October 10, 2007. Failure to complete these road improvements will impact FEMA's ability to secure a certificate of occupancy. 6. Monetary Contribution for Route 11 Corridor: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to provide Frederick County with $250,000 for transportation studies or physical improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 11 Staff Note: REZ #06-04 did not provide a cash contribution for road improvements. D) Historic Resources 1. Inte retive Sins: An interpretive area for public use with plaques, picnic tables and landscaping will be provided (by Rutherford Farm, LLC) along Route 11, in a location specified on the proposed MDP. It will be constructed in conjunction with the adjacent site plan. Staff Note: REZ 406-04 proffered a similar interpretive area. 2. Landscaping: Rutherford Farm, LLC will provide a landscape buffer along Route 11, during the construction of first B2 structure. It will be a 15' strip with low earthen mounds and landscaping as depicted on the proposed MDP. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 proffered similar landscaping. E) Lighting Rutherford Farm, LLC (the B2 property) has proffered for all building mounted and pole mounted lights to be of a downcast nature, hooded and directed away from adjacent properties. (Lighting proffers are not associated with the MI portion of the site, so these properties could have a greater lighting impact on adjacent properties.) A lighting plan will be submitted to the County for approval, prior to the installation of these lights. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 proffered a similar lighting package for all portions of the site, not just the B2 portion. F) Sim 1. Rutherford Farm, LLC has proffered that all freestanding business signs located at the entrances on Martinsburg Pike will be monument style, not to exceed 12' in height. Staff Note: REZ 406-04 proffered freestanding business signs to be monument style, not to exceed 12' in height only on the M1 portion of the site. (It would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan if this sign limitation covered all of the site.) 2. All owners agree to limit the IA (Interstate Overlay Area) District signs to a total of three. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 had the same IA sign total of three. Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 12 G) Recycling Proffer C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth agree to implement recycling programs with each industrial use. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 had a similar recycling proffer. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/06/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The fundamental decision to be made with this application is whether Frederick County is better off with the existing by -right development or with the proposed rezoning. The by -right development provides a collector road as planned in NELUP and provides two traffic signals. The proposed rezoning provides a road akin to driving through a shopping center instead of a free flowing collector road. The proposed rezoning provides a total of three traffic signals and $250,000 towards road improvements. Neither scenario truly provides land for Route 37. Greater B2 use, as proposed in this rezoning, typically generates more traffic, despite what is modeled in the TIA. The County accepted rezonings 907-01 and 406-04 with their associated road improvements, based on the very low traffic projections they were provided by the applicant. Given the new traffic projections, it would be appropriate for the applicant and the County to be discussing road improvements commensurate with the vastly increased traffic to be generated from this development. Finally, the proffers associated with REZ 407-01 and REZ 406-04 include road improvements linked to the already approved FEMA site plan. These should be retained with this proposed rezoning. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning _application would be appropriate The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. ff,W COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 July 19, 2001 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President Greenway Engineering 151 Windy MR Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford's Farm Rezoning Proposal Dear Mr. Smith: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of July 17, 2001. This proposal involves the rezoning of approximately 144 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial Transition), and MI (Light Industrial) Zoning Districts. The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second Winchester studyarea, andare also within the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the HRAB has expressed concern fortheloss of historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. In response to the I RAB's concerns, you presented a number of proffered condition concepts and indicated your willingness to incorporate the conditions with the formal rezoning application submittal. Specifically, you offered the following concepts: To establish a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm. The interpretation area would contain historical markers and be maintained by the Industrial Park Association. It was also stated that the marker design and textual content would be returned to the HRAB for review and approval. Maintain the visual rural community elements existing along Martinsburg Pike by providing linear landscaping. This landscaping along Martinsburg Pike would include combinations of three-foot high evergreen hedges and berms, and mass clustering of tree and shrub plantings. The landscaping is intended to retain the natural feel of the rural community and utilize native vegetation including red buds, oaks,.and cedars. A combination of hedges, berms, and tree clusters would.b.e implemented to lessen the visual impact of the proposed development_ 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President, Greenway Engineering Re: Rutherford's Farm July 19, 2001 • Establish a link to the property's history by naming the development after the Rutherford's Farm. The HRAB felt the rezoning proposal would be more palatable for the historic preservation community, if the above identified concepts were included in the rezoning application's proffer statement. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. Erick Lawrence, AICP Deputy Director ERL/kac cc: Dr. Richard R. Duncan, 6101 Edsall Road, Apt 1802, Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Mr. StephenL. Pettler, Jr., Harrison & Johnston, 21 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 Mr. R. J. 'Tumer, Adams Nelson & Assoc., 303 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 u-.)wc\CammonvnuBuzutherford Farm HRAaR datica wO HALL, MONAHAN, E,NGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL HAND -DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Rutherford Crossing Proffer Statement Dear Susan: N 2 3 ,000 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 I have reviewed the above -referenced Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. Section C of the Proffer Statement addresses Transportation Enhancements. My legal review of this section of the Proffer Statement does not address the details or the appropriateness of the proffers set forth therein, and it is my assumption that the County's staff and engineers will review the substances of these transportation proffers. 2. Paragraph 1 of Section C addresses traffic signalization. Subparagraphs a -c provide for traffic signals at three separate intersections. Subparagraph d provides for a signalization timing analysis to be done prior to the installation of the traffic signals referenced in subparagraphs a -c. Assuming that the A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1692-1972) 7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) LEESSURG, VIRGI\tA ..,,.CHESTER, VIRGINIA SAMUEL D. ENGLE O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540-662-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON October 23, 2006 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. HAND -DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Rutherford Crossing Proffer Statement Dear Susan: N 2 3 ,000 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 I have reviewed the above -referenced Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. Section C of the Proffer Statement addresses Transportation Enhancements. My legal review of this section of the Proffer Statement does not address the details or the appropriateness of the proffers set forth therein, and it is my assumption that the County's staff and engineers will review the substances of these transportation proffers. 2. Paragraph 1 of Section C addresses traffic signalization. Subparagraphs a -c provide for traffic signals at three separate intersections. Subparagraph d provides for a signalization timing analysis to be done prior to the installation of the traffic signals referenced in subparagraphs a -c. Assuming that the HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 2 - traffic traffic signals in subparagraph a -c will not all be installed at the same time, the timing of the signalization timing analysis provided for subparagraph d is not clear. Is it to be done prior to installation of any of the three traffic signals, or is it to be done prior to the installation of the last of the three traffic signals? This should be clarified. 3. In paragraphs 2 (Intersection Improvements) and 5 (Route 11 and northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements) of Section C, the timing of certain proffered road improvements is that the improvements would be completed within one year of a site plan approval. In paragraph 2 the work would be completed within one year of the date of the first site plan approval within the B-2 District portion of the Property. Section 2 further provides that if all or part of the intersection improvements are "required" for the first site plan within the M-1 District, the work shall be constructed with the first site plan. My assumption is that the proffer is permitting the County to require the intersection improvements if the first site plan is within the M-1 District. If that is the case, I would suggest that the words "in the discretion of the County" be inserted within commas after the word "required" in paragraph 2. In addition, in the event those intersection improvements are required with the first site plan in the M-1 District, the proffer should set forth that the improvements will be completed within one year of the first site approval, if that timing is satisfactory to the County. The foregoing comments, with respect to Paragraph 2, would also apply to Paragraph 5. 4. Paragraph 3 of Section C is titled "Right of Way Dedication". However, subparagraphs a and b state an agreement to "reserve" the rights of way, and to provide VDOT with a "right of way reservation plat". The proffer should state that the Applicant will reserve the right of way until it is dedicated to VDOT, and to dedicate it to VDOT with a dedication plat. 5. In Paragraph 4 (Comprehensive Road Plan Construction) of Section C, it would appear that the proffer should be to coordinate, dedicate, and construct the major collector road referenced. Also, staff should determine whether the location of that road in the referenced Northeast Land Use Study is sufficiently definite to precisely locate the road, or whether there should be some qualifying language in the HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 3 proffer to locate the road in accordance with any amendment of the Northeast Land Use Study adopted prior to approval of a site plan on any portion of the property on which the road would be located. 6. As to Paragraph 7 (Monetary Contribution) of Section C, staff should determine whether the timing of the monetary contribution (building permit for the first structure in the B-2 portion of the property) is satisfactory, or whether it should be at the issuance of a building permit for the first structure on the property. 7. It should be noted that a Master Development Plan is referenced in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section D, but there is no proffer that the property generally will be developed in accordance with the referenced Master Development Plan. I assume that the County has a copy of the referenced Master Development Plan in order to enforce the interpretive signs and landscaping proffers contained in Section D. 8. It should be noted that Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section D provide that the maintenance and the interpretive signs and landscaping will be the responsibility of "Rutherford Crossing Association." There does not appear to be any other reference in the proffer statement regarding Rutherford Crossing Association, and Rutherford Crossing Association is not an applicant who is bound by these proffers. Therefore, there would not appear to be any basis on which the County could enforce the maintenance provisions in these two proffers. 9. In Section E (Lighting), reference is made to lighting plans which will be submitted as a "separate attachment" for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department. I am not clear as to what the lighting plan would be attached. Does it mean to say that the lighting plans would be submitted as a separate attachment to all site plans? If so, that should be set forth in the proffer. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 4 10. I am unclear about the wording of Paragraph 2 of Section F (Signage). It proffer states "Within the IA (Interstate Overlay) District, the Applicants hereby proffer to limit the total number of signs to three." That proffer seems to suggest that the Interstate Overlay District is only located on a portion of the property. However, in the Preliminary Matters section of the proffer statement, it is indicated that the Overlay District would apply to the entire 155 acres. 11. In Section G (Recycling Proffer) I would recommend that the last sentence be reworded to read: "The program for each industrial user will be reviewed and subject to approval by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for each industrial user." As previously noted 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 IIID truly yours, Robert T. MMhell, Yr. RTM/ks October 20, 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing Dear Evan: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Rutherford Crossing Development. The application seeks to rezone 22.45 acres from the B3 (Industrial Transition) District to the B2 (Business General) District and 8.55 acres from the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 (Business General) District. Overall the proposed land use conforms to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. However, the applicant needs to further address transportation issues and design elements as outlined below. Comments on the Master Development Plan are being provided in a separate letter. 1. Northeast Land Use Plan(NELUP). The subject properties are within the area covered by the Northeast Land Use Plan. This plan is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The mix and location of commercial and industrial uses are generally in conformance with the plan. While the NELUP shows more of the site for industrial use as opposed to commercial use, that plan shows general land bays. 2. NELUP. The NELUP identifies the frontage of this property along Route 11 as developmentally sensitive. The landscape proffer (D-2) addresses. this issue, but is too vague. Rewrite the proffer to clearly identify, at minimum, trees per linear feet. 3. NELUP. The NELUP calls for industrial land to be adequately screened from adjoining land to mitigate visual and noise impacts. Further, business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impacts. Consider extra screening against existing residences. 4. NELUP. The Northeast Land Use Plan discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter -parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. Screening should be addressed and future inter -parcel connectors to adjacent sites considered. Consideration uld also be given to screening along Interstate 81. I 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 :Ll 0 C T `� �' Page 2 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing October 20, 2006 5. NELUP. The NELUP states that "Proposed industrial, commercial and planned unit development should only occur if impacted road systems function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or Better". With this proposed development, Level of Service C is clearly not achieved. 6. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for properties along business corridors. These include landscaping and screening (noted above) and controlling the size and number of signs. Serious consideration should be given to signage, with a recommendation for reduced signage, monument style signs and a coordinated sign package. 7. Eastern Road Plan. The County's Eastern Road Plan identifies the Route 37 Corridor and a future Route 37/Route 81 interchange on a portion of this property. The NELUP calls for the accommodating these road improvements. It is expected that the applicant will accommodate these road improvements, otherwise the application will not be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. Eastern Road Plan. The County's Eastern Road Plan and NELUP identify a collector road through this property. The applicant is expected to construct this road on their property to established standards. From the signalized main entrance on Route 11 to the FEMA property, this road should be a four -lane section with a landscaped median. 9. Comprehensive Policy Plan. Martinsburg Pike is identified on the Frederick County Bicycle Plan as a short-term destination. Provide a bike trail, in lieu of the required sidewalk, in this location. The bike trail should be outside of the public right-of-way to allow for future road widening. I would strongly suggest that the applicant consider a commitment to sidewalks throughout the development. It is very likely that the FEMA employees, and other future employees on the site, will walk to the retail facilities. 10. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA does not meet county standards. A few examples of shortcomings include: the exclusion of the nearby North Stephenson rezoning and the Adams rezoning, the modeling of less than the proffered maximum development (1.4 million square feet), the modeling of only a small percentage of the total FEMA employees, the lack of modeling for the FEMA entrance on Route 11 and the illogical comparison of the by -right development (which was modeled for the 2001 rezoning as purely industrial) to the proposed development (which is heavily commercial). I would also point out that some of the modeled improvements (including the Welltown Road/Route 11 intersection) have not been proffered by anyone. Page 3 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing October 20, 2006 11. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). It is not clear if the northernmost secondary site driveway is the service road behind the small shopping area, as shown on the draft site plan. If so, this driveway can only be allowed with an inter -parcel connection to the north, in order to meet entrance standards. 12. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Given the impact of this large development on an already failing transportation corridor, it is suggested that the applicant consider making a significant improvement to the corridor. As previously discussed, one of the obvious improvements would be to relocate the I-81 northbound off -ramp. (This would require abandoning a section of Red Bud Road, which will eventually be rerouted through the North Stephenson development.) This improvement has been sought by the County and VDOT for years. This would eliminate one intersection and the need for another traffic signal. It would greatly improve the functioning of this corridor and directly benefit this project. 13. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffers C -1(a -c). All of these proposed improvements are proffered before the issuance of the first building permit for the property. Please provide confirmation that these have been satisfied. 14. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C -1(d). It seems illogical to study only three intersections. I suggest studying all intersections beginning with the intersection of Route 11 and the northbound on-ramp/Redbud Road and ending with and including the intersection of Route 1 I and Crown Lane. This would be more beneficial to the County and VDOT. 15. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-2. The TIA modeled two right- in/right-out entrances on Route 11. Clarify which of these entrances this proffer covers. I strongly suggest specifically limiting the number of entrances on Route 11. This will clarify that the pad sites will not have future entrances on Route 11. 16. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-2. It is unclear what "multi -lane system" means. Detail the road specifications being provided. 17. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-4. This proffer obliges to applicant to build the collector road as envisioned in the Northeast Land Use Plan. That road, as per NELUP, is a sweeping arc with no 90 degree turns, to allow for free flowing traffic. The road as shown on the applicant's draft Master Development Plan (MDP) does not match the road called for in NELUP. Thus the MDP will not be in compliance with this proffer as written. It might be helpful to proffer a simple Generalized Development Plan (GDP) with the road layout. (Also note the current Northeast Land Use Plan is the 2002 NELUP. The collector road did not change from one version of the plan to another, but please reference the current plan.) Page 4 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing October 20, 2006 18. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-4. Please revise this proffer to insure that the vital road connection between the collector road and the entrance to the FEMA site takes place immediately. 19. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-5. This proffer requires the applicant to construct an additional Route 11 southbound lane from the FEMA entrance to the northbound I-81 ramp. This is a distance of approximately 3,000 linear feet. Also, note that the first site plan for Rutherford Crossing, the FEMA site plan, has already been approved. (As stated in Proffer D3 all four parcels make up Rutherford Crossing.) 20. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-6. The scope of this study is unclear. Further details are requested. 21.. Proffer Statement — Historic Resources Proffer D-1. This proffer needs a timing element. 22. Proffer Statement — Landscaping Proffer D-2. As stated in comment #2, this proffer requires greater clarity as to plant materials and spacing. Adequate street trees, plus other plant materials, are recommended. 23. Proffer Statement — Lighting Proffer E. This proffer is less than the County's adopted lighting standard. Consider a revision that provides a lighting plan. 24. Proffer Statement — Signage Proffer F-1. As stated in comment #6, reduced signage is sought. Consideration should be given to monument signs throughout the development with a limited sign area and height. 25. Proffer Statement — Signage Proffer F-2. As stated in comment #6, reduced signage is sought. Consider further limiting the number of interstate overlay signs. 26. Parcel #43-A-111. Only the M-1 portion of parcel #43-A-111 appears to be part of this rezoning. This must be clearly stated in the application and the proffer statement, and should be correctly referenced in the area tabulation on the Zoning Exhibit (dated June 2006) prepared by Bury + Partners. Also, all maps included in the impact analysis statement show the RA portion of parcel #43-A-111 as part of the rezoning. This application will not be accepted until a consistent treatment for the RA portion of this parcel is included throughout the application and proffer statement. 27. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Page 5 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing October 20, 2006 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, Winchester Regional Airport, Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. Historic Resources Advisory Board comments from the previous rezoning application will be used by staff. The proffer statement has been sent to the Frederick County Attorney by the Planning Department. 28. Other. Please provide a deed to the property verifying current ownership. Please have all property owners sign the application and complete the special limited power of attorney form which authorizes you to represent them during the application process. Please provide a receipt from the Treasurer's office which verifies that real estate taxes for the properties have been paid. All of the comments in this letter and any agency continents should be appropriately addressed before staff can formally accept this rezoning application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/dlw cc: Rutherford Farm, LLC, 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Vienna, VA 22182 Virginia Apple Storage Inc., PO Box 3103, Winchester, VA 22604 C. Robert Solenberger, PO Box 2368, Winchester, VA, 22604 John S. Scully, 112 North Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 John B. Schroth, 112 North Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Cowperwood FEMA, LLC, 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3 70 1, New York, NY, 10152 Frederick County, Rezoning # 17 - 06 Application Rutherford Crossing Location in the County Map Features Q1 Application Zoning UDA . B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) Urban Development Area B2 (Business, General District) D Lakes/Ponds i B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) w- Streams�'` EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) SWSA HE (Higher Education District) E3 Flooplain M1 (Industrial, Light District) Streets M2 (Industrial, General District) 4%c Primary MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) Secondary MS (Medical Support District) Terciary `-` R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) Winchester City R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) +1s Future Rt37 Bypass RAZ (Rural Area Zone) "y- Railroads RP (Residen`ial Performance District) Location in Surroumding Area 0 300 600 1,2Feet !:Z rreueriCK County, VA v Location in Surrounding Area --�; 0 3001 600 tzPeeY Q '� F� Rezoning # 17 - 06 Application Rutherford Crossing Parcel ID: ,��4 43-A-98 Location in the County 43 - A - 99 43-A-100 Map Features a Application Long Range Land Use Ip'A Rural Community Center Urban Development Area Residential 1} Lakes/Ponds Business ^— Streams ® Industrial -: SWSA ® Institutional G3 Flooplain =-'_ Recreation Streets Historic 4ir Primary ® Mixed -Use Secondary ® Planned Unit Development Terciary - Winchester City Future Rt37 Bypass -,y Railroads v Location in Surrounding Area --�; 0 3001 600 tzPeeY Q '� F� f N � VJ E F % S 0 — 0.5 1 1.5 Miles t LEGEND Map Features Study Area Boundary 0 SWSA V --1 0% Urban Development Area —17 - _ 3 u // �✓ Rural Community Centers oar z " '� "s !' .f7 Wafer Features /VPeet Streams Histofic FeaWres r' 6 •.l�T-- f^2©' .�\�✓,/ u i Proposed Land Use Residential Business Industrial Planned Unit Development ,% 4y ' y '� •V / / !� j� !fes ✓ � Rural Area p� Developmentally Sensitive Areas Roads A` (_ w J i ss N Interstate 81 Primary Hiahw=_ys /V Secondary Roads - °�s�y_ Railroads Proposed Route 37 Extension New Collector Roads New Synali-d n --r`�.,t !. Zoning B7 (Business, Neighborhood DW t) B2 (Business, General District) B3 (industrial Transition District) EM (EMractive Manufacturing District) F-8' M7 pndustr'ral, Light District) \\�,'� t r a O M2 Qnaasmah Genaral D s dct) =-� MK RA (Rural (Mobile Home Community) ERA (RuralAma) ti � / i % �- � ✓ RP (Residential Pert nuance Dialn.f) kF_erick County tP6a�ng atfrnenYgAdopted 9�yBoarddsoosAugust 13Land Use Ran Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 RUTHERFORD CROSSING PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# - B-3, Industrial Transition District (22.45± acres) and M-1, Light Industrial District (8.55± acres) to B-2, Business General District (31.0± acres) PROPERTY: 138.68± acres; Tax Parcels 43-((A))-98, 43-((A))-99, 43-((A))-100, (here -in after the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Rutherford Farm, LLC; Virginia Apple Storage, Inc.; C. Robert Solenberger; John S. Scully, IV; John B. Schroth APPLICANT: Rutherford Farm, LLC (Owner of 22.45± acres, being a portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99 and Contract Purchaser for 8.55± acres, being a portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100 (here -in after the "Applicant") PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE: Preliminary Matters Rutherford Crossing April 5, 2004 November 7, 2006 Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of a 22.45± -acre portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99 and a 8.55± -acre portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100, and to reconfigure the M-1, Light Industrial District, and B-2, Business General District zoning boundaries for the remainder of the acreage to establish the following: Zoning Districts ➢ 79.03± -acres of M-1, Light Industrial District ➢ 59.65± -acres of B-2, Business General District Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Overlay District );�- 138.68± acres of IA, Interstate Area Overlay District Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject Property more particularly described as the lands owned by Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-98; C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99; and Rutherford Farm, LLC, being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100; and further described by Rezoning Plat Exhibit prepared by Bury+Partners, dated November 2006 (see attached Rezoning Exhibit Plat). PROFFER STATEMENT A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC and the record owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc; C. Robert Solenberger: John S. Scully, IV: and John B. Schroth, hereby proffer to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire Property. B.) Prohibited Land Uses The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc; C. Robert Solenberger: John S. Scully, IV: and John B. Schroth, hereby proffer that the following land uses shall not be permitted on the Property: Description SIC Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) 2 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 C.) Transportation Enhancements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to the following transportation enhancements: 1.) Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) and the proposed primary entrance to the Property in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. b.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound ramps of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. c.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by VDOT at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike with the northbound on-ramp of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Redbud Road (Route 661) in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. This traffic signal shall be designed to accommodate the relocation of the Interstate 81 northbound off - ramp at a cross intersection with the existing Interstate 81 northbound on- ramp. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. d.) Prior to the installation of the traffic signals provided for in this section, the Applicant hereby agrees to prepare a signalization timing analysis for all existing and proposed traffic signals located along Martinsburg Pike between the proposed primary entrance to the Property and Crown Lane. The Applicant will provide this analysis to VDOT and will incur the cost required to reconfigure the signalization timing for each traffic signal identified in the section if warranted by VDOT. 3 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 2.) Site Access Improvements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to limit the total number of entrances for site access along Martinsburg Pike to one full entrance and two right-in/right-out entrances. The spacing between the centerline of all proposed entrances along Martinsburg Pike shall be a minimum of 500 feet. Additionally, the Applicant agrees to fully fund and construct travel lane and turn lane improvements along northbound and southbound Martinsburg Pike in substantial conformity to the transportation improvement exhibit identified on the Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners dated October 24, 2006 no later than December 31, 2007. 3.) Right of Way Reservation a.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC hereby agrees to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) to implement the Rutherford's Farm Route 11 Public Improvements Plan approved by VDOT on February 17, 2004. This right of way reservation plat shall be prepared by the Applicant and provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of VDOT permit approval for this improvement. b.) The record owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., hereby agrees to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-Fll, PE -100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). The right of way reservation plat shall be prepared by the record owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., and provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of written request by VDOT for said right of way reservation. c.) The record owners, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth hereby agree that for a period of five (5) years from the date of the approval of the rezoning, that they will not build upon the tract of land containing 14 acres, more or less, and proposed to be used as part of the construction of the Route 37 bypass in Frederick County; however, any taking of the property will be compensated at fair market value. 4 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to coordinate, dedicate, and construct the portion of the major collector road between the primary entrance to the property and the cul-de-sac adjacent to Tax Map Parcel 43-((A))-111 that will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Rutherford Crossing Zoning Exhibit prepared by Bury+Partners dated November 2006 and attached as a proffered exhibit. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, agrees that it will use reasonable commercial effort and diligently pursue the construction to base pavement and made available for public access no later than December 31, 2007. The remaining portion of the major collector road system which intersects the major collector road system described in the above paragraph and proceeds in a west to northwest direction through the Property, as well as the internal street located to the south of the major collector road described in the above paragraph will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or is part of the site plan. The location of these internal road systems will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Rutherford Crossing Zoning Exhibit prepared by Bury+Partners dated November 2006 and attached as a proffered exhibit. 5.) Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound On -Ramp Improvements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to construct a third southbound lane on U.S. Route 11 from the primary entrance to the Property to the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on-ramp. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on-ramp. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will construct turning radius improvements at the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on-ramp to ensure a smooth transition. The improvements shall be completed within one year following approval of the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property. 6.) Monetary Contributions for Route 11 Corridor The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to provide $250,000.00 to Frederick County within 18 months of final site plan approval for the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property to be utilized unconditionally for transportation studies or physical improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford farm, LLC, agrees to allow Frederick County to utilize this monetary contribution as matching funds for federal or state transportation improvement grants that will apply to the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners. A public access easement will be provided for the interpretative sign viewing area , which shall be enhanced with picnic tables and landscaping. The public access easement will be prepared and the proposed improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the site plan that is approved adjacent to this area. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: ➢ The Second Battle of Winchester ➢ The Battle of Rutherford's Farm ➢ The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative signs will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. The maintenance of the interpretative signs, picnic tables, landscaping and public parking for the interpretative sign viewing area shall be the responsibility of the Rutherford Crossing Association. 2.) Landscaping The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to provide a transitional landscape buffer will be provided along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, grasses, shrubs and trees in general conformity with the landscape buffer typical section provided on the Master Development Plan. The landscape buffer will be installed during the construction of the first structure within the B-2 District portion of the Property, and will be maintained by the Rutherford Crossing Association. 3.) Property Name The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby proffer the naming of their property to: "Rutherford Crossing" 6 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 E.) Lighting The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees that all building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature, hooded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will submit lighting plans as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to the installation of these lighting features. F.) Signage l.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby proffers that all freestanding business signs located at the entrances to the Property along Martinsburg Pike shall be monument -style signs not to exceed 12' in height. 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District located throughout the limits of the Property, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, and the record owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth, hereby proffer to limit the total number of signs to three. G.) Recycling Proffer The record owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth, hereby agree to implement recycling programs with each industrial user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. The program for each industrial user will be reviewed and will be subject to approval by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for each industrial user. 7 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: 11 C)Cr- Rutherfor arm, LLC Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Cit County f F -re tll cl- To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this N4% day of KD\fe LX*' 2006 by Vy I (1(O -VO LQUey- Pre-51dev,+ Ll,,,, �( 7-A,&�� Notary Public on My Commission Expires P.aL-z 1 2-a, 260 IG �'8 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Signatures Ti-, COuditioiis proffered ab^ve Shall he binding upon the heirs PxP017tnrc > > administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: �� & " Virginia Apple torage, Inc. Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Cit ounty f F7(Je r l c-)(- To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of( � 2006 by Q-, c!YU ) OZ t ccs Notary ublic My Commission Expires )e-Mh-Z Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: 1111711�-76 C. Robert Solenberger Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/ out of FWer-IA To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this "I day of 2006 by Notary P blic My Commission Expires 9� -C.mlxp' :Pf) ozcs 10 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7.2006 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: � 11 S le5�6 John IzAcully, IV Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Cit Count of F,-edevz cy- To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ?4A day of l 16yew iot v- 2006 by J6 hv) S • SCO i ki 1� Notary Public My Commission Expires reh(L.)a 2-9, 2,068 IE Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7. 2006 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: 21118, (� J n B. Schroth Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/ ount f Gd2derii,, r To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this qday of (Jove.r' be,c 2006 by J 0 hn a • SGhrofin Notary Public My Commission Expires 1--eloq aru Lia 260-8 12 AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 85.26 AC. B-2 28.66 AC. B-3 :[::::22.46 AC. TOTAL AREA = 136.38 AG. Pc`��%/ ,�o� r7aias� N All6 S758.19'36'08"E S42,18, O:,w ta9ss�s' 3 N42'18 0..E 60' R -i _— // O c 54 94.395"E 194.39' 0 T C7 N44'08'18"p E }CC i.. 1211.21' o C a m a M-1 , I uulu 55A5 AC. ' TAX MAP 43 A 99 C. R08ERT SULENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHP.OTH AND m c °m JOHN S. SCULLY. IV m Z U- c [= w ak S27'54'00"W ..,...-_._ _.. 47.83'. TAX MAP E43 A. 100 C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ' JOHNB. SCHROTH AND �n JOHN S. SCULLY, IV B-3 / 22.86 AC. > _ C4 N59•p4, P�TOMAp �4 N35 -45'51"W 3 22...0 Y C9 y Z ate— LL z C7 cn a = \�F�\ B-2 28.88 AG. 567?5• \`e\\ N 99 I IN29'45'52"W u / / N Cl m CURVE TABLE !UMBER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTHP416.50'- CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING Cl 20'57'23' 2252.00' 823.69 819.11' N 50'20'03' E C2 29`18'43' 1321.72' 676,18 668.83' S 15°56'51' E C3 1°28'32' 5629.58' 144.97 144.97' S 00°33'13' E C4 94°51'02' 380.00' 629.07 559.66' S 11°39'40' W C5 17`36'23' 1000.00' 307.29 306.08' N 50'17'00' E C6 6'15'12' 5629.58' 614,43 307,52' 614.12' S 04'13'45' W C712°53'54' 1 5629.58' 1 1267.32 1 636 35'1 1264.65' 1 S 18'33'51' W TAX MAP 4 43 A 99 C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN E. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULL'S, Ii' M-1 29.81 AC. .. 52-7.54.00"`N ' 10-7 _ G.74 TAX MAP $ 43 A 111 I C. ROBERT SOLENBEP.GER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY. IV i 1 0 0 c:) N — –�– 0 w a o a o DO H- of Y N II � 1 � a O v z o v o r 'o o N o 0 0 o 2 ~ N W = T � W 0 U Y C9 y Z ate— LL z C7 cn a = Z N z a: LLI co ouc(g o a0 AD o¢tn2 H U w:z O co <� _ Z 57< W w w O LL h 1 0 0 c:) N — –�– 0 w a o a o DO H- of Y N II � 1 � a O v z o v o r 'o o N o 0 0 o 2 ~ N W = T � W 0 AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 79.03 AC. B-2 59.65 AC. TOTAL AREA = 138.68 ACX Z,z- N42'18'30"E N30'36/X2' /�' ' 1057.31' /136.5 / B-2 541'32'25"E 194.39' '3608 / / / N7211.2 8"E 121 ----- -- N76'38'50"W /— — pg1 87.67' / u, M-1 / TAX MAP # 43 A 98 N > / 55.45 AC. VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE 542'18'30"W INSTRUMENT 200411262 c' w VDOT 1895.36' rri RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION S42' 18'29"W �--_----_ /1285.15' FEMA I M-1 o PROPERTY 23.58 AC. N42'1&=38"� ins TAX MAP 43 A 100 LINE — — RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC �'1-957.58' o INSTRUMENT 050006702 NNS 2 _ _ — m N 2970'28 00"W SPG. \ \ 59.65 AC. EI— m'N•-'c DSO—cNno — ' 0. 6• ° _ _, mmI po�aI N 7,1 '06'49" E N47'55 3 194.41' 270.92 ' 1— / z N4218'30'E 387.1 TAX MAP N 43 A 99 C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER,. JOHN B. SCHROTH AND \ u o JOHN S. SCULLY, IV 3g INSTRUMENT 040017164 s?s33,w \� S38'01'07"W g � gg I 96347- _[Tl —C3 m N I 1 NUMBER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTHu--TANGENT l O ~ CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING C1 128'32" 5629.58' 144.97 72.49' 744.97' S 00'33'13" E C2 2918'43" 7321.72' 676.18 345.66' 668.83' S 15'56'57" E C3 20'5723" 2252.00' 823.69 416.50' 819.11' N 50'20'03" E C4 6:15-12- 5629.58' 614.43 307.52' 614.12' S 04'13'45" W C5 12'53'54" 5629.58' 1267.32 636.35'1264.65 S 78'33'51" W C6 43'58'47" 500.00' 383.80 201.91 374.44' N 49'07'26" E ------ •• • ••--�••�� amici u�xnurKurUltu LUNING LXHIti(l.dwg Nov 09, 2006 v/ N Z 4. C ^A l O ~ c,0 m C m Jfir- a m d A� M d +W % L a W pp•w ❑ u Z M ui S27'54'00'W 47.83' Z N O LIC U 0 1z O LL crW I=- 400 200 0 400 800 1200 GRAPHICAL SCALE: 1" = 400' o I � N N o,�t wo_D_a o II lm Y 0 F N W d T J a O z o ai rn ; v u O O L O a v a LTJ w CV =N V) IL. O IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RUTHERFORD CROSSING Stonewall District Frederick County, Virginia Tax Map Parcels 43 -((A)) -98,43-((A))-99 & 43-((A))-100 136.87± Acres September 5, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Current Owners: Rutherford Farm, LLC Virginia Apple Storage C. Robert Solenberger John S. Scully, IV John B. Schroth Contact Person: Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 (540)662-4185 Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 RUTHERFORD CROSSING REZONING ii�TTi RQ._.,D This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of a 136.87± acre subject site owned by Rutherford Farm, LLC, Virginia Apple Storage, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth. The subject site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11). Norfolk Southern and Winchester and Western Railroads have rail lines paralleling Martinsburg Pike, which traverse the subject site. The Applicants propose to reconfigure the existing zoning boundaries of the B-2 Business General District, the B-3 Industrial Transition District and the M-1 Light Industrial District within the Rutherford Crossing site to create an additional 31.0± acres of B-2 Business General District, while reducing the existing M-1 Light Industrial District acreage by 8.55± acres and eliminating the 22.45± acres of B-3 Industrial Transition District. The proposed revisions to the existing zoning district boundaries are intended to create a major retail center within the B-2 Business General District portion of the subject site that is envisioned to include a home improvement superstore, a major retail discount store, specialty retail stores, sit-down and fast food restaurants, drive-in banking and office land use. Basic information Location: Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection Magisterial District: Stonewall Property ID Numbers: 43-((A))-98, 43-((A))-99 & 43-((A))-100 Current Zoning: B2 District — 28.64± acres B3 District — 22.45± acres M1 District — 85.78± acres 136.87± acres Current Use: Unimproved and Residential Proposed Use: Major Retail Center, Office and Light Industrial Proposed Zoning: B2 District — 59.64± acres M1 District — 77.23± acres 136.87± acres Proposed Build Out 1.4 million square feet maximum 2 Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The commercial and industrial land uses proposed for this rezoning application are in conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan 2003 Northeast land Use Plan. This plan recommends commercial and industrial development as future land use within the Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike. 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE A rr`Pc c The 136.87± acre subject site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11). The subject site has approximately 2,000 feet of road frontage along Martinsburg Pike and the proximity of the subject site to Interstate 81Exit 317 enables vehicular traffic to quickly access the interstate for northbound and southbound travel. The location of the Norfolk Southern and Winchester and Western Railroads within the subject site increases opportunities for rail service for the northern portion of the site. A Public Improvement Plan has been prepared to reflect the proffered road improvements planned during the original rezoning for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park (Rezoning Application #07-01). This Public Improvements Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Applicants are currently working with VDOT to obtain the necessary land use permits to construct these planned improvements. Floodplains The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP Map #510063-0105B. The majority of the site is located as "Zone C", area outside the 100 -year floodplain. Approximately 28.3 acres located in the northern portion of the site is identified as floodplain. The proposed Master Development Plan for Rutherford Crossing limits development within the floodplain area to stormwater management, utilities and future road construction. Disturbance within the floodplain area will comply with all applicable state and local permitting requirements following Master Development Plan approval. 3 Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 Wetlands A wetlands delineation study was prepared for the 136.87± acre site by Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. on July 30, 2002 with revisions dated November 15, 2002. The results of this study indicated that no wetlands exist on the subject site. The soil types on the property are well drained with predominantly moderately sloping terrain that do not retain wetland characteristics. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineering issued Jurisdictional Determination Letter 02-BO133 on March 5, 2003 verifying that no regulated waters and/or wetlands exist on the subject site. Steep Slopes There are no areas of steep slopes within the 136.87± acre site. All slopes within the subject site are gradual ranging from 2-7% slopes with well -drained soils into Hiatt Run. Soil Types The 136.87± acre subject site contains eight soil types as evident from the Soil Survey of Fredrick County, sheet number 24, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service and the Frederick County GIS Database. These soil types are as follows: 5B -Carbo Silt Loam 2 — 7% slope 6C -Carbo Oaklet Silt Loam, very rocky 2 — 15% slope 7C -Carbo Oaklet, rock outcrop complex 2 —15% slope 14B -Fredrick Poplimento Loams 2 —7% slope 16B -Fredrick Poplimento Loams, very rocky 2 —7% slope 16C -Fredrick Poplimento Loams, very rocky 7 —15% slope 17C -Fredrick Poplimento, rock outcrop complex 2 —15% slope 32B-Oaklet Silt Loam, 2 —7% slope Table 5 on page 123 of the Soil Survey of Fredrick Count identifies soil types 5B -Carbo Silt Loam, 14B -Fredrick Poplimento — Loam, and 32B-Oaklet Silt Loam as prime agricultural soils. All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without fertilization, liming, and soil management. Portions of the property contain rock out crops however; all of the soils are suitable for agricultural use such as hay, pastures, and orchards. 4 Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining_propgAy zoning and present use: North: Zoned M2, General Industrial District Zoned M1, Light Industrial District Zoned RP, Residential Performance District Zoned RA, Rural Areas District South: Zoned RP, Residential Performance District M1, Light Industrial District East: Zoned RP, Residential Performance District RA, Rural Area District Use: Heavy Commercial & Warehouse Use: FEMA Office Use: Residential Use: Commercial Nursery & Residential Use: Residential Use: Trucking & Residential Use: Residential Use:Residential& Agriculture West: Zoned B2, Business General District Use: Commercial B3, Industrial Transition District Use: Commercial M1, Light Industrial District Use: Commercial & Rail RP, Residential Performance District Use: Residential RA, Rural Areas District Use: Residential & Church C. TRANSPORTATION The subject site was originally zoned M1, light Industrial District B3, Industrial Transition District and B2, Business General District as a component of Rezoning Application #07-01. A detailed traffic impact analysis (TIA) was submitted and approved with the original rezoning application. The original TIA recommended improvements to the Martinsburg Pike (Rte 11 North) corridor and recommended traffic signalization at the Interstate 81 southbound on and off ramps. Subsequent to the approval of the original rezoning application, Greenway Engineering prepared a Public Improvement Plan for the proffered improvements to the Martinsburg Pike corridor, which has been approved by VDOT. The Applicants are currently working with VDOT to obtain the permits necessary to begin construction of these improvements. The proposed rezoning application calls for a modification to the existing zoning districts that will convert 22.45± acres of B3, Industrial Transition District and 8.55± acres of MI, Light Industrial District to B2, Business General District. A new traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared to reflect this conversion, which is included with this rezoning application. 5 Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 A detailed traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the rezoning application by PHR&A dated September 7, 2006. The TIA models the 136.87± acre subject site at three site driveway intersection points on Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11) and at the intersections of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761), Red Bud Road (Route 661) and Welltown Road (Route 661) with Martinsburg Pike, as well as the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound and southbound on and off ramps. The TIA provides analysis for two alternative conditions associated with the development of this site. The first condition assumes this development of a major retail center and industrial land use within the proposed M1, Light Industrial District and B2, Business General District acreages. The second condition assumes the development of a major retail center, office and industrial land uses, within the existing M1, Light Industrial District, B3, Industrial Transition District and B2, General Business District acreages. The TIA provides information for both alternative conditions including existing lane geometry and levels of service at the identified intersections for AM and PM peak hour traffic, background traffic impacts associated with the FEMA Office site, the phase one buildout of Stephenson Village, the phase one buildout of the Semples Property, and the buildout of the Clearbrook Properties, as well as a traffic growth rate of 5% per year compounded annually for all identified street systems. The TIA demonstrates a reduction in average daily traffic volume of approximately 2,200 vehicle trips for the proposed Rutherford Crossing development. The current by -right zoning is projected to generate 28,859 ADT, while the proposed zoning is projected to generate 26;652 ADT. The background lane geometry and levels of service demonstrate failing levels of service at the Martinsburg Pike/Redbud Run/Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on ramp intersection, at the Martinsburg Pike/Old Charles Town Road intersection, at the Martinsburg Pike/Welltown Road intersection, and at the Martinsburg Pike/Interstate 81 Exit 317 southbound on and off ramps intersection. The TIA provides for suggested improvements that bring the identified intersections to acceptable levels of service or improve the levels of service experienced by background traffic impacts. The Applicants have utilized the information in the TIA to develop the Transportation Enhancements Section of the proposed Proffer Statement. The following improvements to the regional transportation system are proffered for the Rutherford Crossing development: ➢ Widening of Martinsburg Pike to establish dual northbound and southbound travel lanes ➢ Construction of dual left turn lanes on Martinsburg Pike into the primary site entrance (Site Driveway #2 in the TIA) ➢ Construction of a third southbound lane on Martinsburg Pike from the primary site entrance to the existing Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound turn lane ➢ Construction of dual left turn lanes and a separate right turn lane for the primary site entrance (Site Driveway #2 in the TIA) ➢ Construction of a two entrances that provide for right-in/right-out movement only ➢ Fully funded traffic signalization at the primary site entrance (Site Driveway #2 in the TIA) C Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 ➢ Fully funded traffic signalization at the Martinsburg Pike/Interstate 81 Exit 317 southbound on and off ramp intersection ➢ Fully funded traffic signalization at the Martinsburg Pike/Redbud Run/Interstate. 81 Exit 317 northbound on ramp intersection ➢ Provision of a signalization timing analysis for all existing and proposed traffic signals along Martinsburg Pike between the primary site entrance and Crown Lane ➢ Provision of right of way along Martinsburg Pike ➢ Provision of right of way along Interstate 81 ➢ Construction of the internal major collector road to provide connectivity and access to the FEMA Office site. ➢ Monetary contribution of $250,000.00 towards off-site regional transportation improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor that can be utilized as matching funds for federal or state grants. The transportation enhancements proffered by the Applicants provides for entrances into Rutherford Crossing from Martinsburg Pike that function at acceptable levels of service, and provides for improvements to the regional transportation system that significantly improve failing levels of service from background traffic impacts to acceptable levels of service and improved levels of service. Therefore, the Rutherford Crossing development mitigates transportation impacts associated with the proposed on-site development and provides solutions to assist in the mitigation of background traffic impacts to the regional transportation system. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The 136.87± -acre subject property is located within the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). There is a newly constructed 8" sanitary sewer force main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad that traverses the subject property. A regional pump station has been designed for the Rutherford Crossing development with a design capacity of 120,000 gpd that will serve the entire project. The design and installation of the regional pump station is paid for by the Applicants and will be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for ownership and maintenance. Based on comparable discharge patterns, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that 500 gallons/day per acre is a reasonable projection for estimating the sewer impact for commercial and industrial development. The following information projects the impact for public sewer on the subject site: Q = 500 gallons/day/acre Q = 500 gpd x 136.87± acres Q = 68,435 gpd 7 Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 The proposed commercial center is projected to add 68,435 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant (OWTP). This projection is conservative, as approximately 28 acres of the subject site is located within floodplain area, which will not have structural development. The design capacity of the treatment plant is 8.4 million gallons per day, of which approximately 6.4 is currently being utilized. The total build -out of the proffered commercial land uses would require approximately 3.4% of the available capacity at the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant; therefore, adequate capacity is available for this development. E. WATER SUPPLY The 136.87± acre subject property is located within the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). There is an existing 10" water main located on the east side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and a newly constructed 20" water main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad that traverses the subject site. All land uses located within the Rutherford Crossing development will be connected to the public water system. The design and installation of the water system infrastructure will meet FCSA standards, will be paid for by the Applicants and will be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for ownership and maintenance. Based on existing water consumption patterns, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that a 1,000 gallons/day per acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the water impact projection for commercial and industrial development. The following information projects the impact for public water consumption on the subject site: Q = 1,000 gallons/day /acre Q = 1,OOOgpd X 136.87± acres Q = 136,870 gpd The Rutherford Crossing development will utilize an estimated 136,870 gallons of water per day. This projection is conservative, as approximately 28 acres of the subject site is located within floodplain area, which will not have structural development. The Northern Water Treatment Plant currently provides 2.0 MGD of potable water from the Global Chemstone Quarry as one of the water sources contributing to the new 20 -inch water main. The projected water usage for the build -out of the proffered commercial land uses would require approximately 6.8% percent of the available water source; therefore, adequate capacity is available for this development. : Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 F. DRAINAGE The 136.87± subject site gently slopes to the northeast, which directs stormwater into Hiatt Run that flows from the northern boundary to the east and off site. Greenway Engineering prepared a peak flow quantity drainage analysis dated May 22, 2006 that is included as information with the Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Application. The peak flow quantity analysis evaluated the entire project site assuming an 80% impervious condition for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year storm events. The results of this study indicate that the increase in drainage based on post development build out conditions can be accommodated by the Hiatt Run channel. Additionally, the study results indicate that downstream flows will not be significantly impacted for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 - year storm events, as the increased runoff does not raise the elevation in the channel for all storm events. Stormwater will be directed to the adequate channel through storm pipes and lined open channels to protect groundwater due to the karst geology within this area of the County. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual commercial consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of structural area (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4"' edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on a maximum development of 1,400,000 square -feet of land use that has been proffered by the Applicants: AAV = 5.4 cu. yd. per 1,000 sq. ft. commercial AAV = 5.4 cu. yd. X 1,400 (1,000 sq. ft.) AAV = 7,560 cu. yd. at build -out, or 5,292 tons/yr at build -out The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The maximum development of Rutherford Crossing will generate approximately 5,292 tons of solid waste annually on average. This represents a 2.6% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year. Solid waste produced by Rutherford Crossing will be routed to the Regional Landfill by a commercial waste hauler; therefore, the County will receive tipping fees associated with this land use to mitigate this impact. Additionally, the Applicants' proffer statement provides for a coordinated recycling program with the County for all industrial projects within Rutherford Crossing to reduce the projected solid waste impacts to the Regional Landfill. The Regional Landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate the solid waste impacts associated with this proposal, and the Rutherford Crossing development will generate revenue for the landfill to further mitigate these impacts. I Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES 1. Virizinia Historic Landmark Commission Rutherford's Farm #34-727 is identified in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey as a potentially significant property. All that remains of the former house is a set of concrete steps that lead from Martinsburg Pike up to the site of the former house. There is a historical marker south of the site on Martinsburg Pike. Landmark records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 2. Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Archeological Sites One archeological site is noted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. It is a raised berm allowing access to opposite side of rail lines. However, it is abandoned and no loner in use. This site does not exhibit features that suggest eligibility for National Register consideration. Records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 3. Civil War Battlefields The National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley identifies the entire subject site as being with the Second Winchester Battlefield area; however, the study does not identify the subject site as being located within core battlefield area, while the Frederick County GIS database identifies the subject site within the defined area of Stephenson's Depot. The National Park Service Study identifies the subject site as having both retained integrity and lost integrity. The portion of the site identified as retained integrity is currently zoned for both commercial and industrial development. The Historic Resource Advisory Board (HRAB) reviewed Rezoning Application #07-01 on July 17, 2001. The Applicants incorporated a Historic Resource section into the original proffer statement to provide for three interpretative signs. The proposed proffer statement provides for the three interpretative signs and also provides for landscaping and picnic tables to enhance the interpretative sign viewing area. I. COMMUNITY SERVICES IMPACTS The Rutherford Crossing development provides a net positive fiscal impact in revenue to the County. Impacts to emergency services were recognized during the consideration of Rezoning Application #07-01 and the Applicants provided a $10,000.00 monetary contribution for fire and rescue services in the original proffer statement. A $10,000.00 payment was made to the Frederick County Planning Department cn July 20, 2006 to satisfy the proffered condition. Therefore, the monetary contribution section has been eliminated from the proposed proffer statement as this condition has been satisfied. No additional impacts to community services are anticipated for this rezoning proposal. 10 Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: NV Retail 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500 Vienna, VA 22102 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 H"A+Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2711 PF 304.264.3671 September 7, 2006 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this report to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Rutherford Crossing to be located along Route 11, northwest of the intersection of the Route 11/1-81 northbound on ramp, in Frederick County, Virginia. PHR+A has provided analysis for two alternative conditions: Scenario A assumes the build -out of the proposed development to include 215,000 square feet of industrial park, a 117,000 square foot home improvement store, a 127,000 square foot discount store, 187,147 square feet of specialty retail, 4,500 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru, a 4,800 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 5,000 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 5,500 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 7,200 square foot high turn over restaurant and a 4,100 square foot bank. Scenario B assumes the build -out of the "approved" by -right development to include 325,000 square feet of industrial park, a 117,000 square foot home improvement store, a 127,000 square foot discount store, 245,842 square feet of office, a 4,500 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru, a 4,800 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru, four (4) 5,500 square foot high turn over restaurants, a 7,200 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 4,100 square foot bank and 4,500 square feet of convenience mart with pumps. Access is to be provided via three (3) site -driveways along the west side of Route 11, of which two secondary site -driveways will be right in/out. PHR+A has performed traffic analyses for existing, 2010 background (without development) and 2010 build -out (with development) conditions. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Rutherford Crossing development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. METHODOLOGY The traffic impacts accompanying the proposed 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 Rutherford Crossing, • Distribution and assignment of Rutherford Crossing generated trips onto the completed road network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service with the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS+, for existing and future conditions. A TraTic Impact Analysis ofthe Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 146-1-0H Page I No Scale Figure 1 Vicinity Map - Rutherford Crossing in Frederick County, Virginia PHRn A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 2 SHE SHE.� I j l � Y to 1 UL 44 Figure 1 Vicinity Map - Rutherford Crossing in Frederick County, Virginia PHRn A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 11/Welltown Road, Route 11/1-81 southbound ramps, Route 11/ I-81 northbound off ramp, Route 11/1-81 northbound on ramp/Redbud Road and Route 11/Old Charlestown Road. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10%. Figure 2 shows the ADT and AMlPM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ level of service worksheets are included'in the Appendix section of this report. A Trak Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing P-�_ n September 7, 2006 H 1 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 3 Page 3 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak I A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 R+A Project Number: 14626-1-0PH Page 4 No Scale Unsignalized 11 Intersection T� 4 Q Old C(C)s Charles To Wn ROad Signalized Intersection LOS = BOB) $lel I ,f IF 17 _ a fti O d A O 11 C�, Unsignalized Unsignalized Intersection Intersection ` V GIGI 11 # ICIB 0 a b IGIG h �rCj d�A Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) -rR+A Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and LOS A Trak Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006R+A Project Number: 14626-1 -0 Page 5 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to establish the 2010 base conditions, PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) using a conservative growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually). Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Note: Access is to be provided for FEMA and the Lumber Yard via the proposed site -driveways serving Rutherford Crossing. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Trak Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing P006 HP September 7, -1-0 Project Number: i46Page 6 Page 6 Table 1 2010 Background Developments Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Clearbrook Properties 120 GA Heavy Industrial 120,000 SF 54 7 61 3 20 23 180 932 H -T Restaurant 8,000 SF 48 44 92 53 34 87 1,017 Total 102 52 153 56 54 110 1,197 Other Developments * 730 FEMA 350 employees 190 24 214 86 191 277 2,713 812 Building/Lumber Store 15,000 SF 26 13 39 33 37 70 639 Total 216 37 253 119 228 347 3,352 Stephenson Village ** 210 Single -Family Detached 429 units 77 232 310 255 144 399 4,290 220 Apartment 240 units 20 103 123 100 49 149 1,573 230 Townhouse/Condo 390 units 26 125 150 127 62 189 3,393 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 266 units 29 51 80 78 44 123 1,064 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 72 units 3 2 5 4 3 7 251 Total 155 513 667 564 302 866 10,570 Sempeles Property *** 130 :Industrial Park 898,425 SF 459 101 559 154 580 734 5,204 820 Retail 73,500 SF 79 51 130 245 266 511 5,559 Total 538 152 689 399 846 1,245 10,763 T access to oe provided via the proposed Rutherford Crossing site -driveway ** Assumed Phase 1 build -out for Year 2010 *** Assumed 75% build -out for Year 2010 Pk -R -+A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Ruther{ord Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 7 PHR/� A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 8 ' Signalized Intersection f os, LOS = C(C) Sir l � n Signalized 1 Intersection Unsignalized LOS = E(F) Intersection t' C,00 w ✓���� J1*1.k t t s�C Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS —E EB-2Left (� WB -I Left, l Right NB - I Left Ftpp 3 J- -I -- Figure 5 Unsignalized Intersection �� "NewT Intersection'. 4 F(�* No Scale Old C Site � harles Tem SITE Wight, o Road oty Signalized "Suggested "New - Improvemco ts" Intersection" S Intersection Signalization LOS = QQ NB - I Rig: t Signalized Sitet��� Intersection ryve`c U� LOS =B(B) s. � fjjj h �Aq \� lj Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS = C(C).00 Signalization d - J rc`Gl „ ss GIG '7,�i�a'o A IN ters"ew -I Inection" Unsignalized 000 Intersection T AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) '�­Denotes Free -Flow Movement 2010 Background Lane Geometry and LOS Pi A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Cr, 2006 September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 146Page 9 Page 9 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 71h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2a and Table 2b are provided below to summarize the trip generation associated with the proposed Rutherford Crossing for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Table 2c shows a comparison of the two (2) scenarios. Table 2a Proposed Development: Rutherford Crossing Scenario A: Trip Generation Summary (Proposed Development) Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 130 Industrial Park 215,000 SF 152 33 186 44 164 208 1,814 862 Home Impr. Superstore 117,000 SF 76 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 814 Specialty Retail 187,147 SF 139 89 228 207 264 471 8,044 932 H -T Restaurant 5,000 SF 30 28 58 33 21 55 636 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,500 SF 122 117 239 81 75 156 2,233 932 II -T Restaurant 4,800 SF 29 27 55 32 20 52 610 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 40 83 48 31 79 915 912 Drive-in Bank 4,100 SF 28 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 932 H -T Restaurant Total Tris 725 485 1,210 1,031 1,165 2,197 26,652 Table 2b Proposed Development: Rutherford Crossing Scenario R: Trin Generation Summary ("Approved" By -right Development) Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ART 130 Industrial Park 325,000 SF 210 46 256 61 231 292 2,360 710 Office 245,842 SF 339 46 385 60 294 354 2,667 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 862 Home Impr. Superstore 117,000 SF 76 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,800 SF 130 125 255 86 80 166 2,381 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,500 SF 122 117 239 81 75 156 2,233 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 40 83 48 31 79 915 912 Drive-in Bank 4,100 SF 28 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 853 Conven. Mart w\pumps 4,500 SF 103 103 205 136 136 273 3,805 Total Tris 1,255 719 1,974 1,170 1,507 2,677 28,859 Table 2c Trip Generation Comparison: Proposed versus "Approved" By -Right Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour In Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Per Table 2a Total 725 485 1,210 1,031 1,165 21197 26,652 Per Table 2b Total 1,255 719 1,974 1,170 1,507 2,677 28,859 Proposed versus Approved" By -Right -530 -234 -764 -138 -342 -480 -2207 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing PH" September 7, -1-0 006 Page 10 Project Number: 14 Page 10 2010 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Rutherford Crossing site. Figures 7a and 7b show the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Rutherford Crossing assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were then added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossinz Pt _�_n September 7, -1-0 1 Project Number: 14Page I 0 Page 11 so Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentage A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing P006 HP September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 14Page 10 Page 12 Figure 7a Scenario A: Development -Generated Trip Assignment (Proposed Development) ATra(fclmpactAnalysisofthe RutherCrossing RASeptember 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 PH Page 13 G, ry0 P 1 No Scale ,�l5tial ota�72(l03) les Roan O'd v0°rO�/ q W " 56'Il�g9 � a SITE y oti (g6�J9ys� � �rIZO e,�3 1 ry1� ii (291)121� I"�Oor � p ��� Oo/� Only (S8)2q `titi A O � 11 a � o h 2 a. b til l�0 l9 ,&C O- i J 1 � *,00 .a v S 13p91v,1 00'.#�0:1. �Jh ,,gyp AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 7a Scenario A: Development -Generated Trip Assignment (Proposed Development) ATra(fclmpactAnalysisofthe RutherCrossing RASeptember 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 PH Page 13 Figure 7b Scenario B: Development -Generated Trip Assignment (By -right Development) A TraklmpactAnalysis ofthe Rutherford Crossing P006 tPA- September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 14Page 14 Page 14 1� t` No Scale 3y 416$1 4 tdr` 125(1j7) :: les To Road 1645169 Y 1, y ^` po Z SIT S„emstke�ryry"p •, r6 -o, 92 44#10 y� 3l I20 a`Ohy W q •.s (377),, so s �g/rtDn4e1 7 moat Daly 1 �0 V) 11 � h a- n, 3 r� 0 z z *,00 sl 135i1��6'~ � � ■ s� tibl J I'L s �C', l5`'113�6 00,14 a� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 7b Scenario B: Development -Generated Trip Assignment (By -right Development) A TraklmpactAnalysis ofthe Rutherford Crossing P006 tPA- September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 14Page 14 Page 14 11 n1 / ti� / No Scale alti�$91 °tSS s20 88) �V 1 Charter Town Sieh , I Road ■%� hrg/it J� ou o ��q� ■ n/y ` ,, 11 `tioA9l y N � o N h1 hc� L oo 0 `rpt qp ^oH �e z SITE /z (ss�2o9�`♦► nZ y b (355)732 a tih 11 e o2 a 4 ly C4 (63)25 l �I v� o 0 1 q C l6 v l srj Pd$o a �69 0 , �� S)r�J9JJ �b�l ltip3tiS a19�00~ qtr rn oOOo $6Slti�8l 11 1a�1113 1 � `,%' N JoySLAT 11 l l v '001�9 rY JIL a l�bb�gsl65a'~ ,�q'1P AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 8a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Proposed Development) A Trac Impact Analysis of the Ruther/ord Crossing September 7, 2006 H Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 15 i !b No Scale gatil i oar` 5(4 26) 2) Charles Town Road h r lL�rlrr?�n o ryry�tiN ti51�go,� , y z �... SITE S'redn yez ��yq�` 04t Ory (441)190 ti�ur �4l nq 1� �y1 b W � C4 w o N o *4000 ly9Al6n v ��N3 ltd ° a sB z .qal s�or , J * ,bA 1,���1 aAo� rv�JJ 1��61�1 1 �1� u �Sl�tig6l ,t �5161;5,66 N N J c 0 19�p�A651 1 � hg6al �gal� J 1 Lam`/ b a 5� 00w# s 0)", 4.65a~ �0>1 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) ,T/ A MEMMEMMMEM 1 LsPT T.1 T Figure 8b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (By -right Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis ojthe Rutherford Crossing R+ASeptember 7, Project Number:14626-1-0PH Page 16 I Signalized Intersection �:Vk-c- LOS = C(D) r „ C, c x .. w 0 Signalized 1 Intersection Unsignalized LOS = F(F) Intersection � Okv) �S w o Signalized 'suggested InterSCCtIOn Improvements" EB-2Left LOS —D - WB - I Left, 1 Right NB - I Left tip ZA 3 o �✓ 9�Sd t „ A�� T Unsignalized Intprsertion "New Intersection" SITE1Lg�r�nvewa fi Only "New Intersection". Signalized Si Intersection LOS = C(C) ways? ll a 204�k �j l t ' Intersection"- - Signalized ^snggestea Intersection Improvements" LOS = D(E) Signalization t $HCl* U"signalized Intersection ��j ,�T ; '1► a G� P �F(F)* JO,Id Charles Tc I' IRC No Scale Signalized I mpSrove"uggested ments I" IntersectionSignalization LOS' _ C(C) Left Right G�- /� C(D) N AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) ' Denotes Free—Flow Movement Figure 9a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Proposed Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing 006 R+A September 7, Project Number: 14626-1 -0 Page 17 Signalized Intersection $l�� LOS = C(D) �*OAF n Signalized 1 Intersection Unsignalized LOS = F(F) Intersection P� *A,00J�` t Signalized` "Suggested InterSeCtlon Improvements" LOS —E EB -2 Left WB - 1 Left, I Right ,d NB - I Left 0 1 ti�d��J Unsignalized Tutrrcertion "New Intersection" Sire O n e R�ghrn/O H2On1'I ��� SITE .,New:: Intersection" S�le'd U` Signalized nL Intersection e4a2 I LOS = C(C) s. ��,c •�, f3 ��f LNkay G �L l 'New Intersection', tz:—, c�cl 000 a Unsignalized Intersection b a Signalized Snggeve:ted Intersection Improments" LOS = D(E) Sigoalizatioo t No Scale Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS C(I)) Signalizatioo = 00000 ria 1 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) `Denotes Free -Flow Movement Figure 9b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (By -right Development) A Trak Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing PH R+A September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 18 CONCLUSION Assuming the roadway configurations shown in Figures 9a and 9b for Scenarios A and B, respectively, the proposed signalized intersection of Site -Driveway #2/Route 11 will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. Although some of the off-site intersections will operate with levels of service below "C"; the proposed "suggested improvements" of signalization/synchronization of the Route 11/I- 81 interchange intersections would significantly improve levels of service as well as traffic flow through this Route 11 corridor. PHR+A has provided Table 3 to summarize the benefits of the "suggested improvements" shown on Figures 9a and 9b, respectively. It is to be noted that the impacts of the proposed development (Scenario A) would be less than that of the "approved" by -right development (Scenario B) during 2010 build -out conditions. Table 3 LVJ AtA) = LVJ 1UMtYM) A Tra ffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing P -R + n September 7, -1-0 H�1 1 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 19 Suggested Levels of Service No. Intersection Direction Improvements Scenario A Scenario B (Scenarios A & B) w/o improvements w/ Improvements_ w/o Improvements w/ Improvements 1 Route 11/1-81 SB ramps Eastbound Westbound Northbound Signalization LOS F(F) LOS D(E) LOS F(F) LOS D(E) Southbound 2 Route I1/1-81 NB Offramp Eastbound ` Westbound Northbound — LOS C(D) LOS C(D) Southbound 3 Route I I /Redbud Road/NB Eastbound On ramp Westbound Northbound Signalization LOS F(F) LOS C(D) LOS F(F) LOS C(D) Southbound 4 Route I1/Charlestown Row Eastbound - N/A Westbound 1 left tum lane Northbound - I right tum lane LOS F(F) LOS C(C) LOS F(F) LOS C(D) Southbound Signalization 5 Route 1 I/Welltown Road Eastbound - 2 left tum lane Westbound 1 left, 1 right tum lane Northbound - 1 left tum LOS F(F) LOS D(F) LOS F(F) LOS E(F) Southbound LVJ AtA) = LVJ 1UMtYM) A Tra ffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing P -R + n September 7, -1-0 H�1 1 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 19 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff' Fee Amount Paid Zoning Amendment Number Date Receive PC Hearing Date i BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numDivbers may North Kenrom the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Street, Winchester. 1, Applicant: Name: Greenway gineerin Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Address: 151 Wind Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different from above) Please refer to attached Property Owner Information List Name: Telephone: Address: 3, Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt, AICP Telephone:540 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. ® Agency Comments Location map Plat Fees Deed to Property Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement 5. The Code of Vir i nia 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: Rutherford Farm, LLC Virginia Apple Stora e C Robert Solenberger John S Scully, IV John B. Schroth 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: Residential & Unimproved Retail Center2, Office & Industrial * Please refer to attached Adjoining Property Owner Table g. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection 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 plamiing staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location ((A))-99 & 43-((A))-100 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service Stonewall Clear Brook Clear Brook Parcel Identification Number 43-((A))-98. 43 - 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 Zoning Zoning Requested 22.45± B3 District B2 District 8.55± M1 District B2 District 31.0± Total Acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other * Note: The Applicants Proffer Statement limits structural development to 1,400,000 square feet for the 136.87± acre site Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully to eamend the zoning ion petition t the change Frederick County Board of Supervisors 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 bet of my (our) knowledge. Date: Applicant(s): _Lj �� Property Owner Information List Rutherford Farm, LLC William Lauer and Jack Waghorn 8230 Leesburg Pike Suite 500 Vienna, VA 22182 (703) 448-4307 Virginia Apple Storage C. Robert Solenberger P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 667-3390 C. Robert Solenberger P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 667-3390 John S. Scully, N 112 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 662-0323 John B. Schroth 112 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 662-0323 Rutherford Crossing Adjoining Property Owners Data Source: Frederick County, Va. F 'artment 2006 data Adjoining. Property i is 11/8/2006 IADDRESS ICITY-STATE ZIP ACREAGE ZONING LAND USE DEED BOOK DEED BK.PAGE INST. YEAR INST. NUMBER TAX MAP NUMBER NAME NAME 2 283 EBERT RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 59.48 M2 4 0 2005 28600 43 A 85 C CLAN, LLC 283 EVERT RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 11.58 M2 4 0 2005 211 43 A 84 43 A 90C C CLAN, LLC LEDFORD, WILLIAM M & ALICE C 149 PARSON CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603 3.00 RA 2 0 2001 11990 0 43 A 1128 DEHAVEN NURSERY, INC 2077 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 8.64 RA 2 855 1563 0 0 0 43 A 94 MOULDEN, HOWARD K, 490 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.45 RA 2 442 347 0 2004 17164 3 A 111 SOLENBERGER, C ROBERT ETALS 112 N CAMERON ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601 21.00 Mt 5 2 0 2005 1076 1!4 43 A 95 WEBBER, BEVERLEY L WEBBER, JOYCE A TRUSTEES 484 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 1.64 RA 0 0 43 A 112A HAVEN, CHARLES STUART 2073 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 3.77 RP 2 St4 784 0 0 438 8 11A FLOW ERS, MARYA 456 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.14 RP 2 659 41.0 293 0 0 430 8 9 BLYE, MICHAEL 337 N LOUDOUN ST APT 3 WINCHESTER, VA 22601 0.40 RP 2 663 830 179843 43B & 8 MORGAN, RONA 438 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 Q50 RP 2 604 0 0438 A 710 a&ROSEM4AERIEA RIDDICK, THOMA 2045 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER,VA. 22603 2.91 RP 2 345 0 0 0 8 18 PARSONS, JAME 390 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0:00 RP 2 473 0 0 438 8 22 ELLIOTT, BARBA 6175 E PEABODY ST LONG BEACH, CA 90808 0,81 RP 2 4 274 778 645 0 0 43 A 56 K & J INVESTMENTS 7800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 11:25 Mt 0 0 43 A 133 HART, ROBERT A. & ALICE C. 2024 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.50 RP 2 373 661 0 2003 16388 43 A 109 MERRYMAN, SCOTT E & LINDA M 1995 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 1,10 RP 2 0 0 43 A 134 WILLIAMSON, LINWOOD R. 2014 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 1.33 RP 83 2 2 519 485 0 2004 19262 43. A 98 VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE, INC 1955 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22601 28.38 0 2001 120 43 A 108 NETHERS, PATRICIA S 915 W ELLTOWN PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 1.50 RP 2 919 635 0 0 43 A 1346 PIFER, WILLIAM PO ROX 725 WINCHESTER,VA 22604 0.00 RP RP 2 2 896 708 0 0 43 A 107 MCQUAIN, CLJFFORD D & ETALS 1957 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 1.75 535 294 0 0 43 A 106 LEE, RONALD A & MARY C - 1947 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.87 RP 2 0 0 0 43 A 105 RISSLER, THOMAS W. & MARY L. 1937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 1.00 RP 2 668 112 0 O 43C 1 D. MOORE, MICHAEL A 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.19 RP 2 0 0 0 43C 1 C 43 A 140 WEBER, MICHAEL S. 937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 0 22601 0.00 34-50 RA 5 673 623 0 0 0 7005 43C 1 B BML, LC 112 LAUNCHRIS DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 0.20 RP 2 970 359 0 0 43G 1 A MESSICK, ROY R.& NANCY L. 1897 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 0.87 RP 2 460 0 644 0 0 43C 2 3 FITZWATER, COURTNEY L. SR. 1876 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 0.66 RP 2 0 43 A . 528 W ILSON, DIEHL F JR & DEBORAH L 121 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603 2.40 63 4 849 499 17943C 43C 2 2 CURTIS, ELIZABETH DAWN 1864 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.34 RP 2 907 043 2 1 BAKER, R. WAYNE & IMOGENE A. 1854 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 0.65 RP 2. 1?K2 A 147 NORTHsi EPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 2260383 RP 2 668 2243 A 149 DEHAVEN, THOMAS H 1840 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.. RP43 0 2005 243 A 100 RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC C/O TETRA PARTNERSHIP 11450 DARON CAMERON AVE RESTON,VA 20190 51.12 B2 2 A 52 I-81 MINI STORAGE, LLC 127 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER,VA 22603 3.83 601 0 0 43 A 151A INORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 11800 MARTINSBURG PIKE IWINCHESTER, VA. 22603 7.44 M7 4 621 1 806 O 0 43C 3 2 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 11800 MARTINSBURG PIKE IWINCHESTER,VA. 22603 0.57 Mt 2 704 863 1319 0 0 43C 3 3 K & J INVESTMENTS, LC 7800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.57 M7 2 0 0 43C 3 4 . NORTH STEPHENSIROBERT 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.06 Ml 2 707 9 0 0 43C 3 5 NORTH STEPHENS. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE W INCHES7ER, VA 22603 0,57 M7 2 701 9 0 2001 12048 43 A 520 WINCHESTER NOR 1323 JAMESTOWN RD, STE 101 WILLIAMSBURG, VA 23165 2.18 B2 4 0 0 43C 3 6 SANDY, WILLIAM E. 1744 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 0.71 RP 2 305 59 0 0 43C 3 7 43C 3 7A NORTH STEPHENS. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 0 22603 0.00 0.71 M1 Z 688 0 832 0 0 0 0 43C 3 8 43C 3 SA LYONS, CAROL R8LD S 1550 TIFFANY RANCH RD ARROYO GRANDE, CA 0 93420 0.00 0.00 RP 2 0 0 2004 632 43C 3 9 LYONS, CAROL R &LD S 1550 TIFFANY RANCH RD ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 0.00 RP 2' 0 2004 632 0 43 A 50A BRENTWOOD INVET COMPANY 1323 JAMESTOW N RD STE 101 WILLIAMSBURG, VA 23185 3.38 B2 4 909 1506 0 0 2004 1716443 43 A 99 SOLENBERGER, C T ETALS 112 N CAMERON ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601 56.87 M1B2 6 0 2005 9792 A 151 K &.J INVESTMENT 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 28.07 M7 5 1551 0 0 431.50 K & J INVESTMENT 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 2.34 807 0 9 43 A 90 TRUSTEES OF THEOLIC UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 189 PARSON CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603 7.48 RA 74 950 7372 Land Use codes; 2 ISIngle Family Residential. Suburban 4 Commercial & Industrial 5 A ricultural/Undeveloped 100+ Acres 6 Agricultural/Undeveloped 20-100 Acres 74 Religious Data Source: Frederick County, Va. F 'artment 2006 data Adjoining. Property i is 11/8/2006 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Virginia Apple Storage Inc (Phone) (540) 667-4273 (Address) PO Box 3103 Winchester, VA 22604 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 No. 040011262 on Page and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 98 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 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 application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. A' In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day o1q, r, 200Ao� Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/ ount ofQeOTo-wit: a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, pers nally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this if day of&/J _' f204-- 'cs CammiSS c � eSS)ca H' WJ My Commission Expires--W►beY ;�� Notary Publi Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) C. Robert Solenberger (Phone) (540) 667-3390 (Address) PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 y deed recorded in the the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conve ed to me (us), by Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 040017164 on Page and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 y lace and stead with full ower and To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in m (our) name, p P authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: 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 of2001n , Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/ ount ofI'o-wit: a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction, aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this -_ day oft 200-. l e C'cnmifA u 1 e`15icu 1111 My Commission Expires: lV�4 Notary Publi Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va. Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) John S. Scull (Phone) (540) 662-0323 (Address) 112 North Cameron Street, 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 Instrument No. 040017164 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 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 application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness theme;] -(-we) ho"creto M my/ur) nd seal this RM day of -Lto-�L, 200 (r.5 Signature(s) State of Virginia, I, IbnCVf, i.- *115Pa Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this � day of66P4200 (a Lh;, ,-el��J My Commission Expires: Fe (066- u 7-P, Z $ Notary Public Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) John B. Schroth (Phone) (540) 662-0323 (Address) 112 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 the owners) 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 No. 0400t7164 on Page and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 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 application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: 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 Signature(s) (our) hand and seal this __ day of �b.,"�{200 (�, State of Virginia, Cit Count ofG IClao-wit: I,hOoyb L_NIe-615D , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this _&Lk- day of1b�mw00 r�_1;,a IRp�My Commission Expires: Felq✓z,, Notary Public Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Rutherford Farm, LLC (Phone) (703) 448-4307 (Address) 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Vienna, VA 22182 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 No. 050006702 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 100 Block: A Section: _ do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Enizineering Subdivision: (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 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 application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: 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 hgeto set my (our) hand and seal this day ofTS64-6 , 200J Signature(s) State of Virginia, Cit Count f�(R9iy(cTo-wit: I, Lbyiye- - *IiSD a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has ac owledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this �i day of�eglk{200 (o OI �' My Commission Expires: F(-Jon)gk 2Q2y-'08 Notary Public 060018810 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA JUNE 13, 2006 REVISED: AUGUST 31, 2006 r e, R( C 9 STONEWALL3 '`::: ;,::' :..�°t Y INDUSTRIAL 0 o ¢ ��.:J � PARK �i`� G Rood 5 / TE D Gi �• ��� d EXIT i p\ �� 317 GS" VICINITY MAP 1" = 2000' OWNERS CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULL Y, IV, AS APPEARS ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLATS, IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCO)?DANIW WIT E DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, A IF NY �• /1i .S COMMONW LTH OF/VIRGINIA, ` n_ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA y TOl'WIT.' CITY1goUttly OF 4-),ry,2�i�. TO WIT.' CI7Y/GOUMil OF r, THE FOREGOING OWNER'S CERTIFICATE WAS THE FOREGOING OWNERS CERT760, Y.1 BEFORE ME THIS A�K90 FDG D BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF L BY S ACKNOWLEDGED 1"(dd 2006 BY 2006 G, Tl S NOTARY PUBLIC 3/ NOTA : PU¢ EXPIRES i N1�1�4%�Oi EXPIRES 12- �,3. MY COMMISSION SURFEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED IN THIS BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT SURVEY IS A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV BY DEED DATED AUGUST 24, 2004 OF RECORD IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERKS OFFICE AS INSTRUMENT No. 040017164. RICHARD A. EDENS, L.S. NOTE: PARENT TAX PARCEL IDENTIFICATION F.M. 43—A-99 56.8762 ACRES ZONE.M 1 USE. VACANT T.M. 43—A-111 20.6565 ACRES ZONE.' M 1 & RA USE. VACANT/RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS: ALTH pFF r,OuuRICHARD ERICK COUNTY SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR DATE A. EDENS y NO.v0255O � h 13-31-0(9 �Q �ij GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 SUR V� FAX.- (540) 722-9528 2795J SHEET 1 OF 6 F„ nded m 1971 www.greenwayeng.com T.M. 43—A-1128 F�ODD ZONE A DE DBE 855UPGERY 1583NC fL l ZONE JIRF I m ZONE.• RA ODDUSE: RESIDENTIAL I L1 Q QyW�Q I oRF,1 �Q% I 1 00 0 w-toW I I � � I 1 100' MINIMUM CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER REQUIRED IRS 0 \ ►� IRS 1 \ SEE SHEET 3 1 FOR DETAIL �UOp ZONE IRS APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF O FCOp ' O 4� I FLOOD ZONE A PER F.I.R.M. ZONE O t L5* No. 510063 0105 B Ir �__ I\ I• 011 -HEREBY TRACT LINE VACATED H I \ \ 4.19'46" E — 881.28' _ `o!RSO NOTE - COURSES WITH ASTERISK (*) DENOTE NEW TRACT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. SEE SHEETS 5 do 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, EASEMENT DATA, AREA TABULA770N, LEGEND, NOTES AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. WIRE FENCE ZONE. R4 ZONE: M 1 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAIL TRACT UNE IJ HEREBY 1 (j VACATED. / ADJUSTED / TAX PARCEL 43 A-111 SEE SHEET 3 0 P IRS h t 30' DRAINAGE 1� Z %KEASEMENT I EASEMENT TO MARTINSBURG PIKE—' 1 I \ \ IRS ? 5 _o \ v 25" BRL I INST No. 050006701 I :' I I T.M. 4J—A-100 GRAPHIC SCALE 20' SANITARYSEWEREASEMENTSEE (IN FEET) I INST No. 050006702 4, ZONE. B2 k B3 USE. VACANT REVISED: AUGUST 31, 2006 SHADJUSTED No.002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING FOR DETAL TAX PARCEL j 43—A-99 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 M I J2,1181 ACRES 2 30" WRIER Ac SEWER N `' 'A W I I-- EASEMENT S J8'01'07" W_ N ��t I INST. No. 020014907 828.47' Q I 100•,f2 � I m I OVERHEAD UTILITY WIRES ` IOD" MINIMUM POTOMAC EDISON CO. R/W —� D8 495 PG 74 CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT o ^ 3 e 6 = I—� (NO WIDTH SPECIFIED) " BUFFER REQUIRED 2 ZONE. M 1 15' BRL BRL Z Z 25' BRL 25' s TRF I N 51'3245" W 1,290.26' I ✓`L.— ZONE. B3 ZONE. 92 ! I 60'INGRESS/EGRESS I I EASEMENT TO MARTINSBURG PIKE—' 250 0 I 250 I INST No. 050006701 I :' �p.LTH pFIIrP I T.M. 4J—A-100 GRAPHIC SCALE RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC (IN FEET) I INST No. 050006702 4, ZONE. B2 k B3 USE. VACANT REVISED: AUGUST 31, 2006 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENT �p.LTH pFIIrP BETWEEN THE LANDS OF o� C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS 4, STONEWALL UAGISTER14L DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA uo RIC A D A. EDENS a SCALE: 1" = 250" DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 No.002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 Fo,mdrd m 1971 www.greenwayeng.com 2795J SHEET 2 OF 6 61.65 * IRS o ARCfC �UgLFDED -tet :I = m L4 _ 1>> - IRs t::l L3 o „ OVERHEAD UTILITY - SIRS H COO WIRES - POTOMAC ?S y N� EDISON CO. RIVC * BRL Y rn I DB 495 PG 74 w - Q c� (NO WIDTH APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF 2 o N I SPECIFIED) FLOOD ZONE A PER `' k `t W F.1.R.M. No. 510063 0105 B w 'p, s ti oLg 2 �cc L w ADJUSTED TAX I �Zt �o i' WN PARCEL 43-A-111 00 o =e� 18. J45J ACRES h w- Q o 2 I 100' MINIMUM E2a 100' MINIMUM I CZ ti ATEGORY C CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER REQUIRED • • BUFFER REQUIRED �BARN z • z N ti ti ZONE.- Ml IRF ZONE. RA ZONf. RP IRS L 1 ZONE. RP L1I o.............xx.IRF L6 ZONE• MI !PF ZONE. RA -"*�--fi--oIRS NAIL FD. L 10 N7RE �: mq FENCE IN TREE SEE ' W w SHEET 4 a o: o e FOR DETAIL O O O OF THIS v 4i: til W; W O m2 AREA N; N J p o O 2 N N i N N IRF L8 MDN C2 IRF t TO 200 0 200 0.65 MILE INTERSTATE 81 MARTINSBURG PIKE EXIT 317 U.S ROUTE 11 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) BO' R/W REVISED: AUGUST 31 2006 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF o� �ALTH p�,k C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS 0 STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIAa E RICHARD A. EDENS a SCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 No.002550 1 GR€€NWAY ENGINEERING a << (� IS] Windy Hill Lane 'Q�� Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 SURV Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Poimdrd In 1971 www.greenwayeng.com 2795J SHEET 3 OF 6 61 N> NOTE: COURSES WITH ASTERISK (•) DENOTE NEW TRACT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. ` SEE SHEETS 5 dt 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, pfp7pp EASEMENT DATA, AREA TABULATION, LEGEND, NOTES PROPERTY OWNERS �R00o W//VCHTER & AND KEY TO ADJOINING --_`60, WZSRV. R/W -SEE Dg�6 3 RNLR� ' WAT R & SEWER FA _ DOT -SHADED AREA _ _ No. 020014907 _ - _ - - _ _ ------ -- DEN07ES A 20' ES lti0�i P ADJUSTED TAX PARCEL 4J -A-9.9 SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT HEREBY l p / 1p ZO pE 1 SEE SHEET 2 ESTABLISHED TO-/ BENEFIT ADJUSTED j cn CP TED T� CT LINE HEREBY �a� �J f� E TAX PARCEL 1 1 c� 43-A- I 11. E4 E2 WATTe * ECl Ems' N L5 2 W IRS E1 : % ���•.. RUN /RS E DOT m a N It E e ` / D�DFDI 25 EBRD HFRFBVgG DFiyO r.'.) BpNFAT I o Q U '�' ¢i j a h -�� 6.B 1' gST�C/Sy �F'V73� .: E3 2 61.65 * IRS o ARCfC �UgLFDED -tet :I = m L4 _ 1>> - IRs t::l L3 o „ OVERHEAD UTILITY - SIRS H COO WIRES - POTOMAC ?S y N� EDISON CO. RIVC * BRL Y rn I DB 495 PG 74 w - Q c� (NO WIDTH APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF 2 o N I SPECIFIED) FLOOD ZONE A PER `' k `t W F.1.R.M. No. 510063 0105 B w 'p, s ti oLg 2 �cc L w ADJUSTED TAX I �Zt �o i' WN PARCEL 43-A-111 00 o =e� 18. J45J ACRES h w- Q o 2 I 100' MINIMUM E2a 100' MINIMUM I CZ ti ATEGORY C CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER REQUIRED • • BUFFER REQUIRED �BARN z • z N ti ti ZONE.- Ml IRF ZONE. RA ZONf. RP IRS L 1 ZONE. RP L1I o.............xx.IRF L6 ZONE• MI !PF ZONE. RA -"*�--fi--oIRS NAIL FD. L 10 N7RE �: mq FENCE IN TREE SEE ' W w SHEET 4 a o: o e FOR DETAIL O O O OF THIS v 4i: til W; W O m2 AREA N; N J p o O 2 N N i N N IRF L8 MDN C2 IRF t TO 200 0 200 0.65 MILE INTERSTATE 81 MARTINSBURG PIKE EXIT 317 U.S ROUTE 11 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) BO' R/W REVISED: AUGUST 31 2006 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF o� �ALTH p�,k C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS 0 STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIAa E RICHARD A. EDENS a SCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 No.002550 1 GR€€NWAY ENGINEERING a << (� IS] Windy Hill Lane 'Q�� Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 SURV Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Poimdrd In 1971 www.greenwayeng.com 2795J SHEET 3 OF 6 61 N> t $6 ADJUSTED TAX PARCTL343—A-111SEE Q — 100' MINIMUM CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER REQUIRED L 1O IPF ZONE., Ml ---—o....x....................x................r......... IRF ZONE.- Ml I z..........x..........x....... o _ x_,_x— L6 ZONE. RP ZONE. R4 WIRE FENCE l ZONE. RA : -4�E• R� 1 VARIABLE WIDTH SEPTIC EASEMENT C : SERVING TAX SHED : PARCEL 43—A-1 I 1 N j :INST. No. 020022873 N I I t J DWELLING w i 1� m 12015 Ct OCpW ' uoj I m ,I tWI I ��� Y Ow I I ti N V Or L'i � ADJUSTED I � � w Al TAX PARro CEL n t �I LO o z 43-A-111 i t z 118. J453 ACRES I I W i ti oI I c OVERHEAD w UTLNY WIRES i 60' BRL 10' UTILITY W EASEMENT w I I SERVING TAX PARCEL 43—A-111 I m t INST. No. I t4I 020022873 S J7-48'44' W — 133.86' MON - C2 MARTINSBURG PIKE U.S. ROUTE 11 NOTE, 80' R/W COURSES WITH ASTERISK (•) DENOTE NEW TRACT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. SEE SHEETS 5 dr 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, EASEMENT DATA, AREA TABULATION, LEGEND, NOTES AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF !RF �®!-- 0.32 MILEf TO ROUTE 838 McCANNS RD. 60 0 60 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA yari A: ^ a0' SSDATE: JUNE 13, 22006 _ GREENWAY ENGINEERING 711\151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone. (540) 662-4185 FAX. (540) 722-9528 odcd iii 1971 www.greenwayeng.com OF o RICHARD A. EDENS y No. 002550 $ail -Oto OA 2765J SHEET 4 OF 6 J CURVE DATA CURVE DELTA ANGLE I RADIUS i ARC LENGTH 1 TANGENT I CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C1 43'58'47" 500.00' 383.80' 201.91' S 49'0726" W 374.44' C2 00'28'11 " 11499.20' 94.27' 1 47.13' S J8-02'50' W 94.27' IIAIF ndrd LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S 27'54'00" W 289.78' L2 S 54'18'45" E 400.46' L3 S 2708'02' W 69.59' L4 S 71'0649' W 194.41' L5 S 42'18 30' W 302.27' L6 S 38' 1833" W 373, 93' L7 S 54'1326' £ 33748' L8 S 37'4844" W 133.86' 19 N 55-4555 * W 339.60' L 10 S 38'1833" W 145.00' L11 N 55'4555" W 41.52' L 12 S 3B'01 '07" W 135.00' TA 1-A c irwr rFAlTFR1 INF DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE El N 24'38'08" W 64.68' E2 N 03'03 26' E 21.89' E3 N 5424'04" W 249.16' E4 N 72'01 27" W 109.89' E5 N 062149" W 292.79' EGEND BRL = BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE PER ZONING ORDINANCE IPF = 2' IRON PIPE FOUND IRF = 'e " IRON REBAR FOUND IRS = J¢" IRON REBAR & CAP SET MON = CONCRETE HIGHWAY MONUMENT FOUND R/W = RIGHT OF WAY — E — = OVERHEAD UTILITY WIRES FENCE LINE ......•.••• ...... • = ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Srar.F N/A DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 GREENWAY ENGINEERING _ 157 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 l;mnded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com pyTH pFGI� 8NICHIAM A. EDENS y No.002550 0 2795) SHEET 5 OF 6 KO T.M. 43—A-113 CHARLES S. DEHAVEN, ET UX, TRUSTEES INST. No. 060006327 RP/RES1D. AREA TABULATION T.M. 43-A-111 EXISTING AREA OF T. M. 43-A-111 PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43-A-99 ADDED LESS PORTION ADDED TO T.M. 43-A-99 ADJUSTED AREA = 20.6565 ACRES + 2.4942 ACRES - 4.8054 ACRES 18.3453 ACRES T.M. 43-A-99 EXISTING AREA OF TY. 43-A-99 = 29.8069 ACRES KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS PLUS PORTION OF T M. 43-A-111 ADDED = TAC TAX PARCEL No. CURRENT OWNER REFERENCE zo E USE (WEST OF RAILROAD) = T.M. 43C -1—A ROY R. MESSICK, ET UX DB 259 PG 568 RP/RESID. © T.M. 43C -1—B BRADFORD VILLAGE APARTMENTS, L.C. DB 970 PG 359 RP/RESID. © T.M. 43C -1—C NANBODAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C. INST. No. 050013767 RP/RESID. OD T.M. 43C -1—D MICHAEL A. MOORE, ET UX OB 668 PG 112 RP/RESID. OE T.M. 43—A-105 THOMAS W. RISSLER, ET UX DB 286 PG 267 RP/RESID. FO T.M. 43—A-106 RONALD A. LEE, ET UX OB 535 PG 294 RP/RESID. © T M. 43—A-107 CLIFFORD D. MCOUNN, ET ALS OB 896 PG 708 RP/RESID. HO T.M. 43—A-108 PATRICIA S. NETHERS WILL No. 010000720 RP/RESID. © T. M. 43—A-109 SCOTT E. MERRYMAN, ET UX INST. No. 030016388 RP/RESID, O T. M. 43—A-110 THOMAS E. RIDDICK, JR., ET UX INST. No. 020022873 RA&RP/RESID. KO T.M. 43—A-113 CHARLES S. DEHAVEN, ET UX, TRUSTEES INST. No. 060006327 RP/RES1D. AREA TABULATION T.M. 43-A-111 EXISTING AREA OF T. M. 43-A-111 PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43-A-99 ADDED LESS PORTION ADDED TO T.M. 43-A-99 ADJUSTED AREA = 20.6565 ACRES + 2.4942 ACRES - 4.8054 ACRES 18.3453 ACRES T.M. 43-A-99 EXISTING AREA OF TY. 43-A-99 = 29.8069 ACRES LESS PORTION ADDED TO T.M. 43-A-111 = - 2.4942 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T M. 43-A-111 ADDED = + 4.8054 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA (EAST OF RAILROAD) = 32.1181 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43-A-99 (WEST OF RAILROAD) = + 2ZO693 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA (TOTAL) = 59.1874 ACRES NOTES I. THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY BY THIS FIRM. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST 2. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON LIES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AND ZONE A, AREAS OF 100 -YEAR FLOOD, • BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED, PER N.F.LP. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 510063 0105 B, DATED JULY 17, 1978. THE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SAID ZONE A ARE SHOWN HEREON AS DETERMINED BY GRAPHIC PLOT77NG UPON SAID MAP. REVISED. AUGUST 31, 2006 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF o� �p,LTH pF P C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS�� STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA co RICHARD A. EDENS SCALE: N/A I DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 No.002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING -,-t 151 Windy Hill Lane 9�d SURv�'�o Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Sugveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Furu, lal in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com 2795J SHEET 6 OF 6 0 Cn CD G U'I CID t`J VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY -SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me on �bat and with certificale acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. Tax imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of $ N Or , and 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable. FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF RUTHERFORD, LL C STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA JUNE 2, 2004 VlC1NIZ'Y MAP I" = 2500' THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF RUTHERFORD, LLC, AS APPEARS ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLATS, IS PTH rHE fR NSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIG S ROP £T F ANY. ,AND TRUSTEES, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/CGUiJ1Y OF Ijij. 7 fftFt', TO WIT: THE FOREGOING OWNER'S CERTIFIQATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS 1 q':LPOAY OF 2004- BY -0 ri FS -5 C_4�ohor� Solor.►,om,r ` ! hs ARY PUBLIC - MY COMMISSION EXPIRES -Ir 31 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF , TO WIT: THE FOREGOING OWNER'S CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _ DAY OF , 20 BY NOTARY PUBUC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES , , U-KVXy0-N"S CEWTIMCATE l HEREBY CER77FY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED /N THIS BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENT SURVEY IS A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO RUTHERFORD, LLC BY DEED DATED JULY 10, 2002 OF RECORD IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT CDURT CLERKS OFFICE AS INSTRUMENT NO, 020011418 AND ALL THE LAND CONVEYED TO RUTHERFORD, LLC BY DEED DATED JULY 10, 2002 OF RECORD /N THE AFORESA/0 CLERKS OFFICE AS INSTRUMENVNO. 200114 MARK D. SMITH, L.S. RUI E. PARENT TAX PARCEL, IDENZMCA, T/0N TRACT B- T.M. 43-A-99 46.5256 ACRES ZONE: 82/M 1 USE., VACANT T.M. 43-A-97 8.9260 ACRES ZONE. M1 USE. VACANT FREDERICK COUPIIY SE130/wSlam eDY1M?STP.ATm!F DATE GREENWAY ENGINEERING —($� 151 Wmdy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com ARK D. W No. 002009 (1,Z, (AA, 27951 SHEET 1 OI~ 4 LINE DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE S 75'36'08" E 58.19' ;L;2 N7638' W 6767 S 41'3225 E 1$4.39' CURVE DATA 0 cn .�.� CJT IRF = 112' IRON RE84R FOUND co IRS = 1/2' IRON REMR & CAP SET CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH DELTA ANGLE I TANG T CHORD j9WING CHORD LENGTH C1 5629.58 614,42 ' ' 06'15 12 ``' 30 ,:;t51 ' N 0,4'13 46 E 614.11; C2 5629.58' 1267.3 12'53'54 636:835 N 18'33 51 E 1 1264.65' <a: x It ORIGINAL AREA OF T.M. 43-A-98 = 2.9452 ACRE PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43-A-96 ADDED = +7.3675 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43-A-97 ADDED = +8.9260 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43-A-99 ADDED = +9.1437 ACRES ADJUSTED ARM = 28.3824 ACRES ORIGINAL AREA PART 2 OF T.M. 4J -A-99 = 36.2129 ACRES LESS POR71ON TO T.M. 4J -A-99 -9.1.,437 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA (BY SUBTRgC17ON) = 27.0693 ACRES N01'ES 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS' OTHER THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST. 2. THE BOUNDARY INFORMA71ON SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND IS NOT PURPORTED TO BE A BOUNDARY SURWY OF THE TRACT OR ANY PORTION OF THE BOUNDARY LiNES. 3. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON LIES WHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AND ZONE A, AREAS OF 100 -YEAR FLOOD; BAS£ FLOOD ELEVA"ONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED, PER MrI.P. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 510063 0105 B, DATED JULY 17, 1978. THE APPROXIAMTE UMlTS OF 541D ZONE A ARE SHOWN HEREON AS DETERMINED BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING UPON SAID MAP. - The proposed private driveway/road shown hereon is not built according to street specifications of and will not be maintained by, the Virginia Department of Transportation or Frederick County. The improvement and maintenance of said driveway/road shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of lots which are provided with access via the driveway/road. Said driveway/roods will not be considered for inclusion into the state secondary system until they meet the applicable construction standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The cost of bringing said driveway/road to acceptable standards shall not be borne by the Virginia Department of Transportation nor by Frederick County. FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF p RUTHERFORD._LLC cy,w1111 /U&RKD. STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNT,-, VIRGIN,'A SCALL: N A DACE: NNE 2, 2004GREENWAY ENGINEERINGg. 151 Windy Hi11 LaneEngineers Winchester, Ymm' t'a 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 'F.4X.• (540) 7?2-9528 Founded in 1971 wwwy greenwa . ng.com 2795) SHEET 2 OF 4 NOTE SEE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES, LEGEND, LINE MTA, CURVE* MTA AND AREA TABULATION. SEE SHEET 4 FOR INGRESS/EGRESS LINE DATA i g AND CURVE MTA psi= m % 00 0 0 300 0 300 GRAPHIC SG4LE (IN FEET) ♦` ADJUSTED TRACT B U T.M. 43-A-99 27.0693 ACRES FORM ; 77?ACT UNE 100 YR FLOOD PL4/N HEREBY VAC47ED f ♦ ZONE Ai � ZONE C' eR 11 ADJUSTED 98 T.M. 43-A-96 T.M. 24 A RES A fo \r_4, 43 -A-971 1m SRF T.M. 43 A-96 N/F ELLIOTT ZONE. M2 USE- VACANT : L � � N F'ND. MON. N ONUNE 3.28' S • DMO7E'S NEW PROPERTY UNE HEREBY ESTABUSHED. nM4L PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF RUTHERFORD, LLC S I UINk PVAL:L AUGISTER14L OiSTRICT, FREO RICK COUNT i, VIRGINIA 1 ^ ayu MAIL' . d Vl\L• r, reyyR GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Wmdy Hill Lane EngineersWinchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (S40) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com 2 Fj 60.0' z I a FFORMER Tl74cr UNE HEREBY VACATED G �lr% �. .Ciih�i". No.002009 2795) SHEET 3 OF 4 300 0 300 mmummm" GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FE -Er) LINE 894RINO EASEMENT LINE DATA DISTANCE Sr El N 474130- W W &? N 3716.12' W EJ N 51-2524 - W I 78 98 M524i 6 f - k _j C-4 - 0 CO C C" LINE 894RINO DISTANCE Sr El N 474130- W .41 165.41' &? N 3716.12' W EJ N 51-2524 - W I 78 98 M524i 6 f - I lM N07E.• SEE sHn�r j FoR Armes, LEGEND LINE MrA CURVE DAN AND AREA TABULATION. DAN EASEMENT CURVE, DATA, LENGTH PRD BEARING I i!Fu;tw W/U.5 r E �Gm I 5ifrA ;�TG�L� �Sfr CH CHORD LLNGIH 0 3MO 9J. 65', 1725,18- 4z 19' S �W58�51 - E I 93.29' C4 M8. 00 113.71'_ 21'09'12" 5Z51'. N 40-5048- W I I IJ -07' ADAASTIED MACT 8 M 48-A-0 Z7,003 ACRES ADjUSTED rJA 43 -A -M 2&JO24 AM 1p INDEX MAP SCALE• 1- 1000' FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF RUTHERFORD, LLC STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, WROINIA SCALE: 1 360 J_DATE: AM 2, 2004--,. GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Wma�v Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 m 0S Telephone.• (540) 662-4185 FAX.• (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com No. 002009 &.2,0q, 2795J SHEET 4 OF 4 TRACT A rM. 43-A-99 INST. 1620012086 _j C-4 - 0 CO C C" 50' IN6R75gGR SMT HEREBY MBUSHED 12 60.0' I lM N07E.• SEE sHn�r j FoR Armes, LEGEND LINE MrA CURVE DAN AND AREA TABULATION. DAN EASEMENT CURVE, DATA, LENGTH PRD BEARING I i!Fu;tw W/U.5 r E �Gm I 5ifrA ;�TG�L� �Sfr CH CHORD LLNGIH 0 3MO 9J. 65', 1725,18- 4z 19' S �W58�51 - E I 93.29' C4 M8. 00 113.71'_ 21'09'12" 5Z51'. N 40-5048- W I I IJ -07' ADAASTIED MACT 8 M 48-A-0 Z7,003 ACRES ADjUSTED rJA 43 -A -M 2&JO24 AM 1p INDEX MAP SCALE• 1- 1000' FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF RUTHERFORD, LLC STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, WROINIA SCALE: 1 360 J_DATE: AM 2, 2004--,. GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Wma�v Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 m 0S Telephone.• (540) 662-4185 FAX.• (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com No. 002009 &.2,0q, 2795J SHEET 4 OF 4 En Cr% V1RUINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. !Us instrument of writing was produced to me on and with certificate of acimowledgetnent thereto annexed was admittcd to reoord, T unposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of S ud— nd 58.1-801 bave been paid, if assessable 4ew 'I•v , Qect nNAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, WIRG/NIA MARCH 18, 2005 S/TE Exrt )`�' 317 victim MAP \ / i' - 2000' THE A80VE AND FOREMM 9OUNLi4RY UNE ALVUSNMEIVT B,EIWIWEN THE LANDS OF C ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN a SCMWTH AND JIN S SCULLY, N, AS APPEARS ON THE ACCOMPANYWiG PLAN 6 WTTH THE fREE• COAWVT* AND W A600RDA WMf THE DWMS OF THE UNDERSWED OWNERS, PROPRIEICAR$ Ml0_ ANY _7 N GF WN 0WAAMIiEAL& OF W MA14 OF TO WT. CRY/COUMY OF —. , 70 wr. MMC OMEWS CERTIFIGTE WAS THE FORECOW ONNER'S CER77fTC47E WAS 90 BEFORE AIE TMS W MY OF ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _ DAY OF 2o ZL_ BY NOTARY PUBLIC I HEREI9Y CERTIFY THAT 774E LAND CONTAINED IN THIS BOUADW UNE ALUUSTMENT SURVEY IS A MR14N OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO C. ROI Pr SOLEWSO?GE1?, JOAN B. SCHROIH AND JOHN S SCULLY,, A' BY DEED L1I1M AUGUST 24, 2004 OF RECORD IN 774E n? MERL7l COUNTY CIRCINT COURT CLERK'S O XE- AS NHSI'RUME)YT N0. 040017164. RICH40 A EDENS, L.S. 1V(J7w. PARENT' W PARCEL .IDEN777C!7idN TRACT A - T.M. 43-A-99 78.8873 ACRES ZONE.- 821931MI USE. VAC4Nr T.M. 43-A-100 1.3002 ACRES ZONE.• 92 USE VACANT T.M. 43-A-101 a7370 ACRE ZONE. B2 USE. RESIDENTIAL -- - - WH O,y, &- PREDERICK WUtrf SUBDMSION ADMINISTk'ATOR RI H D A MENS GREENWAY ENGINEERING No.002550 3-18-05 ISI Windy Hill Labe 4' Engincefs Winchester, Plrt nia 22602 'o, Swvej�ors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 SUR FAX -(540)722-9528 FouMed W 1971 unvSv eneen%Wwiw coin 1 27981 SHE9T 1 or 4 ®55600670/ SEE SHEET 4 FOR LEGEND, LINE DATA, AREA TAMA710N, AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY n1wFR4 FLOOD ZONE c 0ZONE A IR, FLOOD a � m l c- ci 0 s 121 300 0 300 GRAPHIC SCALE \g�:T3 (IN FEET) [/HJI7I7Y r-VIVlw/w+ 1 MON CO. R/W DB 495 PC 74 (NO W1DTH SPECIM) ADJUSTED €' T.Aot 43—A-99 \ 29.8069 ACRES DOT—SHADED AREA DEN07tS A 60' INGRESS/ EGRESS EASEMENT HEREBY M) BEJYM, t AO US TM 4J—A-99 (SEE ZONE M1\ �BL I T 158—RL, -- F12W� �6NZONE 92 I I ZONE 113 T us� 00 NOTES ( i :�sEE SHEET . 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN S00" MAY EXIST. 2. THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY 8Y IN/S FIRM. J. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON LIES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AND ZONE A, AREAS OF 100 -YEAR FLOOD, B4SE FLOOD ELEVATIONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED, PER N.F.I.P. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 5)006.1 0105 B, DATED JULY 17, 1978, THE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SAID ZONE A ARE SHOWN HEREON, AS DETERMINED BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING UPON SAID MAP. 4. COURSE WITH ASTERISK (•) DENOTES NEW TRACT LINE HEREBY ESTABLISHED. FINAL. PLAT FOR BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENT LTH aF BETWEEN THE LANDS OF r+ C T 001 CINGE ET AL �� �. Cje ROSE(? ,_ VVi.�I i/ rv�irr.r r� r� • }, .A&U,— -A STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VTRGINIA R1 HARD A. EDENS 5 SCALE: 1" = 300' DATE: MARCH 18, 2006 , No. 002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING e 3 -ie -°5% 04' 151 Windy Hill Lane d SU1Zv Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 *47 Surveyors Telephone. (540) 662-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 "".gmenwayeng.com 2796) SHEET 2 OF 4 C)SOt)v & /0( T.M. 4J—A-111 !' eV C. ROBERT SOLENBEIFl^iER, ET AL ! INST. N0. 040017164 / ZONE M1 USE: VACANT t i [/HJI7I7Y r-VIVlw/w+ 1 MON CO. R/W DB 495 PC 74 (NO W1DTH SPECIM) ADJUSTED €' T.Aot 43—A-99 \ 29.8069 ACRES DOT—SHADED AREA DEN07tS A 60' INGRESS/ EGRESS EASEMENT HEREBY M) BEJYM, t AO US TM 4J—A-99 (SEE ZONE M1\ �BL I T 158—RL, -- F12W� �6NZONE 92 I I ZONE 113 T us� 00 NOTES ( i :�sEE SHEET . 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN S00" MAY EXIST. 2. THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY 8Y IN/S FIRM. J. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON LIES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AND ZONE A, AREAS OF 100 -YEAR FLOOD, B4SE FLOOD ELEVATIONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED, PER N.F.I.P. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 5)006.1 0105 B, DATED JULY 17, 1978, THE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SAID ZONE A ARE SHOWN HEREON, AS DETERMINED BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING UPON SAID MAP. 4. COURSE WITH ASTERISK (•) DENOTES NEW TRACT LINE HEREBY ESTABLISHED. FINAL. PLAT FOR BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENT LTH aF BETWEEN THE LANDS OF r+ C T 001 CINGE ET AL �� �. Cje ROSE(? ,_ VVi.�I i/ rv�irr.r r� r� • }, .A&U,— -A STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VTRGINIA R1 HARD A. EDENS 5 SCALE: 1" = 300' DATE: MARCH 18, 2006 , No. 002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING e 3 -ie -°5% 04' 151 Windy Hill Lane d SU1Zv Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 *47 Surveyors Telephone. (540) 662-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 "".gmenwayeng.com 2796) SHEET 2 OF 4 C)SOt)v & /0( DOT—SHADED AREA DENOTES AN � I �stw w S: 300 0 300 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN F!EtT) DOT—SHADED AREA DENOTES A 60' INGRESS/ EGRESS 60EAIENT HEREBY RESERVED 70 BEN£FTT ADJUSTED IM 43—A-99 ADJUSTED T.M. 4J—A-99 SEE SHEET 2 ZONE M1 , --ZONE 82 25' BRL 00". NOTE -- WITH ASTERISK (t) DENOTES NEW PROPERTY UNE HEREBY ESTABUSHED. CURVE DATA 000' NOTL: SEE SHEET 4 FOR CURVE DATA LEGEND, UNE LATA, AREA TABULAWN, AND KEY To ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS CURVE RADIUS C G7H DELTA ANGLE TANGENT CHORD NG CHORD L£NG1H C1 021.722 76.16' 2718'4J' 345, 6' N 1556 51 6 C2 5 9. 144.98' 01' 32 7249 W 144.9 C3 52.00 823.69' 275723 416.50 S 50'2003 W 819.11 SINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENT LTH 0�+ BETWEEN 771E LANDS OF G. ROBERT SOLENBERGERr ET AL STONEWALL MACISTIERML DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGINIA RICHARD A. EDENS y SCALE: BATE: MARCH 18, 2006 No. 002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 3UR`' Suneyars Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX, (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.gteenwa)k-ng corn 2795) SEMKT 3 OF 4 OSOD0�7o AREA TABULAnoN T.M. 4,3-A-100 ORIGINAL AREA OF T.M. 43-A-100 = 1.3002 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43-A-99 ADDED +49.0604 ACRES PLUS ALL OF T.M. 43A-101 ADDED +0.7370 ACRE ADJUSTED AREA = 51.1176 ACRES T. M. 43--A - ORIGINAL AREA TRACT `A' OF T.M. 43-A-99 LESS POR77ON ADDED 70 T.N. 43-A-100 ADJUSTED AREA PLUS 'TRACT B" OF T.M. 43A-99 WAL AREA OF T.M. 4J -A-9.9 (T#V PAR75) EASEMENT CENTERUNE DATA NE I. BEARING DISTANCE El I S 59-05-11 W 1 279.61 UNE DATA UNE BEARING DISTANCE L 1 sy 47'55 36 W 270.92 L2 N 30'36 12 W 236.5 L3 N 29'45 52 W 79.86' 78.8873 ACRES -49.0804 ACRES = 29.8069 ACRES a +27.0693 ACRES 56.8762 ACRES 1�. NON. -CONCRETE HIGHWAY NONUMEM 0 1/2" IRON REBAR h CAP SET UNLESS OTHERWE NOW IRF a 112 IRON RE SIR MND BRL - BUILDING REMICnON UNE PEI? ZONING ORDINANCE a CEWtRUNE R/W - ROff OF WAY AQ rY. 43 -A -1o1 C ROBEkr S&965W, Er AL MT. %040017164 82/iPMV QB T.Y. 43C -1 -A ROI' R NEIMM ET UX DB 259 PG 568 RP/RES/D C� T.K 43-,A-102 OWL. LC NtLS'T. 1000607065 RP/R£S!D QD rm. 4j -A- to Romr a xmvsm LT ux DB 424 PG 534 RP/IPl-Stili EQ� rm. 43 A -1o4 Y/C/ a A. AA!) K ET UX DB 668 PG 112 RP/*W lrJ T.M M. 43A-105 "OMS W. RSSLM ET UX DIB 286 PG 267 RP/Itz QC TAIL 43-A- 106 RONALD A. LIZ ET UX DB 333 PG 294 RP/RESO l^J T.M. 43A-107 C!1fFMO D. MCOU4K ET AL DB 896 PG 708 RPIR990 T.AL 4J -A-108 PAM04 S ANETFII:RS INCL 10100000120 RP/RESID O T.Y. 4J -A- 10.9 SCOTT E: YE7Pi MN, ET LA' !NST. 1Qi00tom RP/lA U bC TK 43A-1128 DEWK N NURSER?; 1Ar- ANSI. 1020016WB R4/RESID d rm. 43A -too C. RoSEPT SaDdeERCER, Er At WST. 1040017164 B21VAGNT FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENT H BETWEEN THE !ANDS OF(,�Q`i'T !ROBERT -SOZEN BEEGEA: , ET AL E. STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FPEDERICK COUNTY, WRGINL4 - RICHAKU A. EDENS 1; SCALE: NIA! DATE: MARCH 18. 2005 No.002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Rri 4Ift l Lane SUR` Engineers Winchester, Yngi da 22602 Swveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.g►eenwdyewcom 27951 SKEET 4 OF 4 050006 /O / VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCI. —10 This instrument of writingwas produebd to me an and with certificate. of acknowledgement thereto annexed wac admi ed to record. T Ouposed by- Sec. 58.1-802 of S and 58.1-801 have been paid, if asscauble i %" an4 4 , Clerk 6'5r6)006701 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #14-06 RUTHERFORD CROSSING Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: November 16, 2006 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, Planner II This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 12/06/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 01/10/07 Pending LOCATION: The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317, and Martinsburg Pike intersection. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 43 -A -98,43 -A -99,43-A-100 and 43-A-111 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: B2 (Business General) M1 (Light Industrial) Use: Vacant Use: Vacant ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES: North: N/A Use: Interstate 81 M1 (Light Industrial) Use: Vacant South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential M1 (Light Industrial) Industrial RA (Rural Areas) Residential East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Commercial/Residential RP (Residential Performance) Residential West: N/A Use: Interstate 81 PROPOSED USE: Commercial and Industrial Land Uses MDP #14-06, Rutherford Crossing November 16, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The following comments reflect VDOT comments on both the rezoning and the master development plan submittals: The documentation within the application appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 1 I and I-81. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Rutherford Crossing rezoning application dated October 26, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Under Section C of the Transportation Enhancements, Item #2, Site Access Improvements, the verbiage notes the construction of two full entrances and two right-in/right-out entrances. While it addresses the spacing of the entrances, the documents that were submitted with this rezoning request do not identify the approximate locations. Under Item 3, Right-of-way Reservation: This appears to be a considerable change from the original rezoning which was titled "Right -of -Way Dedication". VDOT is requesting a reason for the change from dedication to reservation by the applicant. We have concerns with the way the current document is worded. Under Item 6, the Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound Off - Ramp Improvements: While we appreciate the applicant agreeing to prepare and process a Limited Access Break Study meeting FHWA and VDOT standards for the relocation of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off -ramp as well as preparing and processing of the Public Improvement Plan, we feel the proposed $125,000.00 to help construction of this facility falls far short of the monies needed to construct this key component of the transportation improvements in this area. During our meeting with the applicant, the Route 37 and Interstate 81 interchange were identified as a critical part of the County's transportation plan. The identified footprint of this roadway, a portion of which crosses the Rutherford Crossing property, needed to be preserved/dedicated as part of the proffer documents. This request has not been included in the current proffer document. The TIA prepared for this rezoning request did not take into consideration the Omps Property which was rezoned on the east side of Route 11 and will have considerable impact on the level of service at the main entrance to the Rutherford Crossing properties. There were several other anomalies within the study that gives VDOT cause for concern about some of the conclusions that were derived from this study. 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 General Manual Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plan approval as submitted Frederick County Public Works: Besides eliminating B3 zoned areas from the project, the impact analysis has changed the stormwater management philosophy from onsite detention ponds to discharge to an adequate channel. Consequently, we focused our review on the drainage analysis prepared by Randy Kepler and dated May l2, 2006. Based on our review of the Hiatt Run drainage analysis, we offer the following comments: 1. Verify that the cross- section referenced in the report is representative of the channel cross-section between the Rutherford discharge point and Route 11. 2. Hydrograph No. 9 indicates that the storm flows derived from the Rutherford project are relatively insignificant compared to the total drainage MDP #14-06, Rutherford Crossing November 16, 2006 Page 3 from Hiatt Run. Also, this hydrograph indicates that the peak flows from Rutherford occur long before the peak arrives from the total discharge area. This fact should be highlighted in the report summary and serve as the main justification for allowing discharge directly to the receiving stream without onsite detention. This latter conclusion assumes that the receiving channel has an adequate cross-section. 3. Provide a map indicating the location of the channel section used to derive the total time of concentration. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: lst review - approved Frederick Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Frederick County Inspections Department: Demolition permit shall be required prior to the removal of any existing structures. Establish 100 year flood plain elevation on future site plans. GIS Department: Averell, Rienzi and Ebert are denied use in the Frederick County System — duplications. The roadway in the adjoining property is not Ebert Road, but named Milton Ray Drive. New names are required. Market Street and Merchant Street have been approved and added into the Frederick County Road Naming and Structure numbering system. Center Street is denied. Winchester Reeional Airport: The proposed development plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 close in surfaces. Department of Parks and Recreation: No comment PlanninIZ & Zonin2: A) Master Development Plan Requirement A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. B) Location The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317, and Martinsburg Pike intersection. C) Site History On April 22, 2002 the County rezoned 113 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District and 3.7 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the Ml (Light Industrial) District, rezoned 21.8 acres from the RA District and 1.4 acres from the RP District to the MDP 414-06, Rutherford Crossing November 16, 2006 Page 4 B2 (Business General) District, rezoned 14.5 acres from the RA District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and rezoned the all of those 154.4 acres to the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District (REZ 907-01). On July 14, 2004 the County rezoned 13.4 acres from the RA (Rural Area) District, the B2 (Business General) District, the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 and B3 Districts (REZ #06-04). This was a reconfiguration of 12.65 acres that were part of Rezoning #07-01, plus the rezoning of .75 adjoining additional acres. All proffers associated with Rezoning #07-01 were carried forward to Rezoning #06-04. Since parcel 43-A-111 (the FEMA site) is not part of the currently proposed rezoning (#17-06), all proffers associated with Rezoning #06-04 remain with parcel 43-A-111. With Rezoning #17-06 the applicant is requesting that the county rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers and to add proffers to one adjoining parcel (rezoning #17-06 does not include parcel 43-A-111 FEMA but this parcel is included in this MDP Application). D) Site Suitability & Project Scope 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 Compatibility: The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). In addition, the Northeast Land Use Plan designates the general area in which the Rutherford Crossing property is located for commercial and industrial land uses. Environment: Hiatt Run flows through the northern portion of the property and contains wetlands and floodplain. These environmental areas are located within the area designated for the Route 37 extension and the planned collector road. This site also contains karst features as indicated on sheet 2 of the MPD. Transportation It is important to realize that there is an interchange for Route 37 proposed on this property. The applicant has not shown the proposed right-of-way line on the MDP for this site, this right-of-way should be addressed. The MDP for the Carroll Industrial Park, which is the adjacent property and shares the other portion of this interchange, was recently reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. This MPD depicted the right-of-way line and included verbiage that stated any improvements placed MDP #14-06, Rutherford Crossing November 16, 2006 Page 5 within this area would not be compensated if they were required to be demolished. It was expected that this project would provide similar guarantees for the right-of-way. Provided Buffers and Screening. This site requires buffering along the adjacent residential properties zoned RP, RA. The B2 portion of the site is required to provide a 50' full screen (three trees per linear feet and a 6' fence or 50' of woodlands) against adjacent residential and the M1 portion of the property is required to provide a 100' full screen against adjacent residential. The site must also buffer its B2 zoned portions from its M1 zoned portions. This buffer consists of a 50' shared landscaped buffer. The applicant has shown these buffers on sheet 3 of the MDP. Waivers: As indicated on sheet 3 of the MDP, the applicant is requesting a wavier of § 144-24C of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. A portion of the commercial area within Rutherford Crossing will utilize a private road, specifically serving the lots that will have access via Market Street. The subdivision ordinance states that all lots must have state road frontage to be subdivided. In order for the proposed commercial lots on Market Street within Rutherford Crossing to be subdivided, the Board of Supervisors would need to grant a waiver of § 144-24C of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. A recommendation regarding this waiver is needed from the Planning Commission. Proffers: See Attached Proffers from Rezoning #17--06 & Rezoning #06-04. Proffers from Rezoning #06-04 are relevant because they still pertain to the FEMA property owned by Cowperwood. Issues Staff has identified numerous issues that still remain to be addressed. They are as follows: • An interchange for Route 37 is proposed on a portion of this site (see attachment showing engineered plans for Route 37). This proposed ROW line should be shown on the MPD along with text regarding construction within this ROW. This information should be similar to what was provided with the recently reviewed Carroll Industrial Park. • The Building Restrictions Lines (BRL's) have not been labeled as requested. • The zoning district buffer needs to contain a linear measurement as requested. • The FEMA access road needs to be shown on sheets 3 and 5 of the MDP. Interparcel connections from this road should be provided as well. • The location and detail of the required sidewalk along Martinsburg Pike has not been provided. • Concerns from VDOT and the Frederick County Public Works Department have not been addressed. • The proffers associated with Rezoning 417-06 do not apply to the FEMA property which is owned by the Cowperwood Company. This portion of the development is subject to the proffers from Rezoning #06-04 which have not been provided in MDP # 14-06, Rutherford Crossing November 16, 2006 Page 6 this MPD. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12/06/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The preliminary master development plan for Rutherford Crossing depicts appropriate land uses (should rezoning 417-06 be approved) but currently is not consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. While the preliminary master development plan is in accordance with the revised proffers of the rezoning (REZ #17-06), it has not addressed Planning Staff's concerns, VDOT's concerns and Public Works' concerns. All of the issues brought forth by the staff and the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Please note this MPD is in conformance with the rezoning application being heard on the same night as this MDP. If the rezoning for Rutherford Crossing is not recommended for approval or is tabled, then the MDP should follow the same recommendation. Two recommendations are needed from the Planning Commission regarding this MPD application, one for the waiver and another for the MDP. Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this MDP conformance with County codes and review agency comments. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Staff is ultimately seeking administrative approval authority of the Master Development Plan once all issues have been addressed. rio ■ %W %w riYoMOi ill Master Development Plan # 17 - 06 Location in the County Map Features UDA Urban Development Area 0 Lakes/Ponds ^— Streams SVYSA M Flooplain = Application Streets 4%� Primary Secondary Terciary - Winchester City Future Rt37 Bypass Railroads Rutherford Crossing Parcel ID: 43 -A -98,43-A-99 43-A-100,43 A-111 Long Range Land Use Rural Community Center Residential t.: Business Industrial ® Institutional Recreation Historic ® Mixed -Use ® Planned Unit Development Location in Surrounding Area 0 300 600 1120eet ■ ■ Vir■�r .v■� —nailift. VA Master Development Plan # 17 - 06 Application Rutherford Crossing Parcel ID: 43 -A -98,43-A-99 Location in the county 43 - A -100, 43 - A -111 Map Features UDA Urban Development Area £S Lakes/Ponds ^•- Streams SWSA 43 Flooplain ® Application Streets 4`111s Primary Secondary Terciary Winchester City Future Rt37 Bypass 'y Railroads o z a Winch¢I fer '- `-i C -,L Vrrginra � '�� Location in Surrounding Area 0 300 600 1.Z0eet w �� 152 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 RUTHERFORD CROSSING PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# B-3, Industrial Transition District (22.45± acres) and M-1, Light Industrial District (8.55± acres) to B-2, Business General District (31.0± acres) PROPERTY: 138.68± acres; Tax Parcels 43-((A))-98, 43-((A))-99, 43-((A))-100, (hereinafter the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Rutherford Farm, LLC; Virginia Apple Storage, Inc.; C. Robert Solenberger; John S. Scully, IV; John B. Schroth APPLICANT: Rutherford Farm, LLC (Owner of 22.45± acres, being a portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99 and Contract Purchaser for 8.55± acres, being a portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100 (here -in after the "Applicant") PROJECT NAME: Rutherford Crossing ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: April 5, 2004 REVISION DATE: November 7, 2006 Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of a 22.45± -acre portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99 and a 8.55± -acre portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100, and to reconfigure the M-1, Light Industrial District, and B-2, Business General District zoning boundaries for the remainder of the acreage to establish the following: Zoning Districts ➢ 79.03± -acres of M-1, Light Industrial District ➢ 59.65± -acres of B-2, Business General District Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Overlay District ➢ 138.68± acres of IA, Interstate Area Overlay District Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject Property more particularly described as the lands owned by Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-98; C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99; and Rutherford Farm, LLC, being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100; and further described by Rezoning Plat Exhibit prepared by Bury+Partners, dated November 2006 (see attached Rezoning Exhibit Plat). PROFFER STATEMENT A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC and the record owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc; C. Robert Solenberger: John S. Scully, IV: and John B. Schroth, hereby proffer to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire Property. B.) Prohibited Land Uses The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc; C. Robert Solenberger: John S. Scully, IV: and John B. Schroth, hereby proffer that the following land uses shall not be permitted on the Property: Description SIC Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) 2 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7. 2006 C.) Transportation Enhancements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to the following transportation enhancements: 1.) Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) and the proposed primary entrance to the Property in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. b.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound ramps of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. c.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by VDOT at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike with the northbound on-ramp of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Redbud Road (Route 661) in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. This traffic signal shall be designed to accommodate the relocation of the Interstate 81 northbound off - ramp at a cross intersection with the existing Interstate 81 northbound on- ramp. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. d.) Prior to the installation of the traffic signals provided for in this section, the Applicant hereby agrees to prepare a signalization timing analysis for all existing and proposed traffic signals located along Martinsburg Pike between the proposed primary entrance to the Property and Crown Lane. The Applicant will provide this analysis to VDOT and will incur the cost required to -reconfigure the signalization timing for each traffic signal identified in the section if warranted by VDOT. 3 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 2.) Site Access Improvements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to limit the total number of entrances for site access along Martinsburg Pike to one full entrance and two right-in/right-out entrances. The spacing between the centerline of all proposed entrances along Martinsburg Pike shall be a minimum of 500 feet. Additionally, the Applicant agrees to fully fund and construct travel lane and turn lane improvements along northbound and southbound Martinsburg Pike in substantial conformity to the transportation improvement exhibit identified on the Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners dated October 24, 2006 no later than December 31, 2007. 3.) Right of Way Reservation a.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC hereby agrees to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) to implement the Rutherford's Farm Route 11 Public Improvements Plan approved by VDOT on February 17, 2004. This right of way reservation plat shall be prepared by the Applicant and provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of VDOT permit approval for this improvement. b.) The record owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., hereby agrees to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-Fll, PE -100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). The right of way reservation plat shall be prepared by the record owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., and provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of written request by VDOT for said right of way reservation. c.) The record owners, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth hereby agree that for a period of five (5) years from the date of the approval of the rezoning, that they will not build upon the tract of land containing 14 acres, more or less, and proposed to be used as part of the construction of the Route 37 bypass in Frederick County; however, any taking of the property will be compensated at fair market value. 4 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to coordinate, dedicate, and construct the portion of the major collector road between the primary entrance to the property and the cul-de-sac adjacent to Tax Map Parcel 43-((A))-111 that will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Rutherford Crossing Zoning Exhibit prepared by Bury+Partners dated November 2006 and attached as a proffered exhibit. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, agrees that it will use reasonable commercial effort and diligently pursue the construction to base pavement and made available for public access no later than December 31, 2007. The remaining portion of the major collector road system which intersects the major collector road system described in the above paragraph and proceeds in a west to northwest direction through the Property, as well as the internal street located to the south of the major collector road described in the above paragraph will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or is part of the site plan. The location of these internal road systems will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Rutherford Crossing Zoning Exhibit prepared by Bury+Partners dated November 2006 and attached as a proffered exhibit. 5.) Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound On -Ramp Improvements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to construct a third southbound lane on U.S. Route 11 from the primary entrance to the Property to the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on-ramp. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on-ramp. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will construct turning radius improvements at the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on-ramp to ensure a smooth transition. The improvements shall be completed within one year following approval of the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property. 6.) Monetary Contributions for Route 11 Corridor The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to provide $250,000.00 to Frederick County within 18 months of final site plan approval for the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property to be utilized unconditionally for transportation studies or physical improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford farm, LLC, agrees to allow Frederick County to utilize this monetary contribution as matching funds for federal or state transportation improvement grants that will apply to the Martinsburg Pike corridor. 5 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners. A public access easement will be provided for the interpretative sign viewing area , which shall be enhanced with picnic tables and landscaping. The public access easement will be prepared and the proposed improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the site plan that is approved adjacent to this area. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: ➢ The Second Battle of Winchester ➢ The Battle of Rutherford's Farm ➢ The Rutherford's Farm House igns will contain language and pictures acceptable to the The interpretative s Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. The maintenance of the interpretative signs, picnic tables, landscaping and public parking for the interpretative sign viewing area shall be the responsibility of the Rutherford Crossing Association. 2.) Landscaping The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to provide a transitional landscape buffer will be provided along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, grasses, shrubs and trees in general conformity with the landscape buffer typical section provided on the Master Development Plan. The landscape buffer will be installed during the construction of the first structure within the B-2 District portion of the Property, and will be maintained by the Rutherford Crossing Association. 3.) Property Name The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby proffer the naming of their property to: "Rutherford Crossing" 0 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 E.) Ling The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees that all building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature, hooded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will submit lighting plans as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to the installation of these lighting features. F.) Signa 1.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby proffers that all freestanding business signs located at the entrances to the Property along Martinsburg Pike shall be monument -style signs not to exceed 12' in height. 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District located throughout the limits of the Property, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, and the record owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth, hereby proffer to limit the total number of signs to three. G.) Recycling Proffer The record owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth, hereby agree to implement recycling programs with each industrial user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. The program for each industrial user will be reviewed and will be subject to approval by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for each industrial user. 7 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Signatures tures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By. \ \14 OS _ Rutherfor arm, LLC Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Cit County fr�>�tll�%� To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this N-� day of t4Dti`em bft" 2006 by Vv I (� (CtiM {� �QUeue , rresideo-f .. X'9 7-R,&,,,) Notary Public My Commission Expires P.0 rVO Za 2'W8 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Y Virginia Apple torage, Inc. Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Cit OD-tyf F(Jerl c-)(- To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Nuhn �� 2006 by (�- c 1 P'srca M.1✓� 11 �Notar�yub�fic My Commission Expires 7I 1U�6-0'r :�O Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: C. Robert Solenberger Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/ ount of FWer►'�. To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this q day of 2006 by My Commission Expires K�jp"'� 10 Notary�Pbliic Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. hi the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: f/ S �oG John . Scully, IV Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Cit Count of FredevZcL To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of t4bjekr/t L9Cy' 2006 by JOhul Notary Public My Commission Expires Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: ► All, C3 I n B. Schroth Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/(ount f PCeCie V-I'rk To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this q� day of ove.mbez 2006 by j 6 hyn U - 5Cl' CQ4'k GX111-a"t� Notary Public My Commission Expires 1--P_ loq ZCl 2'08 12 AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: .lune 2, 2004 - Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: July 14- 2004 U APPROVED ❑ DENTED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ,ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING 906-04 OF RUTHERFORD, LLC WHEREAS, Rezoning#06-0.1 of Rutherford, LLC, submittedbyGreenwayEnginecring,torezone 13.4 acres from the RA (Rural Ureas); B2 (Business General); B3 (Industrial Transition); and, M1 (Light Industrial) Districts to the B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) Districts. The subject acreage is located within the northeast quadrant of the Interstate 81 interchange area, which is north and adjacent to Martinsburg Pike (Route 1 I North), and east and adjacent to Interstate 81, and is identified by Property Identification Number(s) 4 3-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100, 43-A- 101, and 43-A-111 in the Stonewall (Magisterial District. and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on June 2; 2004: and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on July 14, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of'Supenrisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety. welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick Count- Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning. is amended to revise the ,Zoning District Map to change 13.4 acres from the RA (Rural Areas); 132 (Business General); B3 (Industrial Transition); and, M1 (Light Industrial) Districts to the B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) Districts. as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. JIDPC�; .' 09_04 This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 14'h day of January, 2004 by the following recorded rote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Gary Dove Aye_ W. Harrington Smith. Jr. Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye L-,'nda J. "I'vler Aye A COPY ATTEST i John rdiley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes.::09-04 Greenway Engineering April 3, 2004 Rutherford, LLC Rezoning RUTHERFORD' S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING Tax Parcels 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 43-A-101 & 43-A-111 Stonewall Magisterial District Prelimirary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virgini4 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virgini4 shall approve Rezoning Application # 0(�-0'/ for the rezoning of Tax Parcel 43-A-101, consisting of 0.75 acres, from RA, Rural Areas District to B2, Business General District, and to reconfigure the current MI, Light Industrial District, B3, Industrial Transition District and B2, Business General District zoning boundaries for the remainder of the acreage to establish the following: Zoning Districts • 104.12 acres of M1, Light Industrial District 0 22.45 acres of B3, Industrial Transition District • 28.64 acres of B2, Business General District Overlay District • 155.21 acres of IA, Interstate Area Overlay District Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property is comprised of several Tax Parcels, and is more particularly described as the lands owned by Rutherford, LLC being all or part of Tax Map Parcels 43-A-96, 43 -A -97,43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100, 43-A-101 and 43-A-111. A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The applicants hereby proffer to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 155.21 acres. Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford, LLC Rezoning B.) Prohibited Uscs The follmm*ng uses shall not be permitted on the proposed Industrial Park. Description Sic Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) C.) Transportati on 1.) Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicants when warranted by the Virainia Department of Transportation at the intersection of the proposed Industrial Park entrance and the unnamed Comprehensive Plan collector road in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicants shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. b.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicants when warranted by VDOT at the southbound ramps of the 317 interchange and U.S. Route 11 in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicants shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park_ 2.) Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements at the proposed two entrances will be installed and paid for by the applicants. The existing multi -lane system on U.S. Route I 1 will be extended north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road. All left and right turn lanes and pavement transitions north and south of proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road on U.S. Route I I will be installed and paid for by the applicarts. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. Greenway Engira,,ering April 5, 2004 Rutherford, LLC Rezoning 3.) Right of Way Dedication a.) The applicants hereby agree to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along U.S. Route 11 adjacent to the property as determined by VDOT. This right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the approval of the U.S. Route I l construction plans prepared for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park as noted in Proffer C2 (Intersection Improvements) and Proffer C5 (Route 11 and Northbound 1-81 Ramp Improvements). b_) The applicants hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081 -968 -Fl I, PE -100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). The right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the master development plan approval forRutherford's Farm Industrial Park. 4_) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The applicants hereby agrees to coordinate, set aside right of way, and construct the portion of the major collector road traversing, on the land herein to be rezoned and developed and as outlined in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Northeast Land Use Study adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. Said collector road will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or part of the site plan. S.) Route 11 and Northbound 1-81 Ramp Improvements The applicants will construct a third southbound lane on US Route I1 from the northern most entrance of the applicants' property to the northbound I-81 ramp of Exit 317. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right tum lane for the northbound entrance ramp of the Exit 317 interchange. Additionally, the applicants will construct turning radius improvements at the entrance ramp to ensure a smooth transition. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. Grcemvay Engineering Apri15, 2004 Rutherford, LLC Rezoning D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The applicants hereby proffer to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along U.S. Route 11 and more particularly at the location of the old concrete steps that now remain_ An easement of sufficiait size will be provided for a pull -off area and viewing. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: • The Second Battle of Winchester • The Battle of Rutherford's Farm • The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative plaques will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board_ All work performed for the pull -off area will meet the minimum standards of Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County Ordinances in respect to Highway pull -off and safety. Ground maintenance of the interpretative area will be performed by the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association under a separate continuous approved permit issued by VDOT. 2.) Landscaping A transitional landscape buffer will be provided along U.S. Route 11 from Interstate 81 traveling north to the Comprehensive Plan collector road and transmission power line easement This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, and grasses. Indigenous trees such as redbud, oaks, cedars, etc. will be incorporated along said landscape easement in a cluster mass fashion to provide a naturally planted look. The maintenance of said landscape buffer will be the responsibility of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association and will be installed with the first commercial development adjacent to said easement. 3.) Industrial Park Name The applicant hereby proffers the naming ofthe Industrial Park to: "Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park" 4 Greenuay Engineering Apri15, 2004 Rutherford, LLC Rezoning E.) Lighting Building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature and shielded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project_ Lighting plans will be submitted as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to installation. F.) Signage 1.) Within the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the applicants hereby proffer that all freestanding business signs shall be monument -style not to exceed 12' in height_ 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District, the applicants hereby proffer to limit the total numbs- of signs to three. G.) Recycling Proffer Recycling programs will be implemerted with each Industrial Park user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct materiaL This program will be reviewed and approved by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to final occupancy permit. H.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above-described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within any of the B2, B,, and M1 zones, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the followinbamount: $ 10 000 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the first site plan submission I.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. 5 Greenway Engineering April S, 2004 Respectfully Submitted: I �-s -o� utherford, LLC Date Commonwealth of Vira nIA Rutherford, LLC Rezoning City/county of i� .� ` l�� s"t� To Wit: 'r� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20WIb `—t IL n 0 C5C ��r i✓ l h Y V.6tary Public My Commission Expires = C e Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Department of Planning and Development Use Only. Date application received Complete. Date of acceptance. Incomplete. Date of return. 1. Project Title: RUTHERFORD CROSSING Application # 2. Owner's Name: RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE, inc. C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER THE COWPERWOOD COMPANY (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: BURY + PARTNERS FOR RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC Address: 112 NORTH CAMERON STREET WINCHESTER, VA 22601 Phone Number: 540-662-0323 4. Design Company: BURY + PARTNERS Address: 3810 CONCORD PARKWAY SUITE 1000 CHANTILLY, VA 20151 Phone Number: 703-968-9090 Contact Name: KEVIN PULLEN Page l l Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: TAX PARCELS 43 -A -98,43 -A -99,43-A-100, 43-A-111 6. Total Acreage: 138.68 ACRES 7. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): b) Current Zoning: C) Present Use: d) Proposed Uses: 43 -A -98,43 -A -99,43-A-100 Ml B2 RA VACANT RETAIL e) Adjoining Property Information: Property Identification Numbers North REFER TO SHEET 3 South REFER TO SHEET 3 East REFER TO SHEET 3 West REFER TO SHEET 3 0 Magisterial District: 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original _ Amended X Property Uses STONEWALL I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. Signature: s, ✓' L Date: Page 12 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Virginia Apple Storage, Inc (Phone) (540) 667-4273 (Address) PO Box 3103 Winchester, VA 22604 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 No. 040011262 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 98 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Bury+Partners (Phone) (703) 968-9090 (Address) 3810 Concorde Parkway Suite 1000 Chantilly, VA 20151 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 application for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ® Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. ,,I In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seat this _q_ day ofl'VeJ 2001,E 'Signature(s) AeIIFAI�w State of Virginia, City/ unt oftc'ic,v-To-wit: I, 5f ►ca , Kel) , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this R day A", "200 _. m a �Cy►1r►I�SSio� S51cn I�7 �„�,i� My Commission Expires: Aknx6r 30 :2e695 Notary Pu N is Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) C Robert Solenberger (Phone) (540) 667-3390 (Address) PO Box 2368 Winchester VA 22604 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 No. 040017164 on Page and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Bury+Partners (Phone) (703) 968-9090 (Address) 3810 Concorde Parkway Suite 1000 Chantilly, VA 20151 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 application for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ® Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. ''I In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this A_ day ot]A&W200)a Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/�unt f 'r To -wit: I \ ,AI� C_C ` v _� ; a notary Public in and r the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the persons) who signed to the forego ng instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this � day of,Je 200_.. y � `a , �c�s�(•6� �� My Commission Expires: 'i 1bfY �U Z`✓ Ke A I notary Public V Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) John S. Scully IV (Phone) (540) 662-0323 (Address) 112 North Cameron Street, 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 Instrument No. 040017164 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Bury+Partners (Phone) (703) 968-9090 (Address) 3810 Concorde Parkway, Suite 1000, Chantilly VA 20151 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 application for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ® Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness S ignature(s) rnd and seal this . Wi day of NW , 200 (o / State of Virginia, Cit County ftYer� 40 -wit: 44(60 a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has ackrWwledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this 84 -in day ofhlw,a 200 �o NaTlsWA-, X l k�i My Commission Expires: Fe—favi . u 2�� 2W8 Notary Public -J gJ, Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) John B. Schroth (Phone) (540) 662-0323 (Address) 112 North Cameron Street 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 Instrument No. 040017164 on Page and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Bury+Partners (Phone) (703) 968-9090 (Address) 3810 Concorde Parkway Suite 1000 Chantilly, VA 20151 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 application for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ® Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: 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 �q my (our) hand and seal this 5? day ofV' Y f-00 (a Signature(s) State of Virginia, City Count ofcy-_e (Y 0 -wit: I,1�1t i,.t��2ii5Qa Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that t he person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has ac wledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this erF6 day of �iy�'+200 it . My Commission Expires: 66 ,,A 2-0, 2svb Notary Public Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Rutherford Farm, LLC (Phone) (703) 448-4307 (Address) 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Vienna VA 22182 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 No. 050006702 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 100 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Bury+Partners (Phone) (703) 968-9090 (Address) 3810 Concorde Parkway, Suite 1000 Chantilly VA 20151 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 application for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ® Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: 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 hlKto set my (our) hand and seal this I day oMa , 20QL Signature(s) State of Virginia, City ounty fcni i- �-wit: IjbyyaL- i �d Ei-5o , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction, aforesaid, certify that the persons) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the �same ebbefore me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this � day of &1�'j( wo (a . OF • / I �k My Commission Expires: Fe- loq ±74 Zqq Z00e) Notary Public Special Limited Power of Attorney ti County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That (Name) Cowperwood FEMA LLC (Phone) (212) 953-0007 (Address) 375 Park Avenue Suite 3701, New York, NY 10152 the owner of all those tracts of parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to it by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 060020794 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 111 Block: A Section: Subdivision: does hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Bury+Partners (Phone) (703) 968-9090 (Address) 3810 Concorde Parkway Suite 1000 Chantilly VA 20151 To act as its true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in its name, place and stead with full power and Authority it would have if acting directly for the sole purpose (and for no other purpose) of filing the following with respect to the Property: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits 0 Final Master Development Plan, dated N q , 2006 ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment Except for the sole purpose of filing of the Final Master Development Plan as authorized above, Cowperwood FEMA, LLC's attorney in fact shall have no other authority on behalf of Cowperwood FEMA, LLC, including, without limitation, no authority to offer proffered conditions, no authority to designate Cowperwood FEMA, LLC as an applicant on any proffer, and no authority to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions. This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I have hereto set my hand this � day of November, 2006. COWPER7 FEMA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company NANETTE BR Ey. �� Notary Public, Statea of of New New York o. 31-4875068 Edward J. Sussi, Senior Vice President Oualified in New York Counfit . Term Expires October 27.201% State of New York, County of To -wit: I, Nanette Brannigan, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is known to me, personally appeared before me and has ac owledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of November, 2006. • My Commission Expires: Notary Public COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner S RE: Glaize Property Rezoning (REZ #14-05) DATE: November 20, 2006 At the Planning Commission Meeting on November 1, 2006, the Glaize Property Rezoning (REZ #14-06) was postponed for 30 days, in order for the applicant to address issues raised by the Planning Commission and staff. Staff has met with the applicant's representative, Mr. John Lewis, but revised plans have not yet been submitted. Therefore, the application will not be considered at the December 6`" Planning Commission meeting. The application will be returned to the Planning Commission when revised plans that address Commissioner's concerns are received. Please contact me if your have any questions. SKE/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 J • COUNT' of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician } RE: 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan — Discussion Item DATE: November 17, 2006 On November 13, 2006, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) met with County Department and Agency representatives to discuss new project requests and project modification requests associated with the 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The role of the CPPS in the CIP process is to ensure that the various departmental project requests are in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, rather than to engage in the evaluation and prioritization of departmental projects. Projected expenditures are included in the proposed CIP as these are required by the Code of Virginia. A key discussion that took place at CPPS was the inclusion of transportation project requests as compiled by staff and approved by the Transportation Committee. Following discussion, the CPPS agreed that the CIP requests were in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and forwarded the draft document out of Committee for Planning Commission discussion. As mentioned above, a significant new addition to the CIP this year is the inclusion of transportation projects. The reason for this change is that state code now allows for transportation projects to appear in the GIP. The addition of transportation projects to the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be independently undertaking these projects. Funding for projects will continue to come from a combination of state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing. It is requested that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors consider the proposed 2007-2008 CIP as a discussion item prior to the document's advertisement for public hearing. Such discussion will provide a valuable opportunity for collective review of proposed capital projects while also allowing members to determine if additional information or analysis is needed in advance of final CIP consideration. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan — Discussion Item November. 17, 2006 Page 2 Please find attached with this agenda item a summary of the proposed 2007-2008 CIP; information pertaining to new or modified departmental project requests; and a draft copy of the proposed 2007-2008 CIP, which includes a map illustrating the known locations of the CIP requests. The map, if ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, would satisfy the review requirement of Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, which states that no public facility shall be constructed unless said facility is a "feature shown" within a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding this information. KTH/ bad Attachments SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED 2007-2008- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS • The proposed CIP consists of 54 capital projects, an increase over the 46 projects included in the previous CIP. • Of the 54 capital projects proposed, seventeen are new. The Public Schools account for four, Handley Regional Library has two, and all of the eleven Transportation Committee's requests are new, since this is the first year they have provided capital projects. • The following is a listing of the new project requests (besides transportation): • Four (4) projects from the County public schools: o Apple Pie Ridge Elementary includes several renovations that pertain to updating electrical, plumbing, and other mechanical features. o Bass Hoover Elementary proposes the addition of classrooms to cope with growth in student membership. o The relocation of Frederick County Middle School has been included to provide a better environment for students than the current facility. o Frederick County Middle School renovations include a change of use to administrative offices. • Two (2) projects from the Handley Regional Library: o Branch libraries located within the UDA have been requested, which include specific areas: • Senseny/Greenwood • Route 522 South • Public Schools, Parks & Recreation, County Administration, and Winchester Regional Airport have either reduced their number of priorities or have submitted the same number of requests as last year, while the Regional Library was the only agency to increase the amount of project requests from last year. Proposed 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Comparison of New Project Requests and Modification Requests FrPriPrirk County Public Schools Project Typeof 2006-2007 2007-2008 Difference Request Local Local ($) Expenditure Expenditure Request $) Request ($ Transportation Facility Modification 12,500,000 13,186,200 686,200 Elementary School #12 Modification 20,451,700 19,389,000 -1,062,700 Apple Pie Ridge New N/A 3,500,000 N/A Elementary School Renovation Bass Hoover Elementary New N/A 1,500,000 N/A School Addition Replacement of Frederick New N/A 33,592,000 N/A County Middle School Frederick County Middle New N/A N/A N/A School Renovation/Administrative Offices Robert E. Aylor Middle Modification 18,000,000 18,000,000 0 School Renovation Fifth Middle School Modification 26,000,000 34,642,000 8,642,000 James Wood High School Modification 18,000,000 N/A N/A Renovation Fourth High School Modification 55,000,000 52,000,000 -3,000,000 Elementary School #13 Modification 20,451,700 19,389,000 -1, 062,700_ Modification 20,451,700 19,389,000 -1,062,700 [::O=ementarySchool#14 Total 190, 855,100 214, 587, 200 1 18,732, 100 Frederick County Pgrkg anti R Pc.rPnti nn Project Type Of 2006-2007 2007-2008 Difference Request Local Local ($) Expenditure Expenditure Request ($) Request ($) Aquatic FacilityModification 13,500,000 14,107,500 607,500 Park Land in Modification 3,000,000 3,135,000 135,000 Western Frederick County Park Land in Modification 4,000,000 4,180,000 180,000 Eastern Frederick County Swimming Pool Modification 1,114,560 1,164,715 50,155 Improvements Maintenance Modification 336,960 352,123 15,163 Compound- Sherando Park Open Play Areas- Modification 444,990 465,015 20,025 Clearbrook Park Access Road with Modification 1,075,304 1,123,693 48,389 Parking and Trails- Sherando Park Lake, Trails, and Modification 1,054,199 1,101,638 47,439 Parking with 2 -MP Fields Skateboard Park- Modification 454,594 475,051 20,457 Sherando Park Softball Complex- Modification 593,674 620,389 26,715 Sherando Park Baseball Complex Modification 1,177,802 1,230,803 53,001 Renovations- Sherando Park Soccer Complex- Modification 1,790,665 1,871,245 80,580 Sherando Park Tennis/Basketball Modification 449,772 470,012 20,240 Complex - Clearbrook Park Picnic Area- Modification 697,280 728,658 31,378 Sherando Park Shelter/Stage Modification 443,412 463,366 19,954 Seating- Clearbrook Park Multi -Generational Modification 7,840,800 8,193,636 352,836 Community Center Total 37, 974, 012 39, 682, 844 1,708,832 County Admini-stration Project Type of 2006-2007 2007-2008 Difference Request Local Local ($) Expenditure Expenditure Request ($) Request ($) Fire & Rescue Modification 3,100,000 3,100,000 0 Station 422 Round Hill Fire Modification N/A N/A N/A Station Relocation Gainesboro Modification 250,000 400,000 150,000 Convenience Site Relocation New N/A 47,800,000 Gore Refuse Site Modification 250,000 400,000 1-50,000 Expansion New N/A 3,000,000 Clearbrook Fire Modification 1,530,000 1,530,000 0 Station- Relocation Total New 5,130, 000 5,430,000 300,000 Tmmnortation Committee Project 1 Type of 2006-2007 2007-2008 Difference Request Local Local ($) Expenditure Expenditure Request ($) Request ($) Planning & New N/A 3,000,000 Engineering Rt. 37 Warrior Drive New N/A 23,200,000 Extension Channing Drive New N/A 20,600,000 Extension Widening of Route New N/A 47,800,000 11 North Brucetown Rd. & New N/A 3,000,000 Hopewell Rd. Realignment Senseny Road New N/A 22,800,000 Widening East Tevis Street New N/A 2,600,000 Extension Inverlee Wa New N/A 10,200,000 Fox Drive T_-__ New i N/A 1 � i 250 nn0 i i Blossom Drive New N/A 250,000 Revenue Sharing New N/A 3,000,000 Total 136, 700, 000 N/A Winchester Regional Airport Project Type of 2006-2007 2007-2008 Difference Request Local Local ($) Expenditure Expenditure Request ($) Request ($ Land Acquisition- Modification 17,300 17,300 0 Parcels 31, 46, & 53 Terminal Building Modification 110,000 110,000 0 Renovation Modification 1,053,000 1,053,000 0 Land Acquisition- Modification 17,300 17,300 0 Parcels 47,47A, & 48 Upgrade Airfield Modification 4,000 4,000 0 Lights Land Acquisition- Modification 7,000 7,000 0 Parcels 50, 51, & 52 Airfield Maintenance Modification 210,000 210,000 0 Building Total 365, 600 365, 600 0 Handley Regional Library Project Type of 2006-2007 Local 2007-2008 Difference Request Expenditure Local ($) Request ($) Expenditure Request ($) Bowman Library- Modification 228,468 228,468 0 Parking Lot & Sidewalk Extension Library facility in Modification 1,053,000 1,053,000 0 Northwestern Frederick County Library Branch- New N/A N/A N/A Sensen /Greenwood Library Branch- New N/A N/A N/A Route 522 South Total 1,281,468 1,281,468 0 FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2007-2008 Fiscal Year DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTIONI........................... ................................................. PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 2 Frederick County Public Schools........... Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ............................2 County Administration ......................... Transportation Committee.......................................................... 3 Winchester Regional Airport ....................................................... 3 Handley Regional Library...........................................................3 2007-2008 CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP .................................................. 4 2007-2008 COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP........... 5 2007-2008 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS MAP .................................... 6 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TABLE ........................ 7 CIP TABLE EXPLANATIONS............................................................ 9 PROJECT FUNDING ................. 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS................................................................ 10 Frederick County Public Schools...................................................10 Transportation Facility ............................ • ........ • • ...............10 Elementary School #12 .....................................................10 Apple Pie Ridge Elementary Renovation ................................ 10 Bass Hoover Elementary Addition.......... .... 11 .......................... Replacement of Frederick County Middle School ...................... I 1 Frederick County Middle School Renovation for Admin. Offices... l l Robert E. Aylor Middle School Renovation .............................12 Fifth Middle School ............ ... .......... .... • .. James Wood High School Renovation......... .... ...................... 12 Fourth High School .................... .. 13 ........... ...... Elementary School # 13 ................ .. 13 ........ ...... Elementary School #14 ..................................................... Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ............................14 Indoor Aquatic Center ................ .. .... , Park Land- Western Frederick County....... .... ........................ 14 Park Land- Eastern Frederick County........ Swimming Pool Improvements- Sherando%Clearbrook............... 15 Maintenance Compound- Sherando .......................................15 Open Play Area- Clearbrook ................ ... . Access Road with Parking and Trails-Sherando .........................16 Lake, Parking, and Trail Development-Sherando .......................16 Skateboard Park-Sherando................................................. 1 Softball Complex-Sherando.................................................17 Baseball Complex-Sherando................................................17 Soccer Complex-Sherando.................................................. 17 Tennis/Basketball Complex -Clearbrook ............................... 18 Picnic Area-Sherando....................................................... 1 Shelter/Stage Seating -Clearbrook ........................................ 18 Multi -Generational Community Center..................................19 County Administration.............................................................. 1 Annex Facilities/Fire & Rescue Station #22 ............................ 19 Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station Relocation ........................ 20 Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation ............................... 20 Gore Refuse Site Expansion ............................................... 20 Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation ....................................... 21 Transportation Committee........................................................... 21 Planning & Engineering of Route 37 ...................................... 21 Warrior Drive Extension .................................................... 21 Channing Drive Extension .................................................. 22 Widening of Route 11 North ................................................ 22 Brucetown/Hopewell Road Realignment..................................22 Senseny Road Widening....................................................23 East Tevis Street Extension ................................................ 2 InverleeWay.................................................................. 23 FoxDrive.....................................................................24 Blossom Drive............................................................... 2 Revenue Sharing............................................................. 24 Winchester Regional Airport ....................................................... 25 Land Acquisition- Bufflick Road — Parcels 31, 46, & 53 ..............25 Terminal Building Renovation ............................................ 2 Land Acquisition— Bufflick Road — Parcels 47, 47A, & 48........... 25 Airfield Lighting Upgrade ................................................. 2 Land Acquisition- Bufflick Road — Parcels 50, 51, & 52 ..............26 Airfield Maintenance Building ............................................ 26 Handley Regional Library...........................................................27 27 Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension ............... Northern Frederick County Library Branch ............................. 27 Senseny/Greenwood Library Branch ..................................... 27 Route 522 South Library Branch .......................................... 28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY 2007-2008 INTRODUCTION Section 15.2-2239 of the Code of Virginia assigns the responsibility for preparation of plans for capital outlays to the local Planning Commissions. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) consists of a schedule for major capital expenditures for the county for the ensuing five years. A significant new addition to the CIP this year is the inclusion of transportation projects. The reason for this change is that state code now allows for transportation projects to appear in the CIP. The addition of transportation projects to the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be independently undertaking these projects. Funding projects will continue to come from a combination of state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing. The CIP is updated annually. Projects are removed from the plans as they are completed or as priorities change. The plan is intended to assist the Board of Supervisors in preparation of the county budget. In addition to determining priorities for capital expenditures, the county must also ensure that projects contained within the CTP conform to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, the projects are reviewed with considerations regarding health, safety, and the general welfare of the public. The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as a capital facilities planning document, not for requesting funding allocations. Once adopted, project priorities may change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is projected. PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Frederick County Public Schools In an effort to maintain educational facilities that will handle the growing student population, the construction of three new elementary schools is recommended within the UDA (Urban Development Area). A new high school and a new middle school have been requested to meet the future demand of a growing student population. A number of school renovations and relocations are proposed, as is a new transportation facility. One of the most notable changes from last years CIP is a request to relocate the administration building to the current Frederick County Middle School. In turn, Frederick County Middle School is requested for relocation into the Gainesboro District. Parks & Recreation The majority of the recommended projects are planned for the county's two regional parks (Sherando & Clearbrook). Nine projects are planned for Sherando Park: upgrade pool amenities, maintenance compound and office, skateboard park, parking and multi- purpose fields with trail development, a softball complex, renovations to the existing baseball complex, a soccer complex, picnic area with a shelter, and an access road with parking and trails. There are currently four projects planned for the Clearbrook Park which include, upgrading pool amenities, a new open play area, a tennis/basketball complex, and shelter with an area for stage seating. In addition the swimming pools at both parks will be updated with water slides and a spray ground. The indoor aquatic facility is being proposed as a top priority of the Parks and Recreation Department for a third year in a row. The Parks and Recreation Department has proposed to acquire land in both the eastern and western portions of the county for the development of future regional park system. Both land acquisitions call for 150-200 acres of land to accommodate the recreational needs of the growing population. County Administration Modifications to two of the County's refuse convenience sites have been requested. The first request is that the current Gainesboro facility be moved because of health hazards the current site incurs. The other request is for the expansion/relocation of the Gore Refuse Site to allow for a trash compactor, which will reduce operational costs, by compacting trash before it reaches the landfill. Fire & Rescue has requested two relocations of current fire stations in order to operate more efficiently. The top project for the County Administration is the creation of Fire & 2 Rescue Station 422, with the ability to provide an annex facility for other county related offices. Transportation Committee This is the first year the Transportation Committee is providing project requests for the CIP. Virginia State Code allows for transportation projects to be included within a locality's CIP. Funding for transportation project requests will likely come from developers and revenue sharing. Implementation of transportation projects does not take away funding for generalized road improvements. The Transportation Committee has requested funding for eleven projects. The eleven requests include projects that entail widening of major roads; key extensions of roads that help provide better networks, and the addition of turn lanes at current unsafe intersections. Winchester Regional Airport All of the Airport requests were carried forward from last year. There are three carried over requests to acquire additional parcels along Bufflick Road which are required to meet noise abatement requirements. Also carried over, is the request to construct a new airfield maintenance building, and a request to upgrade the airfield lighting system to enhance safety for aircraft use of the facility. Funding for airport projects is derived through a complex formula where the federal and state governments contribute a majority of the funding, with Frederick County and the other jurisdictions providing the remaining funding. Handley Regional Library The Handley Regional Library has recommended four projects, two of which are new. The library's top priority is a parking lot expansion as well as improvements to sidewalk access at the Bowman Library. The parking lot expansion would accommodate 121 more parking than what is currently available. The library wishes to extend the sidewalks to serve residents traveling from the east to Lakeside Drive. The three remaining projects request that funding be provided for new library branches throughout the county which include the areas of Gainesboro, Senseny/Greenwood Road, and Route 522 South, with the latter two being located within the UDA (Urban Development Area). 3 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Specific or Approximate Locations Parks and Recreation I Sherando Park 7 (:laarhrnnk Pao 2007-2008 reederick County ;'a taprove ell Peon -DRAFT - &M V Note Creaked by Frederick County Department of Planning & Development November 02, 2006 Map represents the Capital Improvment Requests submitted by various county departments. 0 12,500 25,000 50,000 75,000 0 2 4 Feet 8 12 Miles Existing Elementary Schools . Existing Middle Schools Existing High Schools New School Location Alternatives • • Urban Development Area + SWSA O City/ Town Sounday Streets —' Primary Secondary Wnchester Rds. if r Replacement FCMS A S 2007-2008 New School Locations ap lImprovements Plan \ COQ ! 1 \ f 1 "+....._ill � , I / - ` >�,/ �� •int ,I. / * y #12 Elom School r lementary School Elem School t Imo" 1 �W \ Map Created by Frecerick County Dept of Planning & Development 11/02/06 N W�E S 0 1 2 4 Miles I 1 #5 Middle School #4 High School School Locations Are Most Appropriate Within the UDA county contri ler Fiscal Year County Contributions Notes Total Project Costs Projects 2007-2008 2008-2009 200b-4010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Public Schools - Transportation Facility Elementary School #12 Apple Pie Ridge Elementary Bass Hoover Elementary Replacement Frederick Middle Fred Co. Middle School Renov. Robert E. Aylor Renovation e'000'000 9,125,000 400,000 250,000 2,200,000 1500,000 5,186,200'': 13,901,700 2,400,000 800,000 3,woxo 7.575,000 3,562,300 100400 450,000 zl'noo'000 7,650,000 4.392,000 2,276,000 $19,389,000 -$31500'00) $1,500,000 $33,592;006 NIA $19,000.000 $19,389,000 $2,600,00D $1,500,000 S33,5y2,00O N/A $18,000,000 Fifth Middle School 2,250,000 1,000,000 3,892,000 22,500,000 5,000,000 $34,642,000 $34,642,000 James Wood High School Renov. NIA NIA Fourth High School Elementary School #13 3,750,000 1,500,000 5,000,000 700,000 13,000,000 1,1-16,000 19,000,000 14,u03,�0o $52,000,000 $10,38.q000 D 0 $52,000,000 $19389,000 Elementary School #14 - $19,389,000 D $19,389,000 Parks & Recreation indoor Aquatic Facility 14,107,500 $14.107,500 $14,107.500 Park Land Western Fred. Co. 3,135,000 $3,135,000 $3,135,000 Clearbrook & Sherando Sherando Clearbrook Sherando Sherando Sherando Sherando Sherando Sherando Clearbrook Sherando Clearbrook ,Park Land Eastern Fred Co. Water Slide/Spray Ground .Maintenance Compound Open Play Areas Access Road w/Parking/Trails Lake/Trails/Parking- 2 Fields Skateboard Park Softball Complex Baseball Complex Soccer Complex Tennis/Basketball Complex Picnic Areas Shelter Stage 4,180,000 1,164,715 352,,23: 465,015 1,123,693 1,101,638 473,051 620,389 1,<30^3 1,871,245 470,012 728,658 463356 $4,150,000 $1,164,715 $352.123 $465,015 $1,123,693 $1,101,638 $475,361 $620,389 $1,230,503 $1,871,245$1,871,245 $470,012 $728,658 54e3.36e $4,180.000 $1,164,715 $352,123 $465,015 $1.123,693 $1,101,638 $475,0t)1 $620,389 $1,230,80 $470,012 $728,658 $463,366 Multi-Generational Center 8,193,636 $8,193,636 $8,193,636 County Administration Fire & Rescue Station #22 Station #15 Relocation Relocation of Gainesboro Site Relocation/Expansion Gore Site Station #13 Relocation 400,000 50,000 80,000 1'100,000 aw'000 50,000 601000 1,600,000 350,000 815,000. 136,000 9/? 000 $3,100;000 N/A $4001000 $350,000 $3,100,000 NIA $400,000 $350,000 1 8159,500 Transportation Route 37 Engineering 1,500,000 1,500,000 $1,500,000 E $1,500,000 Warrior Drive Extension Channing Drive Extension Widening of Route 11 North Brucetown/Hopewell Realign, Senseny Road Widening East Tevis Street Extension Inverlee Way $23,20U,000 $20,600,000 $4,1,800;000 $3,000,000 $22,o00,00o $2,600,000 $10,M,000 � E F E E E El $23,200,000 $20,600,000 $47,800,(= $3,000,000 $22,000,000 $2,600,000 $10'200'000 A= Partial funding from VA Dept. of Aviation N/A= Not Available B= Partial funding from FAA C= Partial funding from private donations D= Funding goes beyond displayed 5 years E= Funding received through Developers and Revenue Sharing Fox Drive $250,000 E $250,000 Blossom Drive $260,000 6 $200,000 Revenue Sharing 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Winchester Airport -Land Ac uisition, Lots 31,46,53 14,000 3,300 $17,300 A.$ $865,000 Terminal Building Renovation 100,000 $100,000 A $500,000 Land Acquisition, Lots 47,47A,48 13,000 4,300 $17,300 A $865.000 Upgrade Airfield Lights 1,000 3,000 $4,000 A,B $200,000 Land Acquisition, Lots 50,51,62 7,000: $7,00G A $350,000 _ Airfield Maintenance Building 210,000 $210,000 A $300,000 Regional Library .Bowman marking Lot/Sidewalk 228,468 $228,468 $228,468 Library Branch North Frederick 48,000 1,005,000 $1,053,000 C $1,053,000 Sensanylreenwood BranchNtA NIA Route 522 Branch N/A N/A "Total 398,047,112. A= Partial funding from VA Dept. of Aviation N/A= Not Available B= Partial funding from FAA C= Partial funding from private donations D= Funding goes beyond displayed 5 years E= Funding received through Developers and Revenue Sharing THE CIP TABLE CONTENT DESCRIPTIONS The Capital Improvements Plan table, on the previous pages, contains a list of the capital improvement projects proposed for the ensuing five years. A description of the information in this table is explained below. Department Priority- The priority rating assigned by each agency or department for their requested projects. Project Description- The name of the capital improvement projects. County Contribution- The estimated dollar value that will be contributed for each project. This value is listed by individual fiscal years and by total contributions over the five-year period. The total contribution column, located to the right of the fiscal year columns, does not include debt service projections. Notes- Indicates the footnotes that apply to additional funding sources for particular projects. Total Project Costs- The cost for each project, including county allocations and other funding sources. PROJECT FUNDING The projects included in the 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan have a total project cost to the county of $398,047,112 over the next five years. • School projects are funded through a combination of loans from the Virginia Public School Authority and the Virginia Literary Fund. • Funding for Parks and Recreation Department projects will come from the unreserved fund balance of the County. The Parks and Recreation Commission will actively seek grants and private sources of funding for projects not funded by the county. • Airport projects will be funded by contributions from the federal, state, and local governments. The local portion may include contributions from Frederick, Clarke, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties, and the City of Winchester. • The addition of transportation projects to the CIP is in no ..Tay an indication that Frederick County will be independently undertaking these projects. Funding projects will continue to come from a combination of state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing. 0 Frederick County Public Schools Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Transportation Facility Description: This project involves the site acquisition and development of a new transportation facility for the public school system. The site will house administration, driver training areas, driver and staff meeting areas, mechanical service and repair bays, inspection bay, wash bay, and fueling bays. Capital Cost: $13,186,200 Justification: The current transportation site has outgrown the current facilities and there is not sufficient area to expand. The increase in student membership, coupled with stringent laws and regulations that govern the operation and maintenance of school transportation vehicles, requires a much larger and upgraded transportation facility. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 38 months. PRIORITY 2 Elementary School 912 Description: This project involves the construction of a 94,000-97,000 square foot school on a 15 acre lot. The facility will be designed to accommodate 750 students. Capital Cost: $19,389,000 Justification: This school will be located in an area to relieve current overcrowding and to accommodate the projected new housing developments. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 36 months. PRIORITY 3 Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School Renovation Description: This project includes renovations, which consist of additional classroom space; roof replacement; security, and upgrades of fire alarm, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems. Capital Cost: $3,500,000 Justification: These renovations are needed to a number of areas to insure economic and efficient operation of the school for years to come. Construction Schedule: Begin Construction FY 08-09 10 PRIORITY 4 Bass Hoover Elementary School Addition Description: This project includes the addition of classrooms. Bass Hoover currently operates at a capacity of 662 students. Capital Cost: $1,500,000 Justification: With increasing membership, the need to add additional classroom space will ensure economic and efficient operation of the school for years to come. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 24 months. PRIORITY 5 Replacement of Frederick County Middle School Description: The replacement of Frederick County Middle School will have a program capacity of 850 students and serve grades 6-8. The project location has been requested in the western portion of Frederick County between Route 50 West and Route 522 North in the area of Hayfield Road. It will contain approximately 166,000 square feet of floor area and be located on approximately 30 acres. Capital Cost: $33,592,000 Justification: With the need for renovations at the current school to major mechanical systems, items dealing with ADA compliance, increasing membership, location of the facility, concern for best building configuration for the delivery of instruction, and the connectivity to other department projects. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 44 months. PRIORITY 6 Frederick County Middle School Renovation to Administrative Offices Description: This project involves renovations to security; replacement of the fire alarm system, and roof; upgrades to the heating, electrical, and plumbing systems, as well as conversion of current instructional space to office space. Capital Cost: TBD Justification: The renovation of Frederick County Middle School into administrative offices will serve 110 current staff housed in the present Frederick County Public Schools Administration building. Construction Schedule: Begin Construction FY 10-11 11 PRIORITY 7 Robert E. Aylor Middle School Renovation Description: This project involves renovations of the current facility. Major areas to be included in the project are additional classroom space and storage space; a complete replacement of fire alarm and communication systems, plus roof replacement; upgrade of electrical and plumbing; and complete replacement of mechanical systems. Capital Cost: $18,000,000 Justification: Robert E. Aylor Middle School is soon to be 37 years of age and renovations are needed to a number of different areas to ensure economic and efficient operation of the school for years to come. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 8 Fifth Middle School Description: This project consists of the development of a new middle school serving grades 6-8 with a capacity of 850 students. The project location has yet to be determined but will have a floor area of approximately 166,000 square feet and will be located on approximately 30 acres of land. Capital Cost: $34,642,000 Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment over the next five years. Middle school enrollment in 2011 is projected to be 3,322. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 44 months. PRIORITY 9 James Wood High. School Renovation Description: This project involves renovations of the existing facility. Major areas to be included in the project include increased electrical service and distribution to support technology; technology cabling, hardware, and its installation; upgrade of plumbing and mechanical systems; and modification of instructional areas to support instructional delivery. Capital Cost: TBD Justification: Updating the facility will assist the school division in meeting the community needs for the citizens and high school student in the James Wood High School attendance zone. Construction Schedule: Begin Construction FY 09-10 12 PRIORITY 10 Fourth High School Description: This project consists of the development of a fourth high school serving grades 9-12 with a program capacity of 1,250 students. The project location has yet to be determined, but will have a floor area of approximately 242,000 square feet and is to be located on approximately 50 acres of land. Capital Cost: $52,000,000 Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment in the school division over the next five years. It is anticipated that student enrollment will increase at all levels. Student enrollment in the high schools by the fall of 2012 is projected to be 4,359. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 60 months PRIORITY 11 Elementary School #13 Description: This project consists of the development of a new elementary school serving 750 students. The elementary school would be located upon 15 acres with a floor space of 94,000- 97,000 square feet. Capital Cost: $19,389,000 Justification: This project will be in a location that will relieve current overcrowding and accommodate projected housing developments. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 36 months. PRIORITY 12 Elementary School #14 Description: This project consists of the development of a new elementary school serving 750 students. The elementary school would be located upon 15 acres with a floor space of 94,000-97,000 square feet. Capital Cost: $19,389,000 Justification: This school will be located in an area to relieve overcrowding and accommodate projected new housing developments. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 36 months. 13 Parks & Recreation Department Project Priority List PRI"RiTV 1 Indoor Aquatic Facility Description: This facility would house a leisure and competitive lap swimming pool with an office, storage and locker rooms. This facility should be located on property owned or proffered to the County and would utilize approximately 8-12 acres with parking. Capital Cost: $14,107,500 Justification: It is estimated that the center will see over 120,000 guests each year. The Department's swim team participation has increased by 29% in the last three years with 1,500 swim lessons during the summer of 2006. This project would permit the Parks and Recreation Department to meet citizen programming demands, provide an instructional facility, as well as provide the area with a facility that would attract new businesses to the community. This facility would be available to all area residents. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 07-08. PRIORITY 2 Park Land — Western Frederick County Description: Parkland acquisition in the western portion of the county. Capital Cost: $3,135,000 Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county population. This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick County service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The location of this project would provide parkland to create more accessible recreational facilities to residents in western Frederick County. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 07-08 PRIORITY 3 Park Land - Eastern Frederick County Description: Parkland acquisition in the eastern portion of the county. Capital Cost: $4,180,000 Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county population. The park would be located in the primary growth center of Frederick County. This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick County service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09. 14 PRIORITY 4 Swimming Pool Improvements — Sherando/Clearbrook Description: This project consists of removing the diving boards and installing two water slides at both Sherando and Clearbrook Park. The upgrade would also include the addition of a spray ground with 10-12 features at each pool. Capital Cost: $1,164,715 Justification: This project is expected to increase pool attendance by 30 percent while providing recreational opportunities for both the Sherando and Clearbrook Park service areas. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09. PRIORITY 5 Maintenance Compound and Office — Sherando Park Description: This project involves the construction of a 1,200 square -foot office and a 4,000 square -foot storage shed for operation at Sherando Park. Capital Cost: $352,123 Justification: This facility will enable the County to maintain equipment and facilities in a more responsible and effective manner. The additional responsibility to maintain the outdoor facilities at Sherando High School, Robinson Learning Center, Armel Elementary, Orchard View Elementary, Bass Hoover Elementary, Middletown Elementary, R.E. Aylor Middle, Admiral Byrd Middle, and Evendale Elementary, increases the need for more storage, maintenance, and office space. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 PRIORITY 6 Open Play Area — Clearbrook Description: This project includes development of a picnic shelter; six horseshoe pits; a volleyball court; croquet turf, shuffleboard; parking; refurbishing the existing concession stand; landscaping (14 shade trees); peripheral work; and renovations to existing shelters, access paths, and parking areas on the south side of the lake. Capital Cost: $465,015 Justification: These facilities will provide recreational opportunities for the Clearbrook Park Service Area which will lessen the disparity between the number of passive recreational areas needed to meet the minimum standards for this service area. Clearbrook Park offers the best location for this development. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09. 15 PRIORITY 7 Access Road with Parking and Trails- Sherando Park Description: This project involves the development of an entrance and 1,800 linear feet of access roadway from Warrior Drive; a 100 space parking area; and 2.8 miles of trails. Capital Cost: $1,123,693 Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service area. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 PRIORITY 8 Lake, Parking, and Trail Development with two Multi-purpose Fields Description: This project involves the development of a 12 acre lake; 1.5 mile trail system around the lake; 800 linear feet of access roadway; lighted parking lot with 125 spaces; and development of two irrigated 70x120 yard multi-purpose fields. Capital Cost: $1,101,638 Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service area. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 PRIORITY 9 Skateboard Park - Sherando Park Description: This project recommends the development of a skateboard bowl; a half pipe; an open skate area; vehicle parking; all access road; fencing; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $475,051 Justification: This facility will enable the County to provide a recreational facility that has been identified in the County Comprehensive Plan for recreational facility development. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10. PRIORITY 10 Softball Complex- Sherando Park Description: This project includes two softball fields; an access road; parking spaces; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $620,389 Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for the entire county population, as well as the Frederick County School System. Presently, there are ten softball and baseball fields within the county's regional park system. Eight of the existing fields must serve a dual purpose of facilitating youth baseball, as well as adult softball programs. With the increased usage of these fields, it has become increasingly difficult to facilitate these programs. This project is needed in order for the Parks and Recreation Department to accommodate the existing demand for youth baseball and adult softball programs. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 PRIORITY 11 Baseball Complex Renovation- Sherando Park Description: This project includes an upgrade to the lighting system; renovation of four existing baseball fields; drainage control and upgrade support facilities; and renovations of existing restrooms, access roads, and walkways. Capital Cost: $1,230,803 Justification: This facility, presently serving as both youth baseball and adult softball fields, would be used by the Little League Programs within the Sherando Park service area. In addition to its use as a recreational facility, the athletic complex will also be used by the Frederick County School System. This project cannot be completed until the Sherando Softball Complex is completed. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 PRIORITY 12 Soccer Complex- Sherando Park Description: This project includes the development of two soccer fields (artificial grass); access paths; restrooms; concession; one picnic shelter; a plaza; landscaping; and lighting (one field). Capital Cost: $1,871,245 Justification: This facility will serve the entire county population and will be utilized by the Frederick County School System. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 1'7 PRIORITY 13 Tennis/Basketball Complex- Clearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of four tennis courts; two basketball courts; a shelter; access paths; parking; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $470,012 Justification: These facilities will be available to all county residents. Currently, there are no tennis courts or basketball courts in the Clearbrook Park Service Area. Clearbrook Park is utilized by over 180,000 visitors annually; therefore, these facilities are needed. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 PRIORITY 14 Picnic Area- Sherando Park Description: This project includes a restroom/concession area; four picnic shelters; playground area; access paths; parking; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $728,658 Justification: These facilities would be used by the residents of Sherando Park service area. This area of the county is growing and is deficient in passive recreational opportunities. This development is needed to reduce the gap between the number of existing facilities and the minimum standards for the Sherando Park service area and southeastern Frederick County. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12 PRIORITY 15 Shelter/Stage Seating- Clearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of a shelter with a performance stage; refurbishing existing restrooms and access paths; and renovations to the lake. Capital Cost: $463,366 Justification: This facility would be used by the entire county population. Presently, there are no facilities to accommodate cultural programs within the county's park system. This project is needed to provide a facility for cultural activities. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12 18 PRIORITY 16 Multi -Generational Community Center Description: The project involves building a 44,000 square foot facility that would contain an indoor track and at least two basketball courts. The court area would be designed to be used by indoor soccer, baseball, softball, wrestling, volleyball, tennis and badminton. The area could also be used for special events. Additionally, the project would house a fitness center, multi-purpose rooms, office, storage, and locker rooms. Capital Cost: $8,193,636 Justification: This facility would give the Parks and Recreation Department the ability to offer year round recreational programming to the residents of Frederick County. The department can no longer meet the programming and facility needs of the County residents. Construction Schedule: FY 11-12 County Administration Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Annex Facilities I Fire & Rescue Station #22 Description: This project will consist of several facilities located at strategic locations throughout the County to house employees of the Sheriff's Office, the Treasurer's Office, the Commissioner of Revenue's Office, and a Board of Supervisor office with meeting room. A 10,000 square foot fire station would be included with the offices located in the Fairfax Pike area, east of White Oak Road. Capital Cost: $3,100,000 Justification: The development of satellite offices along major transportation networks and in areas of dense population will provide ease of access for citizens and will improve services to the county. The County continues to experience a significant rate of growth; therefore, it is important to provide services within these areas instead of requiring citizens to confront congestion, limited parking, and accessibility in the City of Winchester. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 19 PRIORITY 2 Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station Relocation Description: This project includes the relocation and building of a 22,000 square foot facility to accommodate ten or more pieces of emergency equipment and to house living and sleeping areas for staff. A community center of approximately 10,000 square feet, with a capacity of 400 people, is also planned; it would be used for fundraising events and other activities. The project would need a parcel of three to five acres. Capital Cost: N/A Justification: The existing facility serving the Round Hill area is 50+ years old and not large enough to accommodate the equipment needed to serve the commercial growth in the Round Hill community. This community includes approximately 9,000 households, two schools, and the Winchester Medical Center. Construction Schedule: To be determined PRIORITY 3 Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation Description: This project involves the relocation and expansion of the Gainesboro convenience site. The project would include fencing; earthwork; retaining walls; electric; and paving. This project will take place following the closing of the current Gainesboro School. Capital Cost: $400,000 Justification: The project is necessary to provide adequate trash disposal service for citizens living in the Gainesboro area of Frederick County. The existing site is inadequate and cannot be expanded to provide for safe ingress/egress or fencing to prevent illegal dumping. Construction Schedule: Start in FY 08-09 PRIORITY 4 Gore Refuse Site Relocation/Expansion Description: This project involves the expansion of the site by approximately two acres to install a trash compactor. With the relocation of the landfill site and purchase of new equipment, the present compactor will be surplus. Capital Cost: $400,000 Justification: Installation of this compactor at Gore will drive down collection costs at the site where trash is now collected in 8 -yard boxes. This project would pay for itself in lower refuse collection costs. Ultimately the intent of the site is to make best use of existing equipment while lowering operational costs in the Gore service area. Construction Schedule: Start in FY 09-10 01 PRIORITY 5 Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation Description: The new facility is to be located either North or South of Brucetown Rd. The building is to be six (6) drive through bays, administration, eating, and sleeping facilities along with a dining hall. The structure is to be approximately 28,000 square feet. Capital Cost: $1,530,000 Justification.: This project calls for Fire Station #13 to be relocated to an area that has a much safer exit/entrance way. This project will also accommodate the growth in Northeastern Frederick County. The Rt. 11 site also allows for possible growth, if required. Construction Schedule: To be determined Transportation Committee Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Planning and Engineering Work for Route 37 Description: This project would be to continue work on the Eastern Route 37 extension. More specifically, to update the Environmental Impact Statement to the point of a new Record of Decision and to update the 1992 design plans to address the current alignment, engineering guidelines, and possible interchange improvements. Capital Cost: $3,000,000 Justification: This project moves the County closer to completion of a transportation improvement that would benefit the entire county and surrounding localities. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 PRIORITY 2 Warrior Drive Extension Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Route 277 where Warrior Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south and west to intersect with I-81 at the location of the relocated Exit 307 interchange. Capital Cost: $23,200,000 Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion in the Southern Frederick area and address development to the surrounding areas. Construction Schedule: TBD 21 PRIORITY 3 Channing Drive Extension Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road where Channing Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south to intersect with Route 50 East at Independence Drive. Capital Cost: $20,600,000 Justification: This project has been identified in the Eastern Road Plan, and will address congestion in Eastern Frederick County and address development to the surrounding areas. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 4 Widening of Route 11 North to the West Virginia State Line Description: Improve Route 11 to a divided 4 and 6 -lane facility as detailed in the Eastern Road Plan. Capital Cost: $47,800,000 Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion over a large area of the County and address development to the surrounding area. This project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and improving the flow of traffic. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 5 Brucetown Road/Hopewell Road Alignment and Intersection Improvements Description: Realign Brucetown Road to meet Hopewell Road at Route 11. Improvements to this intersection will address comprehensive planned development's traffic generation in the area. Capital Cost: $3,000,000 Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on the Route 11 corridor. The location is identified by joint planning efforts between the county and VDOT. Construction Schedule: TBD 22 PRIORITY 6 Senseny Road Widening Description: Widen Senseny Road to a 4 -lane divided roadway. This project is not dependent upon, but is being coordinated with the implementation of Route 37, Channing Drive, and development in the area. Capital Cost: $22,800,000 Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on Eastern Frederick County. This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 7 East Tevis Street Extension Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Route 522 and going west approximately 0.2 miles to connect to the road network being constructed by the Russell 150 development. Capital Cost: $2,600,000 Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion in many areas of the County and address development to the surrounding area. The location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the county, VDOT, and the developer. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 8 Inverlee Way Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road and going south to Route 50 East. This project is being planned in conjunction with improvements to Senseny Road and surrounding development. Capital Cost: $10,200,000 Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion and provide an additional needed link between Senseny Road and Route 50 East. Construction Schedule: TBD 23 PRIORITY 9 Fox Drive Description: Add additional turning lane(s) to Fox Drive where it intersects with Route 522 North. Capital Cost: $250,000 Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at this intersection. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 10 Blossom Drive Description: Add additional turning lane(s) at Blossom and Route 7. Capital Cost: $250,000 Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at this intersection. This project is identified in Secondary Road Improvements Plan. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 11 Revenue Sharing Description: Plan to address changes in the revenue sharing program. Current State Code allows localities to apply for up to $1 million under the program, and only allows for one half of those dollars to come from proffers. This creates a requirement for a minimum of $500,000 annually from County funds to apply for the maximum in revenue sharing on an annual basis. Capital Cost: $3,000,000 Justification: Based upon State Code, if the County wishes to apply for the full $1 million in revenue sharing, the County must be prepared to pay 50% of the match or $500,000 from local funds. Construction Schedule: NIA 24 Winchester Regional Airport Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 31, 46, & 53 Description: Acquisition of three parcels along Bufflick Road. Capital Cost: $865,000 Local Cost: $17,300 Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within both the Airport's FAR Part 77 Primary Surface and/or approach surface and the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The FAA considers residential land use within the noise contour to be incompatible with airport operations and encourages airports to resolve such incompatibility through land acquisition. Moreover, under the FAA's Part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia, the Airport is required to assume fee simple ownership of property located within the Primary Surface. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 07-08 PRIORITY 2 Terminal Building Renovation, Phase I1 Description: This project involves repairs and upgrades to the existing terminal building including fixing the exterior surface; stopping leaks in the roof, and replacing the HVAC system. Capital Cost: $500,000 Local Cost: $110,000 Justification: The building was constructed in 1992 and is beginning to show several areas of wear including delaminating of the exterior surface and a leaking roof. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 PRIORITY 3 Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 47, 47A, & 48 Description: Acquisition of three parcels located along Bufflick Road. Property is included in the 20 year Master Plan. Capital Cost: $865,000 Local Cost: $17,300 Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within the Airport's FAR Part 77 primary surface and/or approach surface. In addition, several of the residential parcels are located inside the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The FAA considers residential use within the noise contour non -compatible with airport operations. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 25 PRIORITY 4 Airfield Lighting Upgrade Description: This project involves the upgrade of the existing medium intensity runway lighting to high intensity runway lighting and the upgrade of the two -box precision approach path indicator (PAPI) to a four -box PAPI. Capital Cost: $200,000 Local Cost: $4,000 Justification: This project is necessary to accommodate the increase in aircraft that utilize the Winchester Regional Airport. Construction Schedule: Design in FY 08-09 with construction in FY 09-10 PRIORITY 5 Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 50, 51, & 52 Description: Acquisition of three parcels located along Bufflick Road. Property is included in the 20 Year Master Plan. Capital Cost: $350,000 Local Cost: $7,000 Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within the Airport's FAR Part 77 primary surface and/or approach surface. In addition, several of the residential parcels are located inside the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The FAA considers residential use within the noise contour non -compatible with airport operations. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 PRIORITY 6 Airfield Maintenance Building Description: Demolition of undersized woodenn structure and construction of a new facility to accommodate the airport's maintenance equipment and maintenance work activities. Capital Cost: $300,000 Local Cost: $210,000 Justification: This project is necessary to accommodate maintenance activities at the airport. Construction Schedule: To be determined W] Handley Regional Library Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension Description: This proposal is to expand the parking lot on the Lakeside Drive side of the library from 101 to 221 parking spaces, and to provide a sidewalk that will extend approximately 400 to 500 feet beyond the sidewalk that now borders the parking lot to connect to the sidewalk on Lakeside Drive. Capital Cost: $228,468 Justification: The parking lot expansion is needed to relieve overcrowding and to accommodate library patrons. The sidewalk is necessary to provide safe access for pedestrians to the library. Planning consideration for alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle connectivity should also be considered. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 07-08 PRIORITY 2 Northern Frederick County Library Branch Description: This project entails the acquisition of 3 to 4 acres and the construction of a 7,000 square foot library branch with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet along Route 522 N near Cross Junction. Initial parking would accommodate 35 vehicles. Capital Cost: $1,053,000 Justification: There is no library in this area of the County to serve residents. The residents of the Gainesboro District comprise the largest population group the greatest distance away from a library. The library would serve members of the population from toddlers to senior citizens. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 PRIORITY 3 Frederick County Library Branch — Senseny/Greenwood Description: This project entails the acquisition of 3 to 4 acres and the construction of a 7,000 square foot library branch with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet. The proposed location would be based upon future development. Initial parking would accommodate 35 vehicles. Capital Cost: N/A Justification: This branch would serve citizens living in this rapidly growing area. A library in this location will reduce traffic into the Winchester Library(s). The library would also help fulfill a community center need within this area, by providing a meeting room. Construction Schedule: TBD 27 PRIORITY 4 Frederick County Library Branch- Route 522 South Description: This project entails the acquisition of 3 to 4 acres and the construction of a 7,000 square foot library branch with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet. The proposed location would be based upon future development. Initial parking would accommodate 35 vehicles. Capital Cost: N/A Justification: This branch would serve citizens living in this rapidly growing area. This population group is not close to a library in the regional system. The library would also help fulfill a community center need within this area, by providing a meeting room. Construction Schedule: TBD 28