The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 06-16-04 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia June 16, 2004 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) April 21, 2004 Minutes and May 5, 2004 Minutes ............................ (A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................ (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments ................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Conditional Use Permit #11-04 of Douglas Lowell - Country Treasures, for an Antique Shop. The property is located at 4850 Front Royal Pike (Route 522 S) and is identified with Property Identification Number 94A-1-3-1 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Ms. Mills............................................................ (B) 5) The Revocation of Conditional Use Permit 4017-90 of White Oak Trading Post for an existing campground and expansion of the store by 75%. The property is located at the northwest corner of Routes 277 and 636 and is identified with Property Identification Number 86-A-143 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran ...........................................................(C) 6) Rezoning #03-04 of Racey Tract, submitted by Blue Springs View, L.L.C., to rezone 105.65 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District. This property is located east of Interstate 81, approximately V2 of a mile south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), east of Town Run Lane (Route 1012), and to the south of Ridgefield Avenue (Route 1065) along Ewing Lane. This property is south of Ridgefield Subdivision, east of Stephens Ridge Subdivision, and west of Woodside Subdivision, in the Opequon Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 85-A-140. Mr. Camp............................................................(D) 8) Other MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNT' PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on April 21, 2004. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; and Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; Candice C. Mills, Planner I; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - MARCH 17. 2004 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Gochenour, the minutes of March 17, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 21, 2004 Page 1279 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 04/20/04 Mtg. Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB reviewed two rezoning proposals: the Lawrence rezoning proposal, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. and the Old Massie Store rezoning proposal, submitted by Greenway Engineering. Commissioner Gochenour stated that both of the rezoning proposals had historic significance, but in different ways. She said the review of the Lawrence proposal, located in the Brucetown area, had local historic significance pertaining to the character of the community; however, the review of the Old Massie Store rezoning proposal revealed the possibility of a pristine rural historic district. Commissioner Gochenour said that both applicants will be receiving letters from Planner Candice Mills. Commissioner Gochenour reported that the remainder of the meeting was devoted to the discussion and potential topics for HRAB training and concluded in setting two dates for training: Friday, May 14, and Thursday, June 3, 2004. Sanitation Authority (CPPS) - 04/20/04 Mtg. Commissioner Fisher reported that the Sanitation Authority has agreed to extend the water service out to the Exit 323 Interchange on I-81 North. He also reported that the Sanitation Authority's Engineer/Director, Wellington H. Jones, reviewed the Authority's Five Year Plan with expansion possibilities for waste water and water facilities for the continued growth of the County. Winchester Planning Commission - 04/20/04 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported that the Winchester Planning Commission rezoned approximately two acres of land at 315 East Cork Street from Limited High Density Residential to Central Business for the Edge Hill facility; they approved a site plan for a medical office complex near the Winchester Medical Center on Linden Drive; also approved was a site plan for a retail center behind the Red, Hot, & Blue restaurant and the Apple Federal Credit Union. Commissioner Ours reported that the Winchester Planning Commission also sent recommended approval to City Council for the subdivision of 13 single-family residences in the west Cedarmeade area. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Diane Kerns of the Community Consensus Coalition (CCC) announced that the CCC is co -sponsoring, along with the Virginia Citizens Planning Association, a planning workshop on Monday, May Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 21, 2004 Page 1280 -3- 18, 2004, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Ms. Kerns said that the workshop will review the planning process in Virginia; specifically, who does what, how it works, and at what point the citizens can become involved. Ms. Kerns provided some flyers about the meeting for anyone who might be interested. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #04-04 of the Bean Property, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone five acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District. This property is located on Bean's Pond Lane, approximately %Z mile north of Senseny Road. This site adjoins the Lynnhaven and Sovereign Village Subdivisions and is identified by P.I.N. 55-A-208 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers County Planner, Jeremy F. Camp, stated that on December 8, 1999, all of the land around the subject five -acre site was rezoned to the RP (Residential Performance) District under Rezoning Application # 15-99 of Channing Drive. Planner Camp explained that this land is collectively referred to as Channing Drive and independently as the Lynnehaven, Giles, and Fu-Shep properties. He said that on March 23, 2004, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution which enables the three developers of the Channing Drive rezoning to proceed with master development plan revisions independently of one another; he said that it is expected that the Bean property will become part of the revised Lynnehaven master development plan, if this rezoning application is approved. He said that the applicant's intent in applying for the rezoning is to improve the lot layout within the adjacent Lynnehaven Subdivision. Planner Camp next reviewed the proffer statement which included monetary contributions for County services and traffic signalization. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, the design engineers for this project, was representing this application. Mr. Wyatt confirmed that the Bean property would become a part of the Lynnhaven project. He said that the monetary proffer contribution reflects what was offered with the previous Lynnehaven, Giles, and Fu-Shep projects. He said that the sum of $3,278.31 will be contributed for each single-family detached lot, $50,000 will be contributed within 30 days of final subdivision plat approval, and $12,000 will be contributed towards the installation of traffic signalization at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) and Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659)_ Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Commissioners Straub and Gochenour expressed concern that the worsening of conditions along Senseny Road, and especially the increasing impact to Senseny Road Elementary School, was not appropriate, regardless of the relatively limited size of the proposed development. The majority ofthe Planning Commissioners, however, believed this rezoning was appropriate. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 21, 2004 Page 1281 -4 - BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning #04-04 of the Bean Property, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone five acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, located on Bean's Pond Lane, approximately `/2 mile north of Senseny Road, adjacent to the Lynnehaven subdivision, with proffers as submitted by the applicant. This rezoning was recommended for approval by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Unger, Thomas, Ours, Fisher, Rosenberry, DeHaven, Morris, Watt, Kriz, Triplett NO: Gouchenour, Straub (Please note: Commissioner Light were absent from the meeting.) Conditional Use Permit #03-04 of David Monroe for a Cottage Occupation for a machine shop. This property is located at 262 Klines Mill Road (Rt. 633), off of Route 11 South, south of the Route 11 truck scales, and is identified with P.I.N. 84-A-68 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions County Planner Candice E. Mills stated that the proposed use will be conducted in a two-story accessory structure approximately 1,170 square feet in size, located on the side of the property. Planner Mills said that the applicant has reported that the proposed use will have no more than two employees and all work will be conducted within the accessory structure; the applicant plans to do fabrication and repair; the customer base will be no more than ten per day, with drop-off and pick-up; the items fabricated or repaired will be small in nature and no heavy equipment will be brought to the site. Planner Mills said the applicant plans to construct an opaque fence at least five feet in height to screen any outdoor storage from surrounding properties and Klines Mill Road (Rt. 633); the outdoor storage area will not exceed 500 square feet. Planner Mills next read the list of recommended conditions for this cottage occupation. Mr. David Monroe, the applicant, was available to answer questions from the Commission Mr. Monroe stated that although he doesn't plan on storing anything outside of the structure, he will install the fence per the County's instruction. Commission members asked Mr. Monroe if he would have any problems with a condition that would require opaque screening of a specific size for any outdoor storage and that no outdoor storage would be placed in the front of the building. Mr. Monroe said he would have no problems with this condition. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 21, 2004 Page 1282 -5 - Mr. Donald Snapp, an adjoining property owner, expressed concerns on what would be stored outside and where, whether or not all work would be conducted inside of the structure, the amount of noise associated with this type of Work, and the hours and days of operation. Mr. Snapp was concerned about how Mr. Monroe's business might impact the resale value of his home and property, especially in light of the investment he and his wife have made in their home. Mr. Wallace Bowman, an adjoining property owner, supported Mr. Monroe's proposed business with the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Monroe returned to the podium and stated that this is a secondary income for him; he will be keeping his full-time job. Mr. Monroe said that he would not be making noise in the late hours of the night nor did he want to bother any of his neighbors. Commissioner Unger moved for approval of the conditional use permit and this motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Commissioner Thomas asked for consideration of an addition to Condition #5 specifying that the outside storage area must be to the side or rear of the building. Commissioner Unger and Commissioner Kriz both concurred with this amended condition. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 403-04 of David Monroe for a Cottage Occupation for a machine shop at 262 Klines Mill Road (Rt. 633) with the following conditions: All reviewing agencies comments must be complied with at all times. 2. No more than two (2) employees associated with this use will be allowed. All repair work shall be done completely within the accessory structure. 4. No more than five (5) items awaiting repair shall be stored outside of the accessory structure. 5. All outdoor storage will be screened by opaque fencing that is no less than five feet in height, and the outdoor storage area will not exceed 500 square feet. Outdoor storage will only be allowed at the side and rear of the detached garage; storage of materials waiting repair will not be stored at the front of the detached garage. 6. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and will not exceed four square feet in size. 7. Any expansion or modification of this use shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit. (Please note: Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 21, 2004 Page 1283 -6 - Conditional Use Permit #04-04 of Barry Eaton for a Cottage Occupation for a workshop with processing equipiner.t, trading as Big Barry's Reef _Tertiy apd Venison Processing, at 4694 North Frederick Pike. This property is identified with P.I.N. 30 -A -14A in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions County Planner Mark R. Cheran provided the background information and reviewing agencies' comments. Planner Cheran said the proposed use will be conducted in an accessory structure of approximately 150 square feet and the applicant anticipates having one employee on site. A Commissioner asked the staff to give a brief summary of Section 16542 (Rendering) of the code. Planner Cheran stated that this section addresses keeping the area clean and sanitary and the structure should be constructed in a manner that controls entrance ways from rodents and insects. The issue of product disposal was raised and Mr. Cheran believed that issue would fall under the jurisdiction of the Health Department. Planning Commissioners were of the opinion that the number of customers permitted under recommended Condition 44, "no more than 15 customers per day allowed," was neither reasonable or enforceable. Staff stated they had no problems raising the number, but were merely attempting to establish a threshold to gauge future expansion. Commission members believed that permitting 25 customers, rather than only 15, would be appropriate. Mr. Barry Eaton, the applicant, said that he has been field dressing deer for years for friends and last year, he turned away numerous people. Mr. Eaton said that he processed a number of deer last year for the Hunters for the Hungry Program. As far as the rendering process, Mr. Eaton said there was no waste other than the hides, which he sells, and he incinerates the bones and fat. Commission members asked Mr. Eaton if he had a State Health Department Permit and Mr. Eaton said that he did not. There were no citizen comments. Commissioner Kriz moved to recommend approval of this application with an amendment to Condition #4, raising the number of customers allowed per day from 15 to 25. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Fisher. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #04-04 of Barry Eaton for a Cottage Occupation for a workshop with processing equipment, trading as Big Barry's Beef Jerky and Venison Processing, at 4694 North Frederick Pike with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Shall be in compliance with Section 165-42 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, in regard to rendering operations. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 21, 2004 Page 1284 -7- 3. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four square feet in size. 4. No more than 25 customers per day allowed. 5. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit. (Please note: Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.) OTHER RURAL AREAS VISIONING MEETINGS Chairman DeHaven announced a visioning workshop for the Rural Areas Study scheduled for Thursday, April 22, at Middletown Elementary School, and a sixth meeting has been added for next Wednesday, April 28, at Indian Hollow Elementary School. Chairman DeHaven encouraged the public to attend. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 21, 2004 Page 1285 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 May 5, 2004. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; and Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II, Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 04/29/04 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS discussed what uses should belong in the B2 Zoning District. He said the DRRS should be forwarding their results to the Commission in the near future. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of May 5, 2004 Page 1286 Ewa Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) f'nMMI-Issioner Light reported that the CPPS has finished all of the visioning sessions for the rural areas study with the public. Commissioner Light said the CPPS will have its meeting with the Board of Supervisors on May 11. He said the next meeting of the CPPS will be held on May 24, 2004. Transportation Committee - 05/04/04 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee had an informational meeting for all the new members. He said the Transportation Committee held election of officers and Mr. Don Taylor was re-elected as Chairman and Mr. James Racey was elected as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Kriz said that next month's meeting will be to discuss recommendations for road improvements. Historic Resources Advisory Board Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB will begin their training sessions which will help the members of the HRAB in reviewing historic applications and will assist with overall HRAB meeting procedures. Commissioner Gochenour said the training session is scheduled for May 14, 2004 from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. and on June 3, 2004 from 1:30 to 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #06-04 of East Side Raw Bar & Grill for the expansion of a non -conforming use at 1815 Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East). This property is identified by P.I.N.s 64-A-144 and 64-A-145 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions County Planner, Mark R. Cheran, stated that this property is currently operating as a restaurant and the proposed conditional use permit (CUP) will bring the property into conformance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and specifically, with the restaurant use in the RA Zoning District. Planner Cheran noted that a restaurant has operated on this site since the 1960's. Planner Cheran explained that the applicant proposes to add a 1,100 square -foot outdoor dining deck. He said the site has a 34 -space parking lot and the parking lot area is in compliance with the requirements for parking areas in the RA Zoning District. In conclusion, Planner Cheran said that granting approval of the CUP will accomplish two things: first, it will legitimize the seafood restaurant; and second, it will enable the property owner to construct an outdoor seating area. Planner Cheran read three recommended conditions for granting the CUP. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of May 5, 2004 Page 1287 Beim Mr. and Mrs. James Dill, the property owners and applicants, were available to answer questions from the Commission. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. No issues were raised by members of the Commission and they believed the use was appropriate with the conditions recommended by the staff- Upon taff Upon motion made by Commissioner Fisher and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 406-04 of East Side Raw Bar & Grill for the expansion of a non -conforming use at 1815 Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East) with the following conditions: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Any future expansions of this restaurant use shall be in compliance with Section 165-27 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, as related to parking areas and landscaping. All improvements shall be in place prior to any building permits being issued. Any change of use or modification of more than 2,000 square feet (deck or building), shall require a site plan and a new conditional use permit. Rezoning #05-04 of Burlington, LLC, submitted by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone .78 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located east of Winchester and north of Rt. 50, on the east side of Tulane Drive, behind the former Hardee's Restaurant, and is identified with P.I.N.s 64A-2-12 and 64A-2-13 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions County Planner, Jeremy F. Camp, presented the background information and the reviewing agencies' comments. Planner Camp said the applicant is seeking the rezoning of this property with the intent of developing a hotel on the parcel to the south and using the .78 -acre site for parking. He said that the proffer to limit the future use of the subject property as a parking lot only, along with the other proffered conditions, help mitigate much of the impact that this rezoning will have. Mr. Ronald Mislowski with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the design engineers for this project, presented the rezoning to the Commission and reviewed the proffers being offered. Mr. Mislowski said they have proffered the limitation of only one commercial entrance on Tulane Drive for the entire future hotel site; no entrances shall be located on the property proposed for rezoning. In addition, a modification of the existing entrance along Millwood Pike (Rt. 50) would restrict the entrance and exist of eastbound traffic. He noted the provision for a landscape screen to be located on the outside of a six-foot tall opaque fence, consisting Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of May 5, 2004 Page 1288 -4 - of either block or board, along the east and north property lines; there will be a continuous evergreen hedge row planted along Tulane Drive. Mr. Mislowsky stated that this buffer, together with the numerous existing trees, will create a dense landscape screen. Mr. Mislowsky said the parking oftrucks, trailers, or buses was certainly not a part of their plans for this area. Commissioners preferred to see some guarantee from the applicant that tractor trailers and buses would not be parked on the proposed lot_ In addition, Commissioners asked for a commitment from the applicant that lighting would not be obtrusive to adjoining residents. Board of Supervisors' Liaison, Barbara Van Osten recommended that ornamental block, rather than cinder block, be used to enhance the appearance of the opaque fence. Chairman DeHaven called next for citizen comments and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning: Mr. Keith Bryant, a resident of College Park, stated that the lot proposed for rezoning is within an established residential neighborhood and he was concerned that the property values and quality of life for the adjacent residential homes would be negatively impacted. He was opposed to business use for this property and hoped there was some way for it to retain its residential appearance. Mr. Noland Walker, a College Park resident, stated that the current owner of the parcel under consideration has done a poor job of maintaining the property. He reported numerous occasions where trash was littered over the streets and he has observed multiple tractor -trailers parked on the lot. Mr. Walker believed the use ofthis property for business would negatively impact the established residential neighborhood. He was also concerned about the appearance of business signs. Mr. Chris Miller, a resident at 106 Price Drive, said that he was speaking for all the residents along Price Drive and he expressed concern that the parking area would be used for tractor trailers and buses, resulting in a noise problem. Mr. Miller did not believe the screening or fence would shield the adjoining residents from the noise generated by the all-night idling of tractor trailers and buses. Mr. Miller talked about the impacts from Shenandoah College that the residents are currently experiencing with litter and noise. Mr. Lance Moss, a resident of College Park, stated that this was an existing residential neighborhood and he feared this proposed rezoning would set a precedent to allow additional commercial uses to encroach on their neighborhood. Mr. Moss believed the establishment of a parking area here would negatively impact the residents' property values. He said that the previous property owner, Mr. Fleet, had maintained his property so well, many considered it to be a showplace; in contrast, the current owner has poorly maintained the property. He said that if this property owner could not keep up the appearance of the property now, then he would not do a good job of maintaining the parking lot or screening in the future. Mr. Paula Shields presented photographs of the property proposed for rezoning. Ms. Shields also had the opinion that if the current property owner had shown no respect for the adjoining neighborhood now, then he more than likely would not take care of the property and screening or fencing in the future. Mr. Jessie Britt, a resident on Yale Drive in College Park, also commented that the previous owner, Mr. Fleet, had kept his house and property like a showplace. Mr. Britt was concerned that eventually, the applicant would seek to add additional entrances to the parking lot. He said that his neighborhood is Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of May 5, 2004 Page 1289 -5 - already being impacted by the Super 8 Motel and he was opposed to any commercial development at this location. Mr. and Mrs. Oates, adjacent property owners, complained that the applicant has not maintained property; Mr. Oates said the grass is not mowed, the hedges are not trimmed, and tall tree stumps were left where three trees were cut. Mr. Oates was concerned about guests of the hotel trespassing onto his property with their pets. He also complained about debris and trash that the applicant is storing on this property. He asked the Commission to recommend denial of this rezoning request. Mr. Ronald Walter spoke of how well manicured this lot was kept by the previous owner, Mr. Fleet. Mr. Walter did not believe the new property owners would adequately maintain the property as a commercial site, when they could not maintain it as a residential site. He presented photographs of the property under consideration. Mr. Walter feared the rezoning of this parcel would set a precedent for future commercial rezonings in this area. In addition, Mr. Walter said that he had the assumption that students were not going to be permitted to use the driveway installed by Shenandoah College; he said there was no speed limit posted on that road and he had safety concerns. Mrs. Connie Moss mentioned that there were already four hotels in this immediate area with one more under construction. She said that she and her husband are raising a family in this neighborhood and would like it to remain residential. She did not believe a fence and shrubbery would keep her family safe and secure. Mr. Denny Place, a local resident for 41 years, was concerned about other B2 uses that could be allowed, once this property is rezoned. Mrs. Sharon Elkins, stated that she grew up in the College Park subdivision and her mother still resides there. Mrs. Elkins was concerned about the appearance of this area as visitors approach the Shenandoah College. She also spoke of how terrible the intersection of Route 50 and Route 522 had become; she believed adding more businesses would only make it worse. She described the Fleet's home and property as a cornerstone for the community when Mr. Fleet owned it; she did not believe the current owner would keep up with the maintenance. She was concerned about the safety and security of the residents of the neighborhood. Ms. Paula Bryant, a resident of Yale Drive, agreed with all the comments that were made. She was concerned about the negative impacts this proposed commercial use might have on the existing residential neighborhood. Ms. Ginny Fresnahand, a resident at the corner of Harvard Drive and Price Drive, voiced her concerns about the affects of this rezoning on the safety and security of her neighborhood. She was also concerned about trash and the appearance of the site. Mr. Chris Miller returned to the podium and presented photographs to the Commission. Mr. Miller didn't believe the developer would maintain the parking lot and screening because he had done a poor job of maintaining the property so far. He said the property has not been mowed since the beginning of the year. Mr. Lance Moss returned to the podiwn and said that the developer has not mentioned how this potential business would be of any benefit to Frederick County. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of May 5, 2004 Page 1290 9 M Mr. Mislowsky returned to the podium and pointed out that with the approval of the master development plan for Shenandoah University and the Tulane Drive extension, the nature of Tulane Drive was changed; he said that it ceased being a residential street and is now a public thoroughfare that will increasingly be used. While he understood the residents' concerns about losing the dwelling, he said that this request is a natural extension of the commercial uses along Rt. 50 and Tulane Drive. He assured the Commission that this parking lot will be screened from all residential views. In conclusion, Mr. Mislowsky believed they could address the issues raised and asked the Commission to table this rezoning in order to give the applicant an opportunity to rework their proffers. Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT was available to take questions from the Commission. A member of the Commission asked if sufficient easement was available along this property for future improvements to Rt. 50, such as widening and turn lanes. Mr. Ingram believed that VDOT was okay in that regard; he speculated that the long-term road plan would show a re -location of Rt. 522, which would tie into Rt. 50 to the east of this location. Commissioner Morris made a motion to table the rezoning application in order to give the applicant the opportunity to address the concerns raised by the citizens and the Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table Rezoning Application #05-04 of Burlington, LLC, submitted by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone .78 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the concerns raised by the citizens and the Commission. The vote was as follows: YES (TO TABLE): Triplett, Fisher, Kriz, Morns, Unger, Gochenour, Straub, DeHaven NO: Thomas, Light, Watt (Commissioners Rosenberry and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Request for removal of Parcel 63-(A)-1, consisting of 183.01 acres and owned by the John T. Solenberger Trust, from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. Action - Recommended Approval Commissioner Unger said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this request due to a possible conflict of interest. County Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that the John T. Solenberger Trust desires to remove the referred 183.01 -acre parcel from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. Director Lawrence said that the property owner notes that this request was prompted by the recent adoption of the West Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP), which calls for suburban residential and mixed use development on land located north and adjacent to the subject acreage. He explained that removal from the South Frederick Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of May 5, 2004 Page 1291 Agricultural and Forestal District is necessary to begin planning efforts for the subject acreage that is intended to result in its inclusion within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA). Director Lawrence reported that the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) considered this request at their meeting of March 18, 2004, and unanimously recommended approval of the withdrawal request. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, the firm representing the property owners in this request, was available to answer questions from the Commission. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. No outstanding issues were raised by the Commission members and a motion was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett to recommend approval of the request. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the request by the John T. Solenberger Trust to remove Parcel 63-(A)-1, consisting of 183.01 acres, from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. YES (TO APPROVE): Triplett, Fisher, Kriz, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Watt, Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN• Unger (Commissioners Rosenberry and Ours were absent from the meeting.) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Chapter 165-82, District Use Regulations, by the addition of SIC 58, Restaurants. Action - Recommended Approval County Planner Mark R. Cheran stated that the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows restaurant use in most of the business and industrial districts, however, the ordinance does not currently permit this use in the B3 (Industrial Transition) District, the RP (Residential Performance) District, or the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. Planner Cheran said that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) discussed adding restaurant use in the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District and, at their meeting of February 26, 2004, recommended that this use be added to the B3 District. No issues of concern were raised by the Planning Commission and members believed the amendment was appropriate. There were no citizen comments. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Chapter 165-82 District Use Regulations by the addition of SIC 58, Restaurants. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of May 5, 2004 Page 1292 -8 - (Commissioners Rosenberry and Ours were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #04-04 for Hiatt Run Adult Community, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., for 47 single-family small lot dwelling units on 10.325 acres, zoned RP (Residential Performance) District. The property is located at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 838, near Stephenson, and is identified with P.I.N.s 44-A-17 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval County Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that this preliminary master development plan is a revision of the Hiatt Run Condominiums Preliminary Master Development Plan that was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at their meeting on December 3, 2003. Planner Camp explained that the proposed revision was submitted by the applicant with the aim of providing an alternative type of development which would be more compatible with the surrounding area. He said that the most significant changes associated with the revision include a reduction in density, a reduction of building height, the elimination of one entrance off of Martinsburg Pike, a reduction in the number of vehicle trips per day, and the addition of a landscape screen along the eastern property line. He said the changes address the majority of the concerns of the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) that were raised at the Commission's December meeting. Mr. Timothy Painter of Painter -Lewis P.L.C., the design engineers, described the revised development proposal to the Commission. Mr. Painter noted a reduction in the density from 96 to 47 units; he noted that the proposed 1'/rstory structures are typical of Cape Cods with a bonus room; he anticipated that the adult community would have no impact on schools and little traffic impact; he described the six-foot berm along Rt. 11 and the landscaped screen to the east and north; and he pointed out that the stone wall along McCann Road will not be disturbed. A member of the Commission voiced concern that some of the lots may be impacted by the flood plain. Mr. Painter replied that a flood survey analysis will be conducted at the subdivision design and plat phase and the flood plain boundary will need to be identified in greater detail. He said that they will not impact the riparian buffer or the stream. Other members of the Commission had questions regarding the provision of sufficient parking for the community center, whether the perimeter landscaping would provide sufficient screening of the site, and marketing methods used to exclude all but the targeted buyers in an adult community. Mr. Sarkis Satian, representing Land Quest, Inc., the property owner, explained how the property is marketed for adults who are 50 years and older. Members of the Planning Commission were pleased the applicant had redesigned the plan and they believed the revised proposal was far more compatible with the surrounding area than the previous development plan. Members of the Commission commended the applicant and the design engineer for their Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of May 5, 2004 Page 1293 efforts. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #04-04 for the Hiatt Run Adult Community, submitted by Painter - Lewis, P.L.C., for 47 single-family small -lot dwelling units on 10.325 acres, zoned RP (Residential Performance) District. (Commissioners Rosenberry and Ours were absent from the meeting.) OTHER JOINT WORK SESSION - PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence announced that there would be a Joint Work Session of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 at 12:00 noon to discuss the Rural Areas Study results from the public meetings that were held over the previous three weeks. Director Lawrence added that the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee members have also been invited. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of May 5, 2004 Page 1294 c Q��tc CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #11-04 DOUGLAS LOWELL - COUNTRY TREASURES a Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: June 2, 2004 v_ae Staff Contact: Candice E. Mills, Planner I This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also he useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 06/16/04 Pending Board of Supervisors: 07/14/04 Pending LOCATION: This subject property is located at 4850 Front Royal Pike (Route 522 S). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER(s): 94A-1-2-1 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Land Use: Residential and Retail PROPOSED USE: Antique Shop REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 522, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be constructed to our minimum standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the State's right- of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. CUP #11-04 Douglas Lowell - Country Treasures June 2, 2004 Page 2 Frederick County_ Fire Marshall: No known hazards to alter firefighting response. Direct access to the main entrance of each structure should be provided by use of the fire lane markings. Plan approval recommended. Health Department: No objections to request for conditional use if no public food service is provided at country store. Frederick County Inspections: Building shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and section 309, use group M(Mercantile) of the International Building Code/2000. Other code that applies is CABO A 117.1-98 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. All required man egress doors shall comply with accessibility under Chapter 11 ofthe IBC and CABO A 117.1-98 and HC parking shall be provided. All structural plans submitted for permit application shall be sealed by a VA Design Professional. Please note the requirements in Chapter 17 ofthe IBC for special inspections for this type of structure. Additional comments will be made at the time of site plan review. Planning and Zoning: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for antique shops in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The property where this business would be located is vacant and the property consists of 66,788 square feet (1.5 acres). This proposed use would take place in a new 50' x 100' structure that the applicant plans to construct. This proposed use will be conducted on property that is surrounded by RA residential property to the north and west. This property is located outside ofthe UDA and S WSA as noted in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires that parking areas outside the UDA and S WSA are to have a minimum of double prime -and -seal treatment of all parking areas, with striping and wheel stops. Staff would recommend any signage be limited to one (1) illuminated free standing business sign, not to exceed fifty (5 0) square feet in area, and ten (10) feet in height along the frontage of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522). An engineered site plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County. All identified site improvements shall be installed prior to issuance of a business license. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06-16-04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, staffwould recommend the following conditions: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. An engineered site plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County; this includes landscaping requirements per § 165-27E ofthe Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. All identified improvements shall be installed priorto issuance of a business license. Additional landscaping shall be provided to enhance the commercial corridor of Front Royal Pike. This landscaping shall be in addition to what is required by § 165-27E of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. CUP #11-04 Douglas Lowell - Country Treasures June 2, 2004 Page 3 3. Signage shall be limited to one illuminated free-standing business sign, not to exceed 50 square feet in area and ten (10) feet in height, along the frontage of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 5225.) 4. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited. Any expansions, modifications or changes of use shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit. CUP # 11 - 0411 Douglas Lowell - Country Treasures Map Features Primary Roads Secondary Roads '�✓' Terciary Roads County Boundary Cup#11-04_photo 59 S 0 50 Feat Created by Frederick County Department x of Planning & Development This map is for general reference and is not to be construed as accurate, Locate actual property documents on s file with the Frederick County ClerWs Office. 94A 1 31 r J a ;;lgeway CUP # 11 - 0411 Douglas Lowell - Country Treasures 94A 111 4A HARVEY 94A 112 1 Map Features Primary Roads Secondary Roads Terciary Roads , ^-,!0 County Boundary J Parcel Lines CUP#1 1-04 84, Ops cc 94A 12 1 Created by Frederick County Department of Planning & DeV8lDpmqrt This map is for general reference and is not to be construed as accurate. Locate actual property documents on file with the Frederick County Clarks Office. I I 94A 13131 1dgeway J 94A 13131 1dgeway U Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting3 ��i� BOS Meeting T APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner" other) NAME: U(71J4S Sc�i`1rI- ADDRESS: $'7� Rc�lx�c Gh�l �2Gh �� S <<o]�,.� G;'r'y VA ZZls55 TELEPHONE 57.10 73 fZ- 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Lowe LL=1u S 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) ,49-5o FRwQT- WOUL JAXIL 1A17-5- `Q T-, V,4- Z96(n3 FRor, ;r' RT•� 50; 1 91-- 5Z Z 7- sovrh fpm -. in ISS io 2Bope-e-rV t9AJ 7L 4,4 7- Cor7,►oA4zg A;jc&w�J AS 4. The property has a road frontage of &0 feet and a depth of 1100 feet and consists of acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by j�rce�a ,�- A�,ain as evidenced by deed from recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. N-13- on page 7_, as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. �4 _ _ a_ 6. Tax(Parcel)Identification (I.D.)No. Magisterial District Current Zoning R'4 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North - N r AKd Q� East S::za��C- 0 Sc- fioufc� .Sou Aams R 1/eAqy7 West 12P AAjd -,IX. A,,,, at -r ,,,f %"/ � P 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) /17 —I S"q oto k' 0 661U -12CY 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: Jo 100 .ST+zcrctc*rz e wi P®2�i� 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME r%f, � U+Xi e- ADDRESS oh TL f'vs ,202 �1�3 PROPERTY ID# � 1G/ 10-1-9-(P NAME ! g xi,4S SU ZA,c1yC - ADDRESS � SO, -7/P717- AV e - PROPERTY ID#�% NAME morn -r , Anprod R J -R __ ADDRESS 4170 rRo,J-r Ro,,' / PROPERTY ID# 9*f1•- i-3- S NAME Mo,+h ,oWS ,1�l� �c��. - S2 ADDRESS I `o1y Sc.-/lnnl: k. , PROPERTY IDS - 2 -- NAME PROPERTY IDS` NAME PROPERTY IDI NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY IDI ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS IRF FENC SUMMIT AVENUE — 50' R /W NIRS N 34030'00"E 19 POLE IRS I — — IRS IRS FENC ll W0 IL SHED 2 SHED 3 Z I ;� j 1 �� !� z T D t_ �. _ 60' BRL� m 7v TF ACT CD FR. x;44 I I BLDG. 50,533 ft. D D I r zI H� POLE rPOOLEIII rn Z O El U CD C7 —w n �TR CT Bs1 t) Ll CONIC — RP E V6,�8 !Qr 7t n P o CYL N A D N I I CONCR TLn V / Y I 0 1 SHED 0 1 ST RY BRICK a R BUI D Grn I i FFN fn H 4 3 �? MSN 106.96_ �IRFIO.6v E3 L_ C_�4 .i POLE JJJj FURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHE' ',R, VIRGINIA 22601 r - m Im m 1 POLE 60' Bp �-- 3�_ IRS IR3 �$ LE POLE cl FRONT ROYAL PIKE — WIDTH VARIES � b DATE: MARCH 24, 2004' SCALE: I" ...`�. 2 OF L rn 3 n r . m D rn s z 11 Lid O Ecco o-� l 0 T G' DAVID AA. FURSTENAU mm NO. 1455 a� N I D t L76H7 GD PO 0 P Z —4 �2 —� *IRS 11148MON 5 34°57'23"W FINAL PLAT LOT CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 1-5 BLOCK 2 & LOTS 1-5 BLOCK 9 AND LOTS 1-4 BLOCK 3 & LOTS 1-4 BLOCK 8 OPEQUON F ' RICT FREDERICK COI). VIRGINIA TO: FROM: RE: DATE: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Frederick County Planning Commission Mark R. Cheran, Planner I Revocation of Conditional Use Permit #017-90 for White Oak Trading Post June 1, 2004 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #0l 7-90 for White Oak Trading Post on December 12, 1990, to allow for an existing campground and expansion of the store by 75% on property identified with P.I.N. 986-A-143 in the Opequon Magisterial District. This CUP was approved with the following conditions: 1) Any change in use shall require a new conditional use permit. 2) This permit will be subject to annual review and renewal. 3) A site plan, meeting the requirements of the Frederick County Code, must be submitted for approval. 4) Additional expansion of the facility, beyond what is currently proposed, will require 0.11 amended site plan ane a revised CUP. Violation of Condition Staff received a complaint regarding violations of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance at this property. Staff inspected the property on March 24, 2004, and noted the violations. These violations constitute a violation of the conditions placed on Conditional Use Permit 17-90, approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 12, 1990. Staff noted automobile sales and inoperable motor vehicles located on this property during inspection on March 24, 2004. The sale of automobiles has stopped; however, the violation of inoperable motor vehicles is ongoing, in regards to campers. On May 20, 2004, staff visited the property and noted a restaurant operating from the country store, which constitutes a violation of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of Conditional Use Permit 17-90. Staff further noted that tenants at this campground are staying longer than thirty (30) days, which also constitutes a violation of thp, Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Over the years, this property has been in violation of the Conditional Use Permit. In recent months, a letter of violation was issued, as was a notice of revocation for violations of the conditions of Conditional Use Pen -nit 17-90. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Staff conclusions for the 06/16/04 Planning Commission meeting_ The holder of Conditional Use Permit 17-90 is in violation of the above -reference conditions with regards to the zoning violations that staff has received. A recommendation from the Planning Commission for continuation or revocation of Conditional Use Permit 17-90 would be appropriate. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisor for their consideration. U/ j TO: Barbara - Data Processing I C—MC 1I- / %O AJ 1) %t �� L-7— FROM: Bev - Plaqning Dept. Please print sets of labels by: r D THANKS!i! NAME -� f�5 L� ADDRESS I — PROPERTY ID# �S ! R �7 ADDRESS X NAMEY�l PROPERTY ID#„ A NAME , Z -A ADDRESS PROPERTY IDI NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY IDI NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# �f, ADDRESS NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS NAME PROPERTY IDI ADDRESS NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY IDI NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# �f, CERTIFIED MAIL May 25, 2004 Yancey Rentals, LC P.O. Box 511 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 - ■ .�,�EF�TIEIED NF�4GL;;��Ri=GE�'T (Domestic N1aflQnly� No Insurance CoveagePravrded) For dehv_ery rnfomahon vrsitourwe6srteatwwwusps camp Q O Certified Fee Q O Return Reciept Fee Postmark (Endorsement Required) Here C3 Restricted Delivery Fee r-1 (Endorsement Required) v Total Postage & Fees m t3sent o __ Yanc�- L: -226-55 -C orPOt rite;-- .Y.--_ --- 5 PO Boz • ---------- - ---------- ------------------------ city, stare. Z/P+4 tephem---------- r RE: 1039 Fairfax Pike; Property Identification # (PIN): 86 -A -143A Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Sir or Madam: FIaLLM- �roP"� This letter is to inform you that your Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 417-90 is being scheduled for revocation at a public hearing on June 16, 2004. This action is due to violations of the conditions placed on CUP 17-90. You will receive further notice from this office in regards to the time and location of this public hearing. In accordance with Section -165-21 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors may revoke a Conditional Use Permit for any violation of the conditions placed upon the Conditional Use Permit. This office has received complaints of violations of the conditions placed on Conditional Use Permit #17-90. Please contact me regarding any questions that you may have at (540) 665-5651. Sincerely, " z ,rte Ark Planner I MRC/bad 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Yancey Rentals, LC PO Bog 511 Stephens City, VA 22655 C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery cls r ne t from 11Yes if YES, enterery address belo No 9 V'9 2 2 3. Service Type Age g)q Certified Mail s ❑ Registered g1R] Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7003 1010 0000 9039 119q PS Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 2ACPRI-03-P-4o81 PC Review: 11/07/90 BOS Review: 12/12/90 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #017-90 WHITE OAK TRADING POST Country General Store and Campground Zoned RA (Rural Areas) LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Routes 277 and 636 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon TAX MAP & PARCEL NO.: Tax Map 86, parcel no. 143 A ZONING & LAND USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas); Land use - existing general store and campground AD.IOINING ZONING & LAND USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and M-2 (General Industrial); Land use -Residential, agricultural, vacant and trucking PROPOSED USE: Existing campground and expansion of store by 75% REVIEW EVALUATION• Fire Marshal: An area posted as "Fire Lane" shall be marked in such a way as to ensure access to campground area by emergency equipment. See additional comments attached. Inspections Department: This request for CUP approval shall comply to Use Group "M" Mercantile Section 308.0 of the BOCA National Building Code "1987" Page 2 White Oak CUP Va Department of Transportation: See letter attached dated September 25, 1990. Health Department: Recommend service restricted to soft -serve ice cream/counter freezer only. Existing septic system was approved for grocery store and campground. No additional food service preparation is recommended unless hook- up to public sewer is provided. Planning and Zoning: This country store did not previously have a CUP since it existed pre -ordinance and therefore was allowed. The planned expansion of more than 50% requires a CUP and this will cover the entire facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 11/7/90 P/C MEETING: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Any change in use shall require a new conditional use permit. 2. This permit will be subject to annual review and renewal. 3. A site plan, meeting the requirement of the Frederick County Code,must be submitted for approval. 4. Additional expansion of the facility, beyond the current proposed, will require an amended site plan and a revised CUP. PLANNING COMM SSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 11/7/90: Approval, with the following conditions: 1. Any change in use shall require a new conditional use permit. 2. This permit will be subject to annual review and renewal. 3. A site plan, meeting the requirements of the Frederick County Code, must be submitted for approval. 4. Additional expansion of the facility, beyond the current proposed, will require an amended site plan and a revised CUP. (Note: Mr. Golladay abstained; Mr. Romine was not present.) Iva _ e� i•{ r" ar a 't, a Ty ._tom":. �._'r+• ..',+`, #'�`A'` t .f'y .Y .rO^',,. u'r. • i x c �� ,rf �f�.,� 3�` � i•"� -�,- '. , s `.ci�g*`f ,.d, `�'� ��{ `�� ..'�.-r�e., ►' *`-+.��. ��. '�� ►s y': wTr.�... k , ,y a ..!� s s ^ww" '} v^�.: 4 !� �'"t s iH - z. ��.- -,k 's + ,. +f '�f Y ,A • �-. 1 �P '}��y,�k _ Y• ,a .. • a a �+ ¢ 0 rby�, ,r-��-Lp„ ay„ �.b b s'}�''A xG ' �° .n.. ,. Yk ,f �. { t+ �.a ,�/�y, F•.:. `}T ? y f w ... air !'wmy .. wk '{' +s a.+y`r •' :!y' ATM $' Y rL r.. } "'� w a}. • ' r,;. + �� ° x .� `� , .� �T �� '.. � �� r c• ♦Y":�£. F, .�+, -,.. �' i 4f�' ��+ �� e_ '�� w'.. a� ,[;v`��i•�� q, - :h ,.'w y... � b'�jl�-F� •'Zaa� 4 rq Y 4' - "•1t1) `M'. Y. �., i � x 'C � N • Tr 1 t 1/•.l • ��. F •rt� . MY J y : � I r ` �.�� is .�` � +. �` xa+ � � a i y ° �,<.s� "^� (# ` ' ,� � �,:fdylr .;�? '�•a-ix ;+q�A:1 �� y�• d S k P.K'.��. a 1yt. 'i �•. r ?Y s y rf; , ti, £a ry, Y� to IV ��' aAw` g 4:. S 5 ' �ijyFL� • ;5 9 • .f 6 + 4'$ }}} t i a r � i $i 6 ,"t.f i ti ,hrq'}�+ } - • y 'P i i `+P- T p •`; i r 1++ { g'' 'a:'.. M1 y i3 _ ' ,'sn,w wP'':� �� q� . t,. a � s ►.s� �§ � r �`� � . ¢ .� YAM' ° ; `, �� y .# �.� r .:,s a r .., b,£;� d w 'R , � ��s. art 4 }} ,'{ a i k>Z. v.• >,�,t 1a.. �3`L •�'`•ti� rf t ty�,k.,,.. g,.�. !,�,z :v s�". sz� ; '^i. a'gis is `l ✓ >g'Fq �'" l _ s *, - '+ ,�c � aY'w a �''..{{ A'i'r .1� h .- � � r � � � rL+'S�''%x � r 4 e�:: - {• .. �)�)F��, .. .q » p A wM Cyh'Ks:Y"# °r7 i Ml- iFIRMa H • ` ` I 4 li - i 7 9i � F TAi 111 3 h ,, - : � � r*�: ; r -:- .,..._,.: .•::-, F..>-:... sad. ,»,. :�....:.a rY ,. ., x.."_ ..x ..:.. .. y H a•ta .. u. .. A. ! r �.� ��°� a t'�� .ic. 4: _ `� • . �,� � � ^`.yr.L:-ntF.�4o _x + `• } _ � ;fie y.,� 4. -" �,� _ - Pw ry� a ♦ > t w: a* .a s' R .;.:�'1 r-�} ��ri:'E` ,�,^S` ,.�:,'aR' .. - -Tc!. '�;',. .;: `Ci: � ar }•:'.", -, w4'"}Jrrc _ �-,; �.^�*';�'� ^ 'ht's � �} ">• � : %t2 "'^ : '• r -. : � �r �`,, � - -a iC y� :.+, i � e .ia ,y�,.�..! s � ` µ �' t ' •, ' +j,,•',rw' fit .,.- . - :" �� yt1'rr, A ' +A y.^ ''`' "`'�` nr. r •ate .,,. s r• ;,`� +' y,* *. k. r� r;g 4 wl. 3. ,if:.:t�� ..s». •i. ;,,F! roti. ;f .s. �+:. MIN `�rL, ,i�C"•"�S�rtY ,q�+;,i p�� -€ �.w ti�:'br �.�: ',_r +s �,�• 5 .,� y..":'.•fir r'�.: .yi,.y� - ..'-;�#.%, a, �'tit�•:�3 _ ;�� ,� o .�Y�c ,.�� •,,.:-'.-� . -fir`" h ,� l�,'+ �, �" 'y' � 'fi'•�{s yS _�;� �,�. " '� � x .�.-#"`•�,,c� r, C .v. __ .'. ;t ..f.,' �y ,�a.w. '., ,� � J?.-,e�i.�„. - �.c Cc--• �K,- -.. �•:. ,4 ,tea _,,. . }. y Y ..,Y,p o • rh:�.,- ! '�r..t 4;` 'kiP"'''!14 . ..sey�: mVO �,,,1.. `�.. �'�, .ai^rSi.` ..-' � h ar. r'^.::i'- �-'or:-e:: f, .,"`.y.A r.. �r~': r7+�'��' �.iab'S"+.�; w `i,T �.��,a'�',. ��'� ,�. i• • _"',;�4>: - .yrr . "''� •+F : R'i ^. - .'� a ' , :: :.y � .. - _ � �>4 { - ,�� °� �rlk - ar+�t �s M"I'•+';;.++P 3 � s � .I•ri �^Y r� r�yryi�S r, IF � • Ya•Va t � ! g3A-9 j • k�" �'r� °Y ��r.:•�. �, #r Fn x - .t fi � a� •r .r Vol • ayi�r¢�✓.'�ek ,lt��°,!'��,;j a �` .4.fr �.. ;a,F "fig syt � _r� ��. _ .. - - � �f f� ^" :� � # �k;t `�°ys a Rr,N � -'-r, rs� � x, f ' t, ni y - . 4y� � s�"� • �Iraw Ali • v , gkl i c + 4 t . ..; •.p�' ." F y'`L%4_ 'fi �' �'y' •X. t # ++i, '+lv'/„1,..• t 4 i r.,,'rA+: x�cf" g it:F' w1... r,i'+" .k fNk •r'r 7' r'F e°�; as dt.n' �. +� : � � •:;�>„ +„d �" P��jr+Y� - y :Cs; - alb, - r .. ..� .:f p ,*!arm, � �, �$. ,., � r• �� c � + ., . ° 1 fr :T. 5 • C 4 l�A ,.i'Y' MI �� '+M �. F ..s d _ , k; > a2 3'` i'.$ F F. .•• Ss. '. k� iti r ��fyr:a3 1I f �p"�+, �� s s`-' :r. r.�'p '� f _. ,tB'2 � � 1Fo �-',�� x k, {z i r:� r � � � � � �.. .• � ��__„" � . r .F. .' i a. = i- 3 �+;'.p'fFn"d �} "C. �ea�.' r+ !S n r �� 6�,.• F; �R` r,. ��y.�.r� , • ! � � �, n� i'k {W=�. a. { .fid'} � �F ti. ,0t � - r r f .YF'°sp ,:�.. hxj. �.4 . � � x � r�J ,��' e �� 0 � iii §� ` � } � e• �. t-,��"'� W�. �' a . .. t r r.4 • t f r _ r , r 65 -a. ✓ sr rf_' � _R f � � �♦ ",Y �°W�VI "v'GY.Y r ' F r m w . . • -_ � '•.' ; ..:. -` a _, .. ; i :.. :' _ :, i,. i a w�q 37 " 6�:4 .%., -!�; i�.+s>w" ,�{ -ins •`�`°Y.�, �f,� � � n w•- � � � age ��. �x ,gi xl��, 5, ��yM arw�+►:+ i< /� �Y� '� - ! ,,A �,'" y! ,>!-. • ,x� � �' ��tk,J nr1 +af ..�a ':}x a `�* w F >'. � 4v .-. •� �' 45 � �l� 9 � +pp�'1 % �' �i`` Mlas ti9,. . t r 1. :e �.. � �• s now { � ti. ��r �. � � � a ��jt F te.�} y�+gs ��_,�,• Y �TW� }•s. � � e �, �' ar.�,"�y. ��• .:eir» "�, �:+,',r�: r,a rta � *rac •a �� w"" i. `w :.. •r' F9 e 3a '�F. yy+�"' x%� �i«g,. -sR' ik 3. �' ' - }, i ; �.. Z kap 1° 4 � h•`. P"., ICY ..? SFtNut1 .-,y� �,+°�'•f „.1„ p'..`}�y �0,` �At � R� � F �,�Mt� '�7s j% 'S �' S. 3i ar'711 'T.• . 7 �x pp I a t� rsu.rsy f'i - :�, fib:• { i £ ri v w v S 7e �$ tei Y• � ; _ `,i 34"1 ApbY i.Z �4; �4�!. y� i�xn • :h"Aatgf 1 Fes. t oil tAll 7e �$ tei Y• � ; _ `,i 34"1 ApbY i.Z �4; �4�!. y� i�xn • :h"Aatgf 1 Fes. q ekSAN C4� f - y e < q yy a 3 I ai_ IW . .. •clan °L - •°.> ...... ..... ... J. i . 11-A x4A 66 1 F YA" je V, qlr 41' " Aloow= f i .sr t Y w Sao= $� ' jam. 3 T K � •M'� 9,{./.fin �%�j� Y y,: ti"'�:. +,u"�.�`�' ...�yy �ij� .Fn' -0wm � h .sio-t� `G `WWI +F � .t/!r �:' y" r '•�. i h�,� ) �y �:. • �. .; ,. . •, -'^$ i�.s� a � � r �?I+�f��r� "'�s.. . "+•;: <v : � :h tic» '" a� . <, !j „y 'r k �` . Lr,.�r. � —.. " 7�� . .. ' z t`�i+. •,g ,J as ` { �fi' a �^ .i r�' "'<"� ' t,� , ':z�' w REZONING APPLICATION #03-04 RACEY TRACT Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: May 28, 2004 Staff Contact: Jeremy F. Camp, 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: 03/17/04 Tabled 06/16/04 Pending Board of Supervisors: 07/14/04 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 105.65 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District. LOCATION: The property is located east of Interstate 81, approximately ''/z of a mile south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), east of Town Run Lane (Route 1012), and to the south of Ridgefield Avenue (Route 1065) along Ewing Lane. This property is south of Ridgefield Subdivision, east of Stephens Ridge Subdivision, and west of Woodside Subdivision. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 85-A-140 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoning: RP (Residential Performance) South: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) East: Zoning: RP (Residential Performance) West: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential (Single Family) Use: Agricultural Residential (Single Family) Use: Residential (Single Family) Use: Public Facilities (Lagoons) Residential (Townhouses) PROPOSED USE: 228 single-family detached cluster dwelling units REG #03-04, Racey Tract Page 2 May 28, 2004 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Please see attached letter signed by Ben K Lineberry, Jr., P.E. Transportation Assistant Resident Engineer, dated 01/12/04. Fire Marshal: Fire hydrant installations shall meet minimum requirements of Frederick County: "there shall be a fire hydrant located within 400 feet of all units". Fire hydrants shall be located within 3 feet of the curbline. These items shall be reviewed and addressed during the subdivision and site plan processes. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. County Engineer: Please see attached letter from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works, dated 10/07/03. Note: See Attached Letter Dated April 19, 2004 regarding sewage lagoon closure procedure. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed Rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the Rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any battlefields that this proposed Rezoning would impact. County Attorney: All proffers appear to be in proper legal form and are, therefore, acceptable. Revised Proffer Statement Dated 5/6/04: Appears to meet all legal requirements Frederick County Public Schools: Please see attached letter from Al Orndorff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent, dated 09/03/03. Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation: The Parks and Recreation Department strongly recommends that a bike/pedestrian facility be a requirement for this development and that it include a location for a connection offering eventual access to Double Church Road. The long range plan for this trail would be the completion of a connector accessing Sherando High School, Sherando Park, and connect to the trail system already being developed north of Route 277. The monetary proffer proposed for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate to offset the impact this development will have on this department. Although adequate open space has been provided, it appears that the 80' right-of-way to be used for a future collector road, will eventually diminish the intended purpose of the required open space. No recreational requirements required. Town of Stephens City: The Town has signed an agreement with the applicant to grant a right-of-way across the old town lagoon site. The applicant will in turn closeout the lagoon. The Town would therefore encourage approval of this development if traffic impacts are acceptable to Frederick County. REZ 403-04, Racey Bract Page 3 May 28, 2004 Planning & Zoning_ 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U. S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) identifies the subject property as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The A-1(Agricultural Limited) and A-2 Districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subj ect property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. Also ofhistorical importance, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors denied a request to incorporate approximately 26 acres of the subject property into the UDA (Urban Development Area) on February 12, 2003. 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 ofpolicies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1). Land Use (Chapter 6) The UDA (Urban Development Area) is the principal land use tool of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The general purpose of the UDA is to define the areas in the county where more intensive forms of residential development will occur. It does this by dividing the County into rural and urban areas. The UDA was originally created with the intent that it would be adequate enough to accommodate long term growth needs in areas of the County where public services are most available. New suburban residential growth with sewer and water service must be located within the UDA (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-1, 6-2, 6-5). The 105.65 acres proposed to be rezoned is not part of a small area land use plan, but is entirely within the UDA. However, as the illustration to the right shows, the entire parcel itself is not wholly located within the UDA. This rezoning petition only requests the rezoning of the portion of the property located within the UDA. The 26.5 acres located outside of the UDA would remain in the RA District if this rezoning application is approved. REZ #03-04, Racey Tract Page 4 May 28, 2004 Transportation (Chapter 7) alComprehensive Polic , the y Plan uses a Level of service "C" ac the standard for th In genere minimum acceptable level of service on roads adjacent to and within new developments in Frederick County (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-5). Below is a table which describes traffic conditions for each level of service, as described in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual. I NNFI, OF SERVICE, - CATEGORIES AND DESCRIPTIONS* CATEGORY DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A Free flow, operating speed at speed limit, turns easily made, excess green time at signals. B Stable flow, operating speed at speed limit, some lines of vehicles at intersections and turns, less than 10% of cycles loaded at signals_ C Stable flow, operating below speed limit, some lines of vehicles at intersections and turns, 10% - 30% of cycles loaded at cycles. D Approaching unstable flow, fluctuating flow, little freedom to maneuver, 30% - 70% of cycles loaded at signal, some drivers must wait through one cycle. E Unstable flow, low operating speed, 70% -100% of cycles loaded at signals, vehicles frequently wait through cycles (* Level of Service "F" has recently been added as a category and generally means that the system is prone to breakdown.) The Town of Stephen's City Land Use Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 9, 2003, establishes a community need for a bypass around the western perimeter of Stephens City which would eventually tie into the transportation network on the eastern side of Interstate 81 with the intent of improving traffic conditions on Fairfax Pike and the area. The proposed maj or collector road, which would be the primary access to the Racey Property, will intersect with Town Run Lane, and ultimately tie into the future interchange envisioned in the Town of Stephen's City Land Use Plan. The exact location of this future interchange has not yet been established, but has generally been identified to intersect with Interstate 81 just south of the subject site. The Comprehensive Policy Plan classifies Fairfax Pike (Route 277) as a minor arterial highway. Upgrading Fairfax Pike (Route 277) is currently the top priority on the Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan. Town Run Lane is classified as a local road and Double Church Road is classified as a major collector road (Comprehensive Policy Plan, Eastern Road Plan, p. 7-I5). REZ #03-04, Racey Tract Page 5 May 28, 2004 3) Site Suitability (Impact Analysis Statement) The majority of the acreage proposed to be rezoned is located on a gently sloping open field without any major environmental features that would limit development. However, there are small areas of flood plain, wetlands, and a natural waterway. There is also an abandoned wastewater lagoon facility located on the adjoining parcel, owned by the Town of Stephens City. A. Flood Plain: A small amount of floodplain exists along the southwestem boundary of the property, all of which is coincident with the Stephens Run watershed. Stephens Run is a perennial stream which flows to Crooked Run, which then dumps into the Shenandoah River north of Front Royal. Disturbance of flood plains is strictly limited pursuant to the provisions of Article XV ofthe Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, which will be administered during subsequent phases of the development review process. [Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, § 165-31. B. (1)] B. Wetlands: A. minimal amount of wetlands exist on the property. A property owner or developer may seek approval from the Zoning Administrator to disturb such water features if it is determined that the feature in question serves no useful "retention, environmental, or recreational purposes": The applicant is encouraged to incorporate any existing water features located on the site into the design plan for the Racey Tract. [Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, § 165-31. B. (2)] C. Wastewater Lagoon: The old Stephens City sewage treatment lagoon is proposed to be removed with the development of the Racey property. The removal of this lagoon is necessary to accommodate the major collector road proposed to access the property. The Commonwealth of Virginia has approved a plan to remove this lagoon which includes the removal ofwater by pumping, removal ofresidual solids and incorporating them into soils adjacent to the site, and reclaiming land by filling and property compacting so the site will have structural integrity for future building construction (See Attached Plan by GeoConcepts Engineering and Letter from the Virginia Dept. ofHealth, dated October 2, 2002). D. Soils and Steep Slopes: The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County Vimyinia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-Berks- Blairton soil association, which is the predominant association on land located east of Interstate 81. It is noted that the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association presents some limitations to site development due to a seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and slope. The management of such characteristics must be demonstrated through the site engineering process associated with subsequent development applications for the proposed project. A couple of small pockets of Carbo and Clearbrook soils also exist on the property. The Racey Tract is located within the Martinsburg Shale geographic region. No areas of defined steep slopes (land areas of 50% slope or greater) are located on this property. REZ #03-04, Racey Tract Page 6 May 28, 2004 4) Potential Impacts. a) Transportation The Impact Analysis Statement projects a total generation of 2,213 trips per day for the development ofthe Racey Tract. Based on the 2000 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes, Jurisdiction Report 34, Fairfax Pike (Route 277) currently has an estimated 11,000 average annual daily trips. This projected traffic generation represents an increase of 20% from this 2000 estimate. According to the traffic impact analysis, the level of service for intersections along the Fairfax Pike Corridor currently range from "A" to "F". The poorest conditions are located at the Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Stickley Drive (Route 1085) intersection, which currently ranges from level of service "E" to "F". Poor conditions (lower than "C") also exist at the northbound signal ofthe Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Interstate 81 Northbound Ramp; at the southbound signal ofthe Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Interstate 81 Southbound Ramp; and at the northbound and southbound signal ofthe Fairfax Pike (Route277) and Town Run Lane (Route 10 12) intersection. However, both ofthe Northbound and Southbound I-81 intersections are currently functioning at an overall level of service "C" or above. The table below shows the information obtained from the TTA submitted with this rezoning application. It shows that the overall level of service will significantly deteriorate in the study area by the year 2007. The table also shows that with the road improvements proffered by the Racey Rezoning will improve the overall level of service at all intersections except on the northbound I-81 intersection, which the level of service will drop from an "E" to an "F". OVERALL LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTIONS: With & Without Racey Improvements INTERSECTION 2007 PROJECTED LEVEL OF SERVICE Without Racey With Racey Fairfax Pike/I-81 Southbound Ramp C (AM) D (PM) C (AM) D (PM) Fairfax Pike/I-81 Northbound Ramp B (AM) E (PM) B (AM) F (PM) Fairfax Pike/Town Run Lane/Aylor Road C (AM) E (PM) B (AM) D (PM) Fairfax Pike/Stickley Drive F (AM) F (PM) B (AM) B (PM) Fairfax Pike/Double Church Road C (AM) E (PM) C (AM) C (PM) Double Church Road/Driftwood Drive & Brandy Lane B (AM) C (PM) B (AM) C (PM) Double Church Road/Trunk Drive I B (AM) B (PM) I B (AM) B (PM) (Source: TIA conducted by Wells and Associates, LLCfor the Racey Rezoning) REZ #03-04, Racey Traci Page 7 May 28, 2004 The TIA concludes that the improvements proposed with the Racey property will actually improve the level of service at key intersections by decreasing the overall system delays by as much as 94 while only increasing overall traffic demand by approximately 3%, based on 2007 projections. Planning Staff Comment: The Racey Rezoning would increase traffic in the area significantly,- however, ignificantly;however, as the TIA specifies, the improvements proposed with the rezoning will also improve the overall level of service at most intersections in the study area. The I-81 Northbound intersection decreases to a level of service "F". The I-81 Southbound intersection also decreases in efficiency, but the level of service category does not decrease. What the TIA doesn't address is the fact that these proposed improvements are planned to be completed with or without the Racey Rezoning, albeit with public funds. As noted above, Fairfax Pike (Route 277) is the top priority of the Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan. VDOT Comment Summarized: Despite overall improvement in the level of service, the level ofservice at the intersection of Route 277 and I-81 South and North Bound Ramps are further exasperated by this rezoning. b) Water & Sewer An impact of 45,600 gpd is projected based on an average of 200 gpd per residential unit. The Sanitation Authority and Service Authority have offered no comment for this rezoning. C) Capital Facilities Impact The Capital Facilities Impact Model projects a total fiscal impact of $9,955 per dwelling unit associated with this rezoning. This includes a projected increase in the public school student population by 160 children. 5) Revised Proffer Statement (dated: 05/06/04) Since the Planning Cominission Meeting on March 17, 2004, the applicant has submitted a revised proffer statement which has been signed by the property owner, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's office. The revised proffer statement adds several new conditions to the rezoning application. The most substantial changes include the following: • Grading for a future possible major collector road • Allowance for Frederick County to use the 26.5 acres of land outside the UDA for any purposes • The stipulation that $200,000 would be paid to Frederick County for other road improvements if the proffered traffic signal at Fairfax Pike and Stickley Drive is constructed prior to this development • Construction of a new sidewalk along Town Run Lane on the Town of Stephens City property • Construction of a 10' wide bicycle trail along the proposed access road/possible future collector road from Town Run Lane. • Construction of a tennis court and sports court with the community pool and bathhouse • Guarantee that no wet ponds will be used for stormwater management purposes REG 403-04, Racey Tract Page 8 May 28, 2004 The revised proffer statement also clarifies several ofthe proposed development aspects ofthe plan which were raised by either the Planning Commission, Staff or local citizens during review ofthe plan on March 17, 2004. Below is a list of the most significant issues which have been further clarified: • Inclusion of the detailed methods to be used for the closure of the Town of Stephens City Lagoon • Specification that no structures will be permitted within future open space, including the 40' perimeter buffer, steep slope area, and tree save area • Guarantee that the proposed pool will be a minimum of 3,500 square feet • Agreement to a 3 year phasing plan. The first two years shall be limited to 75 homes a year and the 3rd year will be limited to 78 homes • Guarantee that lots will be designed to single-family detached cluster specifications • Proffering of a revised General Development Plan layout Carrying over from the original proffer statement the following proffers remain in the revised proffer statement: • Construction of the currently planned transportation improvements to the Double Church Road/Fairfax Pike and Stickley Drive/Fairfax Pike Intersections. These improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of any building permits • Monetary contribution of $10,072.00 per lot Limitation�f 228 total lots • Guarantee that the Stickley Drive extension will be in place prior to any development • Upgrading Truck Drive, Branch Court and Driftwood Drive as recommended by VDOT • A 200' buffer along the south property line • Installation of an 800' long landscape buffer along the south property line along the southern boundary line • Notation on future covenants advising of the agricultural uses and lagoons PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 03/17/04 MEETING: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to table this rezoning request because the public hearing sign had not been posted on the property by the applicant. The applicant and the staff would determine when the application was complete and ready to return for the Commission's consideration. Fourteen neighborhood residents, most of whom lived in the adjoining Woodside Estates and Ridgefield subdivisions, came forward to speak. The primary concerns were infrastructure issues and the residents' preference to have adequate infrastructure in place before any further residential development was approved. Those infrastructure issues included: increased traffic impacts on roads and intersections that were inadequate to handle the existing traffic; the impacts to the school system, the impacts to response time for emergency services, and the impacts to water and sewer services. Environmental impacts on Stephens Run were a concern, as well as the need for assurances that the lagoon closure would be environmentally safe. Residents of Woodside Estates preferred not to be connected to the Racey subdivision. A number of residents commented that the applicant had been very responsive to them with regard to answering questions and working out various problems dealing with water run-off, buffers, etc. REZ #03-04, Racey Tract Page 9 May 28, 2004 be considered for a future emergency services site. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06/16/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This application is a request to rezone 105.65 acres of land to the RP District to allow for the development of up to 228 single family detached housing units. The development of this property is generally consistent with the "land use" policies established in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The revised proffer statement is both comprehensive and thorough in its attempt to mitigate potential impacts. The uncertainties raised during the Planning Commission's previous review of this application appear to have been addressed. Furthermore, the applicant has added several new proffers, such as, an improved transportation plan for the future and more community amenities. There appears to be an overall level of service improvement to the transportation network with the road improvements proffered by this rezoning application; however, the level of service is projected to worsen at the I-81 interchange. Following the requisite public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. 8 �`� �+�.'r •`a�,� �� ', [ 1 �-.fir ` ,.', +�' � ��;4 • R :L =` i • _ •, } 101 JI Racey Tract PIN • ' • J ■!■■!■ Its 0 200 Fee "0111I ■■■■ ■■■-■■ U CQT _ _ _V�ICI Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 April 2, 2004 Mr. Scott C. Plein Equinox Investments / Blue Springs View LLC 43571 John Mosby Highway, Suite 120 Chantilly, Virginia 20152 Re: Rezoning Application 403-04, Racey Tract Summary of issues discussed during 3/17/04 public hearing Dear Scott: I am preparing this letter to inform you of the status of the Racey Tract Rezoning Application. As you are aware, this application was tabled by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2004. With the motion to table, the Planning Commission directed staff to return when the property is posted for a public hearing and the application is revised to address the issues discussed by staff, Planning Commissioners, and citizens. Per Section 165-11, of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, a recommendation from the Planning Commission shall be made within 90 days after the first Commission meeting. Therefore, a public hearing with the Planning Commission shall be scheduled for no later than the June 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting. To assist you in identifying and addressing the issues which were raised during the Planning Commission Meeting, staff has prepared a list of comments for your review. These comments reflect the concerns which were raised during the meeting, and are intended as guidance. Staff's comments are as follows: Closure of Wastewater Treatment Pond. Please remove the outdated and obsolete Closure Plan, dated 1993, from the rezoning application. Please also clarify the individual steps that will be taken to ensure that the Closure Plan is completed without incident. This involves discussion with the Sanitation Authority to establish a rate and time for liquid discharge; establishment of a monitoring agent from Frederick County to oversee the discharge process; delineation of where the sediment will be applied, and clarification on methods that will be used to protect wetlands and Stephens Run from the reclamation process. Please consider proffering your commitments to Ms. Sandy Ritenour, as described in your letter, dated March 8, 2004. Stormwater. Please provide additional details on how rainwater will be managed during the construction process and after to minimize runoff and prevent any negative impacts on adjoining properties. Special consideration of the existing drainage problems of Woodside Estates should be considered, as well as, how stormwater may impact other subdivisions such as Heartwood. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Re: Rezoning Application #03-04, Racey Tract April 2, 2004 Collector Road. Through discussion you have informed staff that you intent on building a local road, rather than a collector road, to access the proposed development. In contrary to this the proffer statement indicates that a collector road will be provided. Please correct this inconsistency to avoid possible future misunderstanding. Open Space. Please clarify if the 80' r -o -w can be used by Frederick County for purposes other than a future possible road. Please also clarify if the 26.5 acres of open space can or can not be used for the same purposes as the proffered 80' r -o -w. Moreover, it is unclear whether the proffering of the 80' r -o -w includes grading work to prepare the r -o -w for the possibility of a future road. • Trail. Please clarify how this application accommodates the general plan for a bicycle trail from Town Run Lane to Double Church Road. • Phasing. Please clarify if there is a phasing plan for the construction of residential units and describe what this phasing plan may be. • 40' Buffer Area. Please clarify the planned use and ownership of the 40' buffer area. • Pool. Please establish a size for the proffered pool or specify guidelines that will be used to determine a size in the future. • Housing Type. Please consider distinguishing the specific housing type proposed. • TIA. Please provide information on how new development in Stephens City will impact the TIA. • Connection with Driftwood Drive, Branch Court, and Trunk Drive. Please identify the methods proposed to reduce cut -through traffic through adjoining subdivisions. • Other. Please consider including your proposals to improve your application with the actual application and or proffer statement, such as those commitments stated in your letter to Commissioner Pat Gochenour, dated March 15, 2004. I would be glad to meet with you to discuss the approaches that can be used to address the general concerns noted above, as well as, any other changes or new information you are proposing. Please find attached copies of citizen correspondence received by staff regarding this application. These letters have been added to the official rezoning application file as information. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Page 3 Re: Rezoning Application 903-04, Racey Tract April 2, 2004 Sincerely, „ co-�— le� Jeremy F. Camp, Planner Il JFC/bad Attachments cc with attachments: Bryon Condie, Christopher Consultants, Ltd. ccs without attachments: Ed Strawsnyder, Public Works [*note comment regarding Closure Plan] Board of Supervisors Planning Commissioners Property Owner Citizen Letters Received For the March 17, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting and adopted as information for the file by the Planning Commission.) I Note: The letter from the residents of Woodside Estates was signed by over 40 residents U i known E`Qiri'c�: _-+ Ve Plaines [sln?i%eess@_gpi.^.``?m1 Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 7:42 PM ro,: dni@cross'ink- net Ce: rthomas visuaEiink.com; roursi�adeEp �ia.nef LIt-`LJJ�_A. P;v pose -4 Sc)u ieT Hillis Subdivision To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Steve Haines Subject: Proposed Southern Bills Subdivision i would like to express my Concerns about the proposed subdivision in the Stephens City area called Southern Hills. Personally, I feel Frederick County's residential growth (esr,ecially in tiie southern portion) is out of Control and that this proposed development will only add to the already existing mess. Since it appears that the county wants to convert the Racey tract from agriculture/farm zoning to residential I think it would be the smart thing to do and carefully consider alL concerns before moving forward_ I ask that the cori-rittee that will be meeting on Wed. March/77, 2004 table voting on approving this subdivision until many issues and concerns are addressed. once this deClsiGi7 is made, we all have to live wltli It and there wiii be n0 turning back. Therefore, I urge you to consider everyone's concerns and gather as much information as L his you Can pix what re�aLrenaent.s will be needed and take your t ine before approving t'" _tatter • Southern live in Woodside (which is the main development that o�...hern Hills would be accessing)and 1 am a member of our homeowner's association- My concerns involve: l((1) Vetting spec111c 1171Gi^Ltd tll1i11 from the developer about his 1n -entions and making SIU -9 -that he follows through on all promises and county requirements. I understand that this 5s his first major subdivision and is not irGm ties area. This is all the more reason to `approach with caution. (2) Schools - this is obviously a consideration for an already overctou"ded school system. (3) Flooding/Drainage - where's the water going to drain and how? woods.ide already has drainage issues without more runoff from Southern Hills. (4) Traffic - Drift:aood give is not :ride enough for all tae added traffic of an additional 250 ht?��N (especially if cars are parked on the strePA). The other streets are even more narrow than Drillwood and Trunk (thle other proposed access street). Added traffic on to Double (: Ch Road would have to be addressed and the speed limit should be dropped to 35 mph - , people V701att.c ti12 existing 45 :upi7 limit; adding itlOre traffic 1C ]USt makes It that muCi1 ITICiS' e a;.rer,�s. Additionally, Double Church Road floods during bad weather between E R. ?teff andDriftwoodDrive. The o�iV_L iS no 'b"rainer" trai is headache would be fronts fixe Lane entranc/exi}. The I-81/Town Run Lane/Aylor Road/Fairfax Pike interchange is and has � been a nightmare for a long time. Shouldn't the existing problem be corrected first before adding more congestion at that intersection? These are just some of the things that have to be thGaght out. i any of my neighbors in Woodside as well as other neighboring friends are also concerned about this proposed subdivision. I'm sure you will hear from many of them - In my opinion, an informed decision 0 approvingSouthern Hills cannot be made on Marc_ 2 o n Imo t irlfGr Cation so 'Fiat the 11 11 ht de iSlGii �vOh. rivre t.1lCtc is necessary t0 yaul„r SdCtS a1' (s) 11 can be made on this issue. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. s ince rely, ✓' t eJ e H a In e J Woodside Estates 107 Barkwood Drive Stephens City, Va 22555 Ph: 1540) _68-9287 dni(a�crosslink.net INBOX Message Folders Compose Rules Settinqs Next Unread Reply Reply To All © i Back to INBOX Delete Set Flag rage 1 01 External Log Out Forward Close as Unread B From: "Mark Dreyer" <marksue@visuallink.com> 0 Subject: Rezoning application #03-04 for Racey Tract All Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:46:24 -0500 To: <dni@crosslink.net> Mark and Susan Drever 114 Barkwood Dr. Stephens City, VA 22655 (540) 869-9529 March 15, 2004 Dear Mr. DeHaven and the Planning Commission: As I discussed with you on the phone today, our property backs up to the Racey Track. Enclosed are some of the concerns we have in regard to rezoning the Racey Track. Our main concerns are the infrastructure issues which are beyond the developer's control. Already the Southern Hills and Crosspointe Center Developments have been approved and they will add to the already strained services. 1. 277 needs to be widen to hold the current volume of traffic. 2. Emergency services are all on the west side of 81 and at times it is nearly impossible to get across the bridge. I recently witnessed a patrolman with lights and sirens attemping to get to Food Lion and no one moved out of the way for him because there is no where to go. This one day could mean life or death for someone. 3. Education - currently Aylor where our son is in 7th grade is over capacity and it is my understanding will still be when the new junior high opens. We believe that at some point in time the Racey Track will be developed but do not feel that it ought to be until the services are in place to provide for it. Sincerely, Mark and Susan Dreyer Folders Next Unread Reply Repl To All Forward L3 Back to INBOX Delete Set Flag Close as Unread Copy to... Move to... 2A Take Address Compose Rules Redirect to... Settings External Log Out https://yeti.crosslink.netISessionl2603-wImj 6GK1 pQmbEkl5mr9dlMessage.wssp?Mailbox... 3/16/2004 Sandra Ritenour 567 Peace and Plenty Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 March 17, 2004 To Planning Commission Members: This letter is to inform you of concerns and questions that I have regarding the Racey Tract Rezoning Application. v My first concern is about the procedure for closure of the Town of Stephens City's Lagoon. In a series of discussions I had with Mr. Scott Plein, he assured me that there would be no discharge of supernatant or liquids of any kind into Stephens Run. These discussions are referred to in his letter to me dated March 8, 2004. However, in Appendix B of the Rezoning Application Notebook, in reference to the closing of the Lagoon, it very specifically states that the supernatant containing human fecal coliform will be discharged into Stephens Run. The above referenced letter states, "Our rezoning application includes the correct and current proposed closure plan." There needs to be a clarification as to which plan is correct and v,Till be used to actually close the lagoon. Please ensure that this important issue is clear and that the incorrect closure plan is removed from all Rezoning Application notebooks that might be referenced in the future. The landowners along Stephens Run do not want coliform containing liquid or any other liquid from a 3 acre lagoon discharged into the water%vay. Also, in Attachment 42 of the supposed current closure plan, the Analytical Report by Test America does not appear to have tested for human pathogens such as fecal coliform. This needs to be done in a timely manner. I am also concerned that it is not clear what the specific plan for wetlands protection or reclamation will be. Was the lagoon site originally a wetlands site, part of the floodplain, and should at least part of this be restored? How will this decision effect the Frederick County portion of Stephens Run? I was disappointed that both the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority had no comments to make concerning this Rezoning Application, especially given the impact of the lagoon closing on Frederick County and possibly Stephens Run. We must not rely on information solely from developers for this important of a matter. The other topic of serious concern for me is the issue of traffic. The Racey Tract Trak Study is partly based on assumptions that were made three years ago regarding the impact of the Southern Hills Subdivision that have since proved untenable. These include VDOT funding for widening Fairfax Pike, relocation of Aylor Road, the unknown placement of I-81 interchanges, and future connector roads and bypasses. It seems to me that it is questionable to make decisions based on promises and improvements to roads that will not be put in place for years. In the meantime we will be faced with the negative impact of more and more traffic congestion on and near Fairfax Pike from already approved commercial and residential growth not mentioned in the study. These include Arby's Restaurant on the two-lane section of Fairfax Pike and the 100 -plus houses in the Southwest portion of Stephens City recently approved by the town. The traffic generated from this will put further pressure on our existing roadways. Approval should be made contingent upon actual major road improvements. Mr. Plein has spent a good deal of time with several concerned and interested citizens regarding this rezoning. His development proposal includes some positive aspects that begin to raise the bar for what can and should be expected in a `Nell -planned community. However, existing environmental assets need to be protected, neighboring landowners' wishes should be heard and incorporated, and infrastructure needs to be in place before decisions are made. Sincerely, Sandra Ritenour .ezoning or me ivaey i raci Subject: Rezoning of the Racey Tract Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:45:15 -0600 From: <pforno@verizon.net> To: <akennedy@co.frederick.va.us>, <jcamp@co.frederick.va.us>, <mcheran@co.frederick.va.us>, <cmills@co.frederick.va.us>, <cmohn@co.frederick.va.us>, <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us>, <pdavenpo@co.frederick.va.us> Dear Members of the Department of Planning and Development, During our February Home Owners Association meeting, many of our homeowners expresse A letter detailing our concerns is attached. We will also be delivering copies of t Members of the Homeowners Association will be in attendance at the meeting on Wednes sincerely, Woodside Estates Homeowners Association Pete Forno - Vice President Name: Planning Commission Letter.doc E.. a in Commission Letter.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) lEncodine: base64 1 of 1 3/16/2004 1:41 PA Woodside Estates Homeowners Association P.O. Box 1141 Stephens City, VA 22655 Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, 4th Floor Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 Dear Members of the Department of Planning and Development, As residents of Frederick County, we are pleased that the Planning Commission has taken such an active role in ensuring that Frederick County is developed as responsibly as possible. We are eager to see the growth that awaits our county and the improvements that such responsible growth brings. We understand that a new development is being proposed for the Racey Tract of land in Stephens City. We met with the developer, Scott C. Plein of Equinox Investment, LLC, and viewed the subdivision plan. We welcome growth in our community, but have serious concerns that all the necessary considerations have not been fully examined and addressed. The following items are just a few that require further review and need to be corrected before approving the Master Development Plan: Infrastructure o Roads ■ Can Double Church Road support the additional traffic? ■ Can Route 277 support the additional traffic from over 550 additional homes generated by the Racey Tract and Southern Hills subdivisions? ■ What is the true impact on Woodside Estates Subdivision if connectivity is provided via Driftwood Drive? ■ How does this development affect the already congested 1-81 interchange? o Emergency Services (Are these sufficient to address future needs?) ■ Fire ■ Ambulance ■ Hospital ■ Police o Schools • Can the school system support the additional children in its current state? • What additional facilities need to be constructed? o Water and Sewer • What will be done with the water system to address the increased demand and alleviate the water problems already being experienced in Stephens City? Effects on surrounding residential, agricultural and commercial areas o Drainage — already a problem in Woodside Estates I and II o Increased traffic The residents of Woodside Estates are eager to see our community grow. However, this growth needs to take place smartly to ensure that Stephens City and Frederick County continue to be quality places to live. We feel that the above issues, along with others, need to be fully examined and addressed before the Racey Tract Subdivision places additional strain on these already stressed resources. We ask that the Department of Planning and Development reject the Racey Tract Master Development Plan until such time that the above issues can be addressed. Sincerely, Woodside Estates Homeowners Association Member March 15, 2004 Planning Commission, I would like to express some environmental concerns regarding the proposed development of the Racey tract. The old Stephens City lagoon must be in "wetland". Is it being returned to wetland or is this possible? Once the closing of the lagoon is started, is there the possibility or probability of a rupture to the base by heavy equipment? Could this cause a contamination of Stephens Run? If chemicals are to be used, is there a higher risk? All removal cannot be completed in one day and rain should be .expected at some time during excavation! Is this a run off concern? My livestock and many other area farmers water from Stephens Run. 2. I am concerned about my pond, which is my other source of water, might become contaminated. In talking with the developer, I expressed my concerns that rain running off rooftops, driveways, and streets does not get the natural filtration system and would be running into my pond. He agreed, but said that this is where frederick county wants to build. Will my pond become contaminated from unfiltered run off? Will my pond stand the added run off with the possibility of dam bursting and eliminating my only other water source. I am sure both issues should be throughly considered in the decision making process of this proposed development. I often believe environmental issues are over looked, or just not adequately considered with the increasing urban development of frederick county. rary ou, Scothorn March 15, 2004 Planning Commission, I'd like to take this time to address some concerns regarding the proposed development of 250 houses on the Racey tract. 1) Traffic: Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) in its entirety is a two lane road! It does not matter how many turn lanes are implemented, all traffic ends up in two lanes! What are the delay expectations between the Stickley Drive extended interchange and Aylor Rd interchange? This proposed plan is a VDOT nightmare. The traffic analysis addendum for the Racey tract is very misleading. Traffic from the newly approved Stephens City development is not included. Contrary to implied findings, system delays will increase, even with the addition of a few turn lanes. Common sense tells us, that the addition of 2,500 trips a day can not improve traffic conditions. The Wells and Associates report is based on a 5% regional growth rate for all traffic on Route 277. Is this accurate, when the main concern for this proposed development is the traffic between Double Church Road and I81? This section of Route 277 is only 1/10th of the length of Route 277. 2) Education: Our schools are at capacity now, how many more must be built and funded in southern Frederick County to accommodate the Stephens City development, Southern Hills, Cross Pointe, and now the Racey tract? 3) Emergency Services: Fire and Rescue will not be able to respond in a timely manner due to an overburdened and congested Fairfax Pike. Seconds are critical to life and property. Systems delays will increase. Will lives and homes be lost as a result? In conclusion, the rural development area was designed as the best location in the county for rural development to occur, hen infrastructure is place. This iS n� i true for Fairfax Pike and the Stephens City area at this time. I would advise patience. Patience to the Racey family- C nntiniie to lease NCT , to offset tax Burden + Patience to the Developer- Infrastructure can not accommodate another 250 homes in this area at this time. Patience to the Planning Commission- Last October the conmiission vid this developer they could approve an additional 26 acres of Racey tract to be placed in UDA, but it would be very had to approve development of said acreages based on traffic issues on Route 277. The traffic issues are still present only multiplied, and a few tur i lanes and one stop light will not solve this problem. Thank you, Gary L Scothorn % �_ ` 0_- christcpher consultants j engineering surveying land planning April 15, 2004 Mr. Jeremy Camp Frederick County Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Meadows Edge (Racey Tract) Rezoning Application Dear Mr. Camp: Enclosed herewith is the updated Meadows Edge (Racey Tract) Rezoning Application package, which includes revised proffers addressing outstanding issues that were determined from the March 17, 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Based on of your letter dated April 2, 2004 outlining the outstanding issues, the applicant has revised the proffer statement accordingly: ■ The Rezoning Application package has been updated with the current lagoon closure plan dated September 9, 2002. In addition, the applicant has included proffer #26, which proffers additional measures, that address the items in Ms. Sandy Ritenour's letter, and are detailed in Appendix B1 to the proffers. If requested, the applicant will make the above mentioned letter, dated March 8, 2004 written to Ms. Sandy Ritenour part of the public record at the Planning Commission Hearing. The next outstanding issue that has been addressed is stormwater management. As stated in proffer #24 and proffer #25, the applicant has committed to all necessary measures to meet and exceed all requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, and/or Frederick County requirements, whichever is more restrictive and the applicant has addressed the runoff concerns of the adjoining properties. The collector road, which will be located on the Town of Stephens City property, is addressed within proffer #2. As noted, the applicant will construct two travel lanes within an appropriate right-of-way, and will also provide the grading necessary to accommodate a four -lane undivided collector road. ■ In regards to open space, the applicant has modified proffer #3 and proffer #4 to give Frederick County the flexibility as to the location of an 80' right-of-way, if deemed necessary. In addition to the flexibility as to the 80' right-of-way, the applicant has also proffered that the County may use the 26.5 acres located outside of the LIDA area, or any part thereof, for any public use deemed necessary by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. ■ The applicant has committed, as stated in proffer #21, to construct the hard surface pedestrian/bicycle trail 10' in width from Town Run Lane to the proposed sidewalk located within the proposed development. The construction of this trail, however, is conditional based upon the approval of the Town of Stephens City to provide an easement for such trail. christopher consultants, ltd. voice 703.444.3707 45940 horseshoe drive, suite 100 fax 703.444.5230 sterling, virginia 20166 web site www.christopherconsultants.com Mr. Jeremy Camp Meadows Edge (Racey Tract) Rezoning Application April 15, 2004 Page 2 ■ Phasing has been implemented within the project and has been proffered as shown in #23 indicating that no more than 75 building permits shall be issued in each of the first two years and the remaining 78 single family units during the third or any subsequent year following final subdivision approval. These are accumulative, allowing the applicant to carryover any unused portion of said units per year to subsequent years. ' ■ The applicant has provided clarity to the 40' buffer area by enhancing proffer #15, 16, and 19 limiting the uses allowed within the 40' buffer area to be'monitored and maintained by,the Homeowners' Association that will be formed. ■ The pool will be a minimum size of 3,500 square feet, as stated in proffer #11, and upon the completion of a one-time six month open membership period to adjoining properties of Woodside Estates I, Woodside Estates Il, and Ridgefield Communities; if the size of the pool needs to be increased, the applicant will do so. l • The housing type has been specified by the applicant within proffer #1 to be, a single-family detached cluster with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. ■ In regards to the traffic impact analysis, concern that development''within Stephens City has been accounted for was resolved during our April 5 meeting in which we agreed that the 5%0 required by VDOT on background traffic included the development within Stephens City. ■ The concern of neighbors with the traffic from the connections with Driftwood Drive and Branch Court has been addressed by the applicant by eliminating one of the straight ahead roads attaching to Driftwood Drive and by providing traffic calming measures stated in proffer #10. In addition, the applicant has proffered to place $40,000 in an escrow account for three. years after the issuance of 220' building permit or upon the opening of the connection points,',", whichever comes first. If the County or VDOT should identify the need for additional traffic,. calming measures, they may request these funds for use in installing the same. The applicant feels that all outstanding issues have been addressed with these updated proffers and Rezoning Application package, and welcomes your review. As we discussed at the April 5th meeting, it is the applicant's desire to be on the agenda of the June 2nd Planning Commission. We' look forward to receiving your comments and response on the review package within the next two weeks in order for us to make corrections or changes necessary. If there are any additional comments or concerns in the meantime, please feel free to contact us. Very truly yours, Bryan Condie Senior Planner BC/dmo ,4*christopher consultants - engineering surveying land planning - inn' April 16, 2004 Mr. Ed Strawsnyder Frederick County Public Works Department 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Stephens City Sewage Lagoon Closure Dear Mr. Strawsnyder: As you know, we represent Blue Springs View, L.L.C., the applicant.on the Meadows Edge (Racey Tract) Rezoning Application. Primary road access to Meadows Edge will be off of Town Run. Lane through a parcel of land owned by the Town of Stephens City. This land contains -an abandoned sewage lagoon, no longer needed by the Town. In exchange for providing the necessary right-of- way for the road access, Blue Springs View, L.L.C. has entered into an.agreernent with.the Town of Stephens City to formally close the abandoned sewage lagoon. Blue Springs View, L.L.C. retained the services of GeoConcepts, a geotechnical engineering firm,.to develop a sewage lagoon closure plan on the subject lagoon. This closure plan has beensubmitted to, and has been approved by the State Health Department. As part of the closure plan, the applicant would like to dispose of any liquid within the sewage lagoon through the sanitarysewer system of Frederick County. The applicant is willing to pay an appropriate fee based on;the amount of liquid actually discharged into the sanitary sewer system. In addition, the applicant and its consultants would work with the Department of Public Works so as to establish an allowable rate of discharge into the sanitary sewer system, and further would work with the Department in order to establish a schedule and timing for when such discharges could occur. The applicant would give notice to the Department prior to any discharges taking plan. The applicant is more than willing to enter into any necessary agreements with the Department of Public Works so as to implement this sewage lagoon liquid discharge provision. During numerous meetings with citizens in neighboring communities, as well as during discussions with Planning Commissioners about this sewage lagoon closure plan, the concern was raised about who would monitor the actual closure so as to ensure that the closure was done in strict conformance with the approved closure plan. The applicant will retain GeoConcepts to monitor and certify that the sewage lagoon closure is done in accordance with the approved plan. The applicant will provide both the Planning Department and Public Works Department of Frederick County with copies of these monitoring reports. However, we understand that the citizens and elected and appointed officials of Frederick County may desire a direct involvement by a Frederick County agency in terms of monitoring this closure plan. We are therefore inquiring with this letter as to the desire and availability of the Public Works Department to actively be involved in monitoring the closure plan of the sewage lagoon. The applicant is willing to enter into an agreement with the Public Works Department for such monitoring and would be willing to reimburse the Public Works Department for its direct cost involved in monitoring the lagoon closure. christopher consultants, ltd. voice 703.444.3707 45940 horseshoe drive, suite 100 fax 703.444.5230 sterling, virginia 20166 web site www.christopherconsultants.com Mr. Ed Strawsnyder Stephens City Sewage Lagoon Closure April 16, 2004 Page 2 We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and/or the designated represeritgtives from the Public Works Department in order to discuss these items relating to the Town of,Stephe�s City sewage lagoon closure plan and operation in greater detail. We will be contacting Riau in the near future in order to schedule such a meeting. In the meantime, if you should have.any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us. In any event, we would appreciate a response prior to April 25, 2004. Very truly�rours, Bryan Condie Senior Planner BC/dmo cc: Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Frederick County Planning Mr. Jeremy Camp, Frederick County Planning Mr. Scott Plein, Blue Springs View, L.L.C. r. Christopher consultants engineering surveying - land planning /'%pr:jl I V, GVv't Mr. Kelly Vanover Frederick -Winchester Health Department Environmental Health Services 107 North Kent Street Suite 201 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Stephens City Sewage Lagoon Closure Dear Mr. Vanover APR 13 LQI04 LPUWNWvG' As you know, we represent Blue Springs View, L.L.C., the applicant on.the' Meadows Edge (Racey Tract) Rezoning Application. Primary road access to Meadows Edge will be off of Town. Run Lane through a parcel of land owned by the Town of Stephens City. This land contains an,abandoned sewage lagoon, no longer needed by the Town. In exchange for providing the necessary right-of- way for the road access, Blue Springs View, L.L.C. has entered into an agreement with the Town of Stephens City to formally close the abandoned sewage lagoon. Blue Springs View, L.L.C. retained the services of GeoConcepts, a geotechnical engineering firm, to develop a sewage lagoon closure plan on the subject lagoon. This closure plan has been submitted to, and has been approved by State Health Department. As part of the closure plan, the applicant anticipates disposing of any liquid within the sewage lagoon through the sanitary sewer system of Frederick County. The applicant and its consultants will work with the Department of Public Works so as to establish an allowable rate of discharge into the sanitary sewer system, and further wouid work with the Department in order to establish a schedule and timing for when such discharges could occur. During numerous meetings with citizens in neighboring communities, as well as during discussions with Planning Commissioners about this sewage lagoon closure plan, the concern was raised about who would monitor the actual closure so as to ensure that the closure was done in strict conformance with the approved closure plan. The applicant will retain GeoConcepts to monitor and certify that the sewage lagoon closure is done in accordance with the approved plan. The applicant will provide "- both the County Planning Department and Frederick County Health Department with copies of these monitoring reports. However, we understand that the citizens and elected and appointed officials of Frederick County may desire a direct involvement by a Frederick County agency in terms of monitoring this closure plan. We are therefore inquiring with this letter as to the desire and availability of the Health Department to actively be involved in monitoring the closure plan of the sewage lagoon. The applicant is willing to enter into an agreement with the Health Department for such monitoring and would be willing to reimburse the Public Works Department for its direct cost involved in monitoring the lagoon closure. christopher consultants, ltd. voice 703.444.3707 45940 horseshoe drive, suite 100 fax 703.444.5230 sterling, virginia 20166 web site www.christopherconsultants.com Mr. Kelly Vanover Stephens City Sewage Lagoon Closure April 16, 2004 Page 2 We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and/or the designated representatives from the Health Department in order to discuss these items relating to the Town of Stephens City sewage, lagoon closure plan and operation in greater detail. We will be contacting you in the near future in` ., order to schedule such a meeting. In the meantime, if you should have any questions of need, additional information, please feel free to contact us. In any event, we would appreciate a response prior to April 25, 2004. ' Very trul yours, Bryan Condie Senior Planner BC/dmo cc: Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Frederick County Planning Mr. Jeremy Camp, Frederick County Planning Mr. Scott Plein, Blue Springs View, L.L.C. `1 i 1 i, Apr 23 04 11:37a ccl-Loudoun 2034445230 p,2 April 13, 2004 Mr. Bryan Condie Christopher Consultants, LTD. 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, Virginia 20166 RE: SvPnhens ON Sewage Lagoon Closure Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Condie: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 5401665-5643 FAX: 5101678-0682 APR L 0':M}4. in response to your letter dated April 16, 2004, 1 recommend that you contact Mr. John Whitacre With the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (540-868-1061) to coordinate the disposal of the liquid within the servage lagoon. The sanitation authority is responsible for the water and sewerage systems within Frederick County. With regard to the closure of the lagoon, it appears that your plan to have GeoConcepts monitor and certify this process is satisfactory to this department. Please provide us with a copy of the closure plan and final certification documents prior to initiating any site development. This office should be contacted to obtain a land disturbance permit prior to initiating the lagoon closure and any subsequent site grading. We will be involved in the inspection of the erosion and sediment control measures. However, it is not necessary for our staff to be involved in the closure process if GcoConcepts has a representative on site. If you should have any questions regarding our land disturbance permitting process, please contact Mr. Joe Wilder at 540-665-5643. Sincerely, Harvey E. Strawsny , Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Development John Whitacre, Frederick County Sanitation Authority C:\Core[\Word perfectMhonda\Documelits\stephenseitylagoonclosure.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 4VLLLS ASSOC.IAl ES, LLC: TRAFFIC. TRAM 5PORTATI''I,t, AN it PARK INC, MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Ben Lineberry Virginia Department of Transportation cc: Scott Plein Blue Springs View, LLC Louis Canonico, P.E. Bryan Condie Christopher Consultants, Ltd. From: Michael J. Workosky Melissa T. Hish Date: November 5, 2003 Re: Racey Tract Traffic Analysis Addendum Frederick County, Virginia INTRODUCTION I U-NNI '%•S.=i�7i i This memorandum presents an addendum to the Racey Tract traffic impact study prepared by Wells & Associates, dated August 21, 2003. The intent of this document is to address the transportation issues and comments regarding the Racey Tract project provided by the Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County at a meeting held on October 7, 2003. The following tasks have been completed in an effort to address the issues and comments discussed at the meeting: • Apply a five percent regional annual growth rate to the through traffic on Fairfax Pike and Double Church Road. • Verify the site trip distribution. • Analyze background traffic volumes based on the existing roadway network, without roadway improvements. • Verify the projected average daily traffic with the Racey Tract project on Driftwood Drive and Trunk Drive to ensure that the roadway cross sections are adequate. • Revise traffic volume and report graphics to reflect the revised analyses. • Identify roadway improvements to be funded and constructed by Blue Springs View, LLC as part of the Racey Tract project. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Future traffic forecasts were prepared by applying a five percent annual growth rate to the existing traffic counts and adding traffic generated by adjacent development, including full buildout of the Southern Hills project. These volumes represent background conditions. Traffic generated by the Racey Tract project was added to represent total future conditions. The traffic volume and lane use graphics are contained in Appendix A. Capacity analyses of the study intersections were revised for existing, background, and total future conditions using the Syncho/SimTraffic procedure to incorporate the tasks outlined above. The results of these studies are discussed below. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS The background traffic forecasts were revised to incorporate a five percent regional annual growth rate to the traffic on Fairfax Pike and Double Church Road. Although the trips associated with four pipeline developments were included as part of background conditions, no roadway improvements, including the realignment of Aylor Road, were assumed to be constructed by 2007. Analysis of the existing road network under background conditions indicates the following: • The intersections on Fairfax Pike from the 1-81 ramps to Double Church Road are forecasted to operate at or beyond capacity during the PM peak hour under background conditions. • Queues on Fairfax Pike at Town Run Lane are expected to extend back west to Stickley Drive and east to the 1-81 northbound ramps during the morning and evening peak hours. • The total average delay for the Fairfax Pike corridor is forecasted to increase by over 1900 percent during the AM peak hour and over 2400 percent during the PM peak hour from existing delays experienced on the road network. 2 Fuel efficiency for the corridor is expected to decrease by approximately 35 to 70 percent during the peak hours. Carbon monoxide emissions are projected to increase by approximately 40 to 10 percent from existing emissions during the commuter peak hours. Motorists traveling on Fairfax Pike are expected to experience a significant increase in delay due to the additional trips generated by approved future development, ambient traffic growth, and the absence of any funded roadway improvements. Although long- range plans are in place, current state and county funding does not include upgraded facilities along this section of Fairfax Pike. SITE TRAFFIC The distribution of site -generated trips for the proposed Racey Tract project was developed based on current travel patterns. The existing traffic volume count data was analyzed for both the AM and PM peak hours on a cordon basis to identify the distribution of residential trips in the area. The site traffic distribution analysis is contained in Appendix B. This appendix also includes detailed figures illustrating the assignment of peak hour site trips to the intersection turning movements. FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH RACEY TRACT Using the existing road network as a base, the future traffic volumes were analyzed to identify the roadway improvements required to mitigate traffic generated by the Racey Tract project. Based on this study, Blue Springs View, LLC proposes to fund and construct the following roadway improvements with the development of Racey Tract: • Restripe the westbound right turn lane on Fairfax Pike at Town Run Lane to a shared through -right lane, which will carry traffic through to the 1-81 northbound on-ramp. • Provide additional funds to construct a new traffic signal on Fairfax Pike at Stickley Drive. • Construct a second through travel lane on Fairfax Pike in both the eastbound and westbound directions at Stickley Drive. • Construct an exclusive right turn lane on eastbound Fairfax Pike at Stickley Drive. • Upgrade northbound Stickley Drive to three lanes at Fairfax Pike, to accommodate an exclusive left turn lane, a shared left -through lane, and an exclusive right turn lane for exiting project traffic. • Construct a second eastbound through travel lane on Fairfax Pike at Double Church Road. • Construct an exclusive southbound left turn lane on Double Church Road at Fairfax Pike. • Restripe the northbound approach on Double Church Road at Fairfax Pike to provide an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through -right lane. • Provide for, or wait for improvements to Town Run Lane/Stickley Drive, pursuant to the Southern Hills proffers, prior to homeowner access from the project to Town Run Lane. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS The existing, background, and total future traffic forecasts and analyses were analyzed to determine the overall effects of the Racey Tract project, and quantify the proposed improvements on the road network. The total system average delay under current conditions (based on all intersections studied), is 77.0 to 86.9 seconds per vehicle. This delay would increase to 1,594.6 seconds per vehicle during the AM peak hour and 2,203.9 seconds per vehicle during the PM peak hour under background conditions, without road improvements. This represents an increase of 25 minutes (or nearly 2,000 percent) in delay during the AM peak hour and almost a 35 -minute (or nearly 2,500 percent) increase during the PM peak hour that will be experienced by motorists in the area. The roadway improvements proposed by the Racey Tract project would greatly reduce the overall system delay, by 94 percent during the AM peak hour and 89 percent during the PM peak hour. These calculations are summarized in Table I in Appendix C. This appendix also contains a summary of each of the individual intersections and quantifies the effects of the proposed roadway improvements. A cordon analysis was also prepared to identify the net increase in traffic that would be realized with the development of the Racey Tract property. This was prepared by calculating the amount of traffic that is currently entering and exiting the study area, and adding the traffic expected to be generated by the site. The results indicate that the Racey Tract project would increase traffic within the study area by approximately 3.0 percent during the AM peak hour and 3.2 percent during the PM peak hour. 4 CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS The roadway sections of Trunk Road and Driftwood Drive were reviewed to determine if these facilities would adequately accommodate the additional traffic generated by Racey Tract. Roadway plans for these facilities were obtained by Christopher Consultants, and indicate that a cross section of 36 feet, curb -to -curb, with a two -foot gutter pan, is currently provided. Based on the "Subdivision Street Requirements" published by the Virginia Department of Transportation, these roadways could adequately accommodate a total of up to 2,000 average daily (24-hour) trips each. These roadways were designed by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. in anticipation of these future demands. These roadways currently carry 710 trips (Trunk Road) and 680 trips (Driftwood Drive), respectively. Racey Tract traffic would add 410 trips to Trunk Road and 770 trips to Driftwood Drive, resulting in a total of 1,120 trips on Trunk Road and 1,450 trips on Driftwood Drive under total future conditions. Thus, the roadway cross sections would be adequate with the development of the site. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of this traffic analysis addendum are as follows: The existing road network would experience a significant increase in congestion and delay without the development of the Racey Tract, due to background development, ambient growth, and the absence of roadway improvements. 2. The roadway improvements planned to be funded and constructed by the Racey Tract developer would reduce the overall system delays by 94 percent during the AM peak hour and 89 percent during the PM peak hour, while only increasing overall traffic demand by three percent. The revised analyses indicate that no further roadway improvements would be required at the Trunk Road and Driftwood Drive intersections with the development of the Racey Tract. 4. The improvements proposed by the developer of the Racey Tract project address existing and future traffic issues not directly related to the development. Many of these improvements are required without the development of the property. The Racey Tract site is being designed in a manner that would not promote cut -through traffic. 6. Trunk Road and Driftwood Drive were both designed to facilitate interparcel access in anticipation of future traffic demands. Based on VDOT standards, the existing roadway cross sections would adequately accommodate the additional traffic generated by the Racey Tract O:PROJECTS\1903 RACEY TRACT\RACEY TRACT ADDENDUM 6 Appendix A Revised Traffic Forecasts R� 1.5 ,foe 4,J>o 958 o 611 Q 1/19 514191 � 91 R2 ti9�� 57 '/55 / I 8 '647 c CU J ue 400Y45 85 —► 59/97 � 34/80 r 373/348 31 /g C, k-3/5 1 — '/2/13 ive K— ' 43/34 I 0/0 680 2/2 � 641 �00 _ �1 � 7 z3/32 _ 4 w a SITE Figure A-1 XXX Average Daily Traffic (24 -Hour) Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes $> North Don/Ow Schematic Racey Tract �__. L�_ mlc Frederick County, Virginia �ASSOCIATES. M MAMZ IM N Figure A-2 ffI _ Average Daily Traffic (24 -Hour) Background Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts xx North ©�o7O°0 Schematic Racey Tract_ WELLS & ASSOCIATES, LLC Frederick County, Virginia riaat�r� eaw�rm; .eo a&rtNe � ` � 1162188 �43/102 JCon ► �~ �� ~� tea' 1801223 lgno ~52/ 6,0 1ze 6788 9Sf23s 1�/ Fairfax �4z 1 1/27 703/1037 --� r 277 57 583' 70 —► 70 l 99/177�vn N LL min 647 J = ,p 6l N � \- -------- ,� 1 �. Avenue Drive 430 xa`Q' 0 } 680 2/2 I < ^N� 641 \ {CI r f N Q SITE 7 — � � I � y Figure A-2 ffI _ Average Daily Traffic (24 -Hour) Background Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts xx North ©�o7O°0 Schematic Racey Tract_ WELLS & ASSOCIATES, LLC Frederick County, Virginia riaat�r� eaw�rm; .eo a&rtNe � ` X01° �yti ^\ RD AQ 1 ��^VV �/99s I I k— 1/19 ~43/102�164 90 rss 5/61 04%,Qd1~�/zz 277 Fairfax -� 1/z7 „ 7 \ 705/1045 —y r i "3 70 —► M/184 -� MT � g yam 647 V c1 - Avenue Drive So 56 t r lg, ,,aso 8/8 �, neo 641 �n _ 440%7 _-4 o a 0 SITE 1l \ \ rf Figure A-3 Total Future Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts Racey Tract Frederick County, Virginia XX Average Daily Traffic (24 -Hour) dr North ODD/000 Schematic _ WELLS & ASSOCIATES, LLC "UPMr, MUMMMaarmv, AW mar 0W mAMMvffi tea, 4` Re -Stripe Only °� / �— 277 Fairfax � Pike Co © m ° 81 a_, Re -Stripe Only 647 J = �V 0 Avenue Drive i 641 r � ° �Jc SITE � s % � f ---------------------------------- Figure ---------------------------- - Figure A-4 Future Lane Use and Traffic Control 4 Represents One Travel Lane Signalized Intersection T Stop Sign North F—I Future Proposed Improvement Schematic Racey Tract _ WEM9 & ASSOC_IATES, LLC_ Frederick County, Virginia M%QPVrjZ �oRar1 .ec 4 X7.0) Appendix B Site Traffic Distribution Analysis R� X_e, wo, 25% 10% 0 9% r 'Ll O� p 1 O O/CY 4 o 114 ly a 1/ V -UIQ 11 �0/0 O � hpa O � 8 Ifj '647 ��^^V vJ\ Avenue SITE Total Site -Generated Trips AM PM IN OUT IN OUT 42 128 145 82 7% Fairfax ■. FAA, 0 °/O 1 �, V-o/a 13/44 Pike f *Ilftoll.. 2/e 30% c� 3 C --s Drive 7/24 37/24- 1 r 105�4. 0 ono 641 a� m\ m 11 �4 ,� I 6/4 � N N 9% Figure B-1 H % Site -Generated Directional Distribution #4- 1 Site—Generated Trip Assignments xx Ift- Average Daily Traffic (24 -Hour) , * North oau/oaa Schematic Racey Tract _ WELLS _& ASSOCIATES LLC_ Frederick County, Virginia onwICv inwS/Crmri'i ~Aaaww4"4wolaw1 i 10% 25% 7%_ "9% "'k 1 �70 O� 45% r62 277 Fairfax ►��0� 3�-? �► 6%--*, 62 t Pike I r 0 o^� 30% 8 647 _jLD)�7 v � �\ Nr Avenue Drive 1 `e, 24% 1 641 ` 14% �1 \, 33% ; r 48% ��c { SITE 19% 9% Figure B-2 Site—Generated Trip Distribution ♦♦' % Site -Generated Directional Distribution _10 - North Schematic LRacey Tract _WELLS & ASSOCIATES LLC derick County, Virginia nun= Mun4uafflar'im wALWMsDMMUMwW Appendix C Summary of Intersection Delays and Capacity Analyses Table I Racey Tract Level of Service Summary Existing Background Total Future Delay Difference Approach/ with existing lane use with existing lane use with proposed improvements Background vs. Total Future Intersection Control Movement AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Fairfax Pike (Rte 277)/ Signal EB B (17.9) C (24.3) C (26 1) E (56 0) C (21.7) E (62.5) 1-81 SB Ramps WB A (5.6) A (8.5) B (1 1 7) C (25.9) A (8.4) C (24.1) SB D (41.9) E (57.3) E (61 1) E (73 3) D (43.1) E (66.9) Overall 8(18.0) C (26.3) C (27 9) 0(49.4) C (20.9) D (49.5) -70 0 1 Faurfax Pike (Rte 277)/ Signal EB A (4.3) B (12.6) A (6 1) F (101 0) B (10.3) F (118.3) 1-81 NB Ramps WB A (2.1) A (0.8) A (1.2) A (0.6) A (2.6) A (2.2) NB D (44.3) F (139.5) F (119 2) F (215 5) E (56.9) F (304.1) Overall A (9.0) C (26.6) B (19 2) E (74.8) B (12.7) F (95.6) -6.5 208 Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/ Signal EB A (4.7) A (9.1) B (10.3) C (32.2) A (5.1) D (35.9) Town Run Lane/Aylor Road WB B (17.9) C (23.0) C (25 7) F (102 3) B (14.9) B (17.8) NB D (42.8) D (47.7) D (53 6) D (51.0) D (38.9) D (36.4) SB C (32.0) E (56.0) D (49 1) F (117 5) C (34.6) F (137.0) Overall B (16.1) C (21.7) C (24 3) E (70.7) B (15.0) D (43.8) -93 -269 Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/ TWSC NB E [45.6] F [87.9] F M F [9 NA NA Stickley Drive SB E [39.1] F [729] F [138.1] F [q NA NA Signal EB NA NA NA NA A (6.8) B (15.2) WB NA NA NA NA A (5.3) B (10.6) NB NA NA NA NA D (41.0) D (45.4) SB NA NA NA NA D (48.7) D (47.0) Overall NA NA NA NA B(I2.2) B(19.8) -1475.9 -19218 Fairfax Pike (Rte 277)/ Signal EB C (26.9) C (293) C (31 4) E (62.2) C (22.6) C (26.7) Double Church Road WB B (16.9) 8(17.6) 8 (18 9) C (320) B (18.5) C (27.5) NB J C (24.1) C (27.0) C (28.4) E (70.1) C (27.5) C (32.0) SB C (26.6) C (32.2) C (30 5) F (108 4) C (27.0) C (27.4) Overall C (22.8) C (25.7) C (26 2) E (58.4) C (22.3) C (28.2) -39 -302 Double Church Road/ TWSC NBLTR A [7.5] A [7.6] A [7.6] A [80] A [7.7] A [8.2] Driftwood Drive/Brandy Lane SBLT A [7.6] A [7.6] A [7.8] A [80] A [7.8] A [8.0] WB B[10.f] B[10.2] B(10.9] B[I2.6] B[I1.2] B[13.3] EB B[11.01 8[11.4] B[12.6] C[161] 8[13.7] C[18.21 0.3 01 Double Church Road/ TWSC NBL A [7.5] A [7.6] A [76] A [79] A [7.6] A [8.0] Trunk Drive EB B[10.3] B[10.31 B(114] B[1341 B[11.6] B[13.9] 06 04 Total Aretage Delay 77.0 86.9 1,594.6 2,203.9 929 246.4 .1501.7 -1957.5 Wells & Associares, LLC Mclean, Virginia 2,500.0 2,000.0 m 1,500.0 Network Performance Average System Delay 500.0 Existing Background Total Future (without Racey Tract (with Racey Tract improvements) improvements) IIAM Peak RPM Peak Intersection Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/1-81 SB Ramps Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/1-81 NB Ramps Delay Comparison and Improvement Program Average Intersection Delay (PM Peak Hour) Improvements Fairfax Pike (Rte. l.7 277)/Town Run Lane/Aylor Road 43.Et -38% I Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/Stickley Drive Fairfax Pike (Rte. 25,7 277)/Double Church Road 28 2 -52% Double Church rM Road/Driftwood Drive/Brandy Lane n83+I% Double Church M "L Road/Trunk Drive 0.8 1.2 +46% •Restripe WBR to WBTR *Signal *Construct second EBT and WBT *Construct EBR *Construct NBL and NBR *Construct second EBT *Construct SBL •Restripe NB approach for NBL, NBTR 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0 Existing Average Delay (seconds) 0 Future without Racey Tract improvements ❑Future with Racey Tract improvements AM EX B 18 BG C 27 TF C 2C DIFF +7 R' Figure C-1 Level of Service/Overall Intersection Delay (seconds per vehicle) Comparison Rocey Tract Frederick County, Virginia 1 PM '.8 C 25.7 i.2 E 58.4 �.3 C 28.2 3.9 -30.2 W PMS �.0 .2 .5 3 EXjAMPM S 16.1 G21 7 Figure C-1 Level of Service/Overall Intersection Delay (seconds per vehicle) Comparison Rocey Tract Frederick County, Virginia 1 PM '.8 C 25.7 i.2 E 58.4 �.3 C 28.2 3.9 -30.2 W PMS �.0 .2 .5 3 :8.3 AM PM 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.3 1.2 +0.6 +0.4 EX - Existing LOS and overall average intersection delay (seconds) BG- Background LOS and overall averageintersection delay (seconds) TF - Total Future LOS and overall average intersection delay (seconds) North DIFF.- Difference between total future and background delay(seconds) Schematic --H _WELLS & AS8GCIATES. LLC erc svieiane� +.v wam�s mmozw�v EX BG TF DIFF Percen Figure C-2 Site—Generated Traffic Cordon Analysis Racey Tr" ct Frederick County, Virginia PM 254 556 576 20 3.6 EX- Existing 2 -way peak hour traffic volume .! BG - Background 2 -way peak hour traffic volume TF - Total Future 2 -way peak hour traffic volume North DIFF. -Difference in 2 -way traffic volume (Total Future vs. Background) Percent- Percent difference in 2 -way traffic volume (Total Future vs. Backaroundl Schernctic WELLS & ASSOCIATESr LLC -.,arc�Im—,.cmc� AM PM EX cxr 749 — 690 i— Figure C-2 Site—Generated Traffic Cordon Analysis Racey Tr" ct Frederick County, Virginia PM 254 556 576 20 3.6 EX- Existing 2 -way peak hour traffic volume .! BG - Background 2 -way peak hour traffic volume TF - Total Future 2 -way peak hour traffic volume North DIFF. -Difference in 2 -way traffic volume (Total Future vs. Background) Percent- Percent difference in 2 -way traffic volume (Total Future vs. Backaroundl Schernctic WELLS & ASSOCIATESr LLC -.,arc�Im—,.cmc� P60EX 667 660 Figure C-2 Site—Generated Traffic Cordon Analysis Racey Tr" ct Frederick County, Virginia PM 254 556 576 20 3.6 EX- Existing 2 -way peak hour traffic volume .! BG - Background 2 -way peak hour traffic volume TF - Total Future 2 -way peak hour traffic volume North DIFF. -Difference in 2 -way traffic volume (Total Future vs. Background) Percent- Percent difference in 2 -way traffic volume (Total Future vs. Backaroundl Schernctic WELLS & ASSOCIATESr LLC -.,arc�Im—,.cmc� Rezoning Application Frederick County, Virginia Meadows Edge (Racey Tract) Prepared by. christopher consultants, ltd. 45940 Horseshoe Drive Suite 100 Sterling, Virginia 20166 (703) 444-3707 May 7, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPLICATION I. GENERAL CRITERIA AND SUMMARY III. IMPACT ANALYSIS A. LOCATION AND ACCESS B. SITE SUITABILITY C. TRAFFIC D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT E. WATER SUPPLY F. SITE DRAINAGE G. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES H. OPEN SPACE PLAN I. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IV. FREDERICK COUNTY IMPACT MODEL V. PROFFER STATEMENT VI. AGENCY COMMENTS VII. MEADOWS EDGE DEED VIII. TAX TICKET IX. APPENDIX APPLICATION REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff.- Fee Amount Paid $ Zoning Amendment Number Date Received 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. Applicant: Name: Blue Springs View, L.L.C. Telephone: 703-929-9918 Address: 43571 John Mosby Highway, Suite 120, Chantilly, VA 20152 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: The Estate of Charles Racey c/o Alcesta Dyke and Shelve M. Largent, Executrixes Telephone: 703-929-9918 Address: 293 Old Charles Town Rd., Stephenson, VA 22656 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Bryan Condie, christopher consultants, ltd. Telephone: 703-444-3707 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Tmpact 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: The Estate of Charles Racey c/o Alcesta Dyke and Sheivy M. Largent, Executrixes 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Vacant B) Proposed Use of the Property: Single-family detached cluster subdivision (minimum 8.000 sq.ft. lots) 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING SEE ATTACHMENT "A" Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): Stephens City, east of interstate 81; 0.5 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) east of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane); south on Route 1065 (Ridgefield Avenue) to Ewings Lane. 12 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use, Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 85 A 140 Districts Magisterial: Opequon Fire Service: Stephens City Rescue Service: Stephens City High School: Sherando Middle School: R.E. Aylor Elementary School: Middletown 0. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested, FAcres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 105.65 RA RP 26.5 RA RA/No Change 105.65 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: 228 Townhorne: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail,- Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other: 13 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge, Applicant(s): Owner(s): t4 , &—e �> 14 Date: e� Date: Date:'___, ter_ � Date: 7. Adjoining Property Owners Name and Property Identification Number Address Zone Use Smith, David & Linda W. 132 Driftwood Drive Property # 86 E 1 18 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential—, Stevenson, James E. & Tammy R. 100 Barkwood Drive Property # 86 E 1 19 Stpehens City VA 22655 RP Residential Schultz, Scott & Rebecca 102 Barkwood Drive Property # 86 E 1 20 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Hudson, Freddie E & Carole F. 104 Barkwood Drive Property # 86 E 1 21 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Balker, Christopher W. & Carole 106 Barkwood Drive Proper # 86 E 1 22 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Weber, Steven A. & Tracy B. 108 Barkwood Drive Property # 86 E 1 23 Ste hens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Laporete, Timothy J. & Karen S. 110 Barkwood Drive Property # 86 E 1 24 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Dobersztyn, David M. & Dawn M. 112 Barkwood Drive Property # 86 E 1 25 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Dreyer, Mark Rusan L. 114 Barkwood Drive Property # 86 E 1 26 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Ford, Albert D. & Mary D. 116 Barkwood Drive Property # 86 E 1 27 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Dean, Timothy A. Sr., & Christi R. 118 Barkwood Drive Property # 86 E 1 28 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Kidd, James C. & Ingrid K. 114 Trunk Drive Propert # 86 E 2 2 13 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Malik, Jared & Naeema 116 Trunk Drive Property # 86 E 2 2 14 Ragaller, Timothy A. & Diane M. Stephens City, VA 22655 118 Trunk Drive RP Residential Property # 86 E 22 15 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential ATTACHMENT "A" Schneider, Paul C. & Jennifer G. 120Trunk Drive Propel ;# 86 E 2 2 16 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential'- esidentialCooley, Cooley,Bryan K. & Sharon L. 122 Trunk Drive Proper 4 86 E 2 2 17 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Corbit, Steven & Kathryn 124 Trunk Drive Property;# 86 E 2 2 18 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Marks, Alfred H. Jr. & Julia G. 126 Trunk Drive Pro erty # 86 E 2 2_ 19 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Duke, Patricia Kelly 128 Trunk Drive Property ;� 86 E 2 2 20 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Skeith, Joe David & Sheila K. 130 Trunk Drive Property # 86 E 2 2 21 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Mitchell, Jent P. III & F. Anne B. 132 Trunk Drive Property * 86 E 2 2 22 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Smiy, Kenneth P. 134 Trunk Drive Property # 86 E 2 2 23 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Patton, Dale E. & Diane A. P.O. Box 3457 Property # 86 E 2 2 24 Winchester, VA 22604 RP Residential Philibin, Gary L. & Stacey D. 138 Trunk Drive Property ;# 86 E 2 2 25 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Smith, Paul A. & Jackson, Mildred Jan 129 Branch Court Property ;# 86 E 2 2 26 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Rodgers, Ronald E. & Ellan S. 127 Branch Court Property - 86 E 2 2 27 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Berlowitz, orris & Helene 125 Branch Court Property ;# 86 E 2 2 28 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Shickle, Lester G. &Jeanette C. 123 Branch Drive Property # 86 E 2 2 29 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Sybert, Ronald E. & Nancy M. 121 Branch Drive Propel # 86 E 2 2 30 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Disque, Dale W. & Dayle P. 119 Branch Drive Property # 86 E 2 2 31 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Burch, Patricia A. P.O. Box 5 Propert rte# 86 E 2 2 32 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Mohan, Robert & Mary Beth 115 Branch Court Property # 86 E 2 2 33 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Dirnagl, Alfred & Christine 113 Branch Court Property # 86 E 2 2 34 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential MacGregor, Gregory T. & Parnela D. 111 Branch Court Property_ # 86 E 2 2 35 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Phillips, William R. II 118 Meadowbrook Drive Propert # 85 B 1 17 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Dursey, Walter H. Jr. 120 Meadowbrook Drive Propel # 85 B 1 18 Stephens ity, VA 22655 RP Residential Sharon M. LaRoche Living Trust 122 Meadowbrook Drive Propel # 85 B 1 19 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Campbell, Kurt A. & Jammie M. 124 Meadowbrook Drive _Property # 85 B 1 20 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Swain, Rachel C. 126 Meadowbrook Drive Property # 85 B 1 21 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Dixon, Anthony C. 128 Meadowbrook Drive Property_ # 85 B 1 22 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Rose, Thomas B. II 501 Ridgefield Avenue -Property # 85 C 2 79 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Deiter, Cynde Anne Jones 503 Ridgefield Avenue Property # 85 C 2 80 Ste hens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Pumphrey, Round W. 507 Ridgefield Avenue Property # 85 C 2 82 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Soule, Chap R. 509 Ridgefield Avenue Property # 85 C 2 83 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Lafollete, Kenneth M. 511 Ridgefield Avenue Property # 85 C 2 84 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Linaburg, Mikkia 112 Grove Court Property # 85 C 1 2 92 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Bennett, Brady L. & Christine L. 114 Grove Court Propel # 85 C 1 2 93 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Murphy, John D. & Shirley M. 113 Grove Court Property # 85 C 1 2 94 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Brown, Mae M. 111 Grove Court Propel # 85 C 1 2 95Ste hens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Payne, Robert A. 109 Grove Court Property # 85 C 1 296 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Artz, Harold A. Jr. & Bridget A. 107 Grove Court Property # 85 C 1 297 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Shirley, (David E. 105 Grove Court Property # 85 C 1 298 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Fiorvanti, Richard L. II 103 Grove Court Property # 85 C 1 2 99 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Livingood, Clara C. 101 Grove Court Property # 85 C 1 2 100 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Sandretzky, Ronald W. & Tarnmy M.W. 217 Ridgefield Propert# 85 C 1 2 101 Stephens City, VA 22655 RP Residential Gary L. & Stephen P. Scothorn 604 Ewings Lane Property # 85 A 139 Stephens City, VA 22655 RA Agricultural Frederick — Winchester P.O. Box 43 Property # 85 A 141 Winchester, VA 22604 RA Local Government Gary L. & Linda O. Scothorn 506 Ewings Lane Property # 85 A 139A Stephens City, VA 22655 RA Residential James R. & Jane S. Young 511 Ewings Lane Proper # a85 A 139B Stephens City, VA 22655 RA Residential Town of Stephens City P.O. Box 250 Property # 85 A 142 Stephens City, VA 22655 RA Local Government Ours, Rick 461 Westmoreland Dr. Property # 86 A 25 Stephens City, VA 22655 RA Agricultural Painter, Herbert M. 914 Double Church Rd. Propel # 86 A 21A Stephens City, VA 22655 RA Agricultural GENERAL CRITERIA AND SUMMARY General Criteria and Summary The Impact Analysis Statement in Section III is provided in summary form for the property known as "Meadows Edge". The property is located South of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) and East of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane). The total parcel area zoned Rural Area (RA) is approximately 132.1 acres. The area to be rezoned as Residential Performance (RP) is 106 acres +/- located within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The remaining 26 acres +/- located outside the UDA will remain zoned RA. The property is being shown on the attached Location Map (Figure 1). The Impact Analysis Statement for Meadows Edge is prepared as required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for rezoning approval of the property. The model projects a negative fiscal impact. The Applicant has proffered an amount that will offset the negative fiscal impact in accordance with directives of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. A single-family detached cluster development with a minimum of 8,000 sq. ft. lots is being proposed as part of this rezoning request. Based on 2.3 density units per acre, which is an average of the single-family developments within the UDA, the area proposed to be rezoned will support approximately 244 single-family homes, the applicant proposes 228 single-family homes. Interparcel connectors will be used to link Woodside Estates I and Woodside Estates II subdivisions with Meadows Edge. The Meadows Edge will gain its primary access from Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012). Road layout through the site has been designed to limit "cut thru" traffic thru the adjoining subdivisions. The Applicant, through working with VDOT and the County Staff, has recognized the need to secure a right-of-way for a collector road along this property's southern boundary. This right-of-way would secure the option to create a vital transportation corridor that would further facilitate the relocation of the current 1-81/Rt 277 interchange to the South and provide for a badly needed alternative for thru traffic currently using Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277). The Applicant is proffering to reserve an 80' wide corridor for this future collector road throughout the length of the property. Preliminary engineering design studies have been completed and have been utilized to the fullest extent in preparing the General Development Plan (GDP). According to these preliminary studies, 228 residential units have been proffered as the maximum units to be developed within the area to be rezoned. Analyses of environmental and physical features located on the parcel have been utilized to enhance the design of the community. Open space has been preserved throughout site, internally as well as externally. Approximately 2.8 acres +/- has been proffered to contain a community green, a community pool and pool house. These areas have been designed to be centrally located and will serve the proposed community. These facilities will have the capacity for additional users and the developer intends to offer membership opportunities for neighboring communities. Public sewer and water service are available to the property. Natural gas and electric service are available to the property. ��7 . SCOTHORN �\ PROPERTY AIRVIEW- PRINGHILL FARMS �FaFviau f AREA TO BE REZONED SCALE 1" = 2000' FIGURE 1 M PACT ANALYSIS III. Impact Analysis A. Location and Access Attached Figure 2 shows the 132 acre parcel located southeast of interstate 81 Exit 307; approximately 0.5 miles south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277); on the east side of Town Run Lane (Route1012). Fairfax Pike is classified as a minor arterial roadway, and Town Run Lane is classified as a local road. The 105.6 acres of the site that is being rezoned is located within the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). This acreage is within the boundaries of an adopted land use plan for the county allowing residential uses to be permitted. The 132 -acre parcel has different uses surrounding its exterior. Three subdivisions, Ridgefield, Woodside Estates I and Woodside Estates II, consisting of clustered style single-family detached units make up the northern boundary. Stephens Ridge, a townhouse community comprises the majority of the western border. Frederick County Sanitation Authority owns and operates a wastewater detention pond adjacent to the southwestern boundary. The Scothorn and Fairview -Springhill farms, which make up the southern and eastern borders, are located within the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District. The parcel also adjoins the Painter residence to its northeast. The primary access for the 105.6 -acre development will be provided from Town Run Lane on the western side of the site. The entrance road will be designed to the north of Stephens Run. Pursuant to an agreement with the Town of Stephens City (Appendix "A"), access will be granted through Parcel Tax Map #85 A 142. This will also allow for the proper closure, to be completed by the applicant, of the abandoned sewage lagoon, in accordance with an approved Lagoon Closure Plan (Appendix "B") that is consistent with Virginia Department of Health regulations. The proposed intersection at Town Run Lane will not only provide access to the community as designed, but is also designed for the aforementioned collector road. The intersection design and alignment will allow for several options of movement with respect to any new interchange that may be constructed as proposed South of the current 1-81/Rt. 277 exchange. VIRGINIA CCGftgNATE SYSTEYI OF F(Ii, NDxiN ILNE LEGEND AREABE REZONED ED TO TO 'RP' i i \ IXlsnxG \� FLOODPLNN�\..// ------------------- IXISTIDNG� � I / 195!' np PROPOSED RP i i MEADOWS EDGE (Racey Tract) Christopher consuftants 0+01 engineering surveying - land planning AREA TO BE REZONED hnsl=p erm===la- «I aseao no, h—d— (—w mol sen��. 119-12-6 NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2 '034«.3—-7D3a44.sz3o DATE: JANUARY 2004 f a i i \ IXlsnxG \� FLOODPLNN�\..// ------------------- IXISTIDNG� � I / 195!' np PROPOSED RP i i MEADOWS EDGE (Racey Tract) Christopher consuftants 0+01 engineering surveying - land planning AREA TO BE REZONED hnsl=p erm===la- «I aseao no, h—d— (—w mol sen��. 119-12-6 NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2 '034«.3—-7D3a44.sz3o DATE: JANUARY 2004 B. Site Suitabilit The 132 -acre parcel consists primarily of open field. This open field area is flat with gentle slopes in the central and eastern portions of the site. The western portion of the site is also open field but has an increase in sloped area with minor valley's that provide the drainage for the majority of the site. These drainage areas will be maintained to best extent possible, and an appropriate stormwater management design will be implemented. There is an existing stand of hardwood trees located in the northwestern portion of the site. It is the Applicant's desire that the majority of the stand of trees will be preserved to the maximum extent possible during final engineering. There are minimal floodplain areas along the southwestern boundary of the parcel associated with Stephens Run. There are minimal wetlands onsite. Every effort will be taken to avoid disturbance of existing wetlands. If any wetlands are to be disturbed, all required permits will be obtained from the appropriate agencies. (See Figure 3) The 105.6 acres of the parcel to be rezoned is located within the Frederick County SWSA and utility service is available to the site. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has indicated that adequate capacities exist to serve the development proposal for this parcel. According to the Shenandoah Battlefield Foundation, the parcel is not within any historic battlefield preservation area. Adjacent single-family subdivisions of Ridgefield, Woodside Estates I, and Woodside Estates II will be provided with an open space buffer along their boundary. The townhouse community of Stephens Ridge will also be provided with an open space buffer. A minimum of 200' in depth open space area has been provided along the southern boundary that will provide separation between the proposed single-family lots and the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District. 411 VIRGINIA NO CINATE 575TET1 M7,7, • , 3`i �r �,=J � �•� GF NOfCIH MME mrrs ... . •••• yam... / ,, � ,�li i•,/i�/ 1 �il \\ III `.. p/ I jl,,///�\1, \I- /II III I/ \I'll, ./,///,� � h °I+� • •• Hr ' t ///////i t\\\I,,l\\ /f�,III�II 1`�I' ,,'+ �Il l/ll /rr'/ \\ 6 • i/ \\\ .i \\v (Ilj /j \\\�\\\ \ -I// /// / \ \\�\♦ 11 I I ISII �\ 1 �.• J 55f5G' £ \\\Ille!�//// \\ / 11`1111 ////�/ �\\\\\\ 111111 1;: 11111 / ��♦ '.\ /I:1 /(!/ I I � 11�II\ 1111\.. •� I lu✓/� ;-�11 , .... _ 'A \ 1H \ \ NOTES: LEGEND I. SOIL INFORMATION TAKEN FROM THE _...—..._ APPROXIMATE LOCATION T•• 1987 SOIL SURVEY OF FREDERICK OF WETLANDS COUNTY VIRGINIA. ,\ APPROXIMATE LOCATION 2. `\� •'/ FR DERICKDCOUNTYS ARE PDI�TALDDATA. BY ... FLOODPLAIN •'` 3. FLOODPLAIN LOCATION TAKEN FROM —Y1H DENOTES SOIL TYPE �S,`,1•/ `F' FREDERICK COUNTY DIGITAL DATA TAX SITE BOUNDARY MAPS 85 S 86. \\� 4. THERE ARE NO STEEP SLOPES ON .4 THE SITE. MEADOWS EDGE (Racey Tract) � Christopher consultants \ CONSTRAINTS MAP EXHIBIT engineering surveying land planning cfirislppM1et cpnsWlanls. Nd 15910 M1prseslwe dmre (suite 100) ste,fing, vrtginia 20tfi6 NOT TO SCALE aaa:aTm � 7oa.444szao FIGURE 3 DATE: JANUARY 2004 C. Traffic The traffic impact analysis indicates that the proposed development of the 105.6 - acre development will generate approximately 2,213 daily (24-hour) trips, based on the traffic study provided by Wells & Associates, LLC. The Applicant recognizes that there are traffic issues associated with Route 1012 (Town Run Lane), Route 277 (Fairfax Pike), and Route 641 (Double Church Road). These issues relate to the Level of Service (LOS) currently and in the future. Wells & Associates has prepared a traffic analysis that is provided under separate cover explaining and illustrating the LOS. The applicant, in consultation with VDOT, Frederick County Planning Staff, and traffic experts has agreed to provide improvements at both intersections that will help with existing and future conditions. These improvements have been proffered and described within the traffic analysis. They are also shown as Figure 4. The applicant shall provide traffic calming measures where the Meadows Edge proposed road network connects with Driftwood Drive and Branch Court. The traffic calming measures shall be within the 40' buffer area between the Woodside Estates subdivision and Meadows Edge proposed development. Subject to VDOT approval, a choker method, which is recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), shall be utilized as the traffic calming measures. (See figure 5) This method narrows the travel lanes to two ten -foot lanes. Studies conducted by the ITE report that the average speed through an area that uses the choker method has been reduced by 4% overall. In addition to the road improvements, the Applicant has also proffered for an 80' right-of-way reservation for a future east -west connector road that may be built in conjunction with the interchange relocation, identified by Frederick County as a long-range vision. A traffic analysis performed by Wells & Associates, LLC has been provided under separate cover. V1G1NrY I7A1' NOT --70 (GALE 1-IEAOOWS Iff061ff 1'plffL1m1lvApY POAO lM1'OV�MNTS fXh/131i JANUA� 2004 / 0 0 chrlstopher oan.q ..:;3:rc P / 11 .... .., ``x� vwx�nrc vnexr� 1 nor for ` FAI' PIKE r RT. 277 cxisnn,•crK� ``,� ov vvencvr Gne� 4. LOr PM,NW: LOr for ----------------- ---- i i x t� ads` �� exec,-�nrc invr. } rRovcseo�nrc � N,<r nn riNc rove �! 2.�tcr U�YYCW71:K5�GrlON hIOT TG :ALP ° s cuarx�ccrx� oren+arav vnexu� vnexr.a wr nor FAIRFAX PIKE r RT. 277 r r; r r exisntieiwc ,� veovo=ro terve \ � / vnexa.: -------- 't'rio-is _----- l r rwcm - �1l � o t t I I r t I I t I I DOUBLE CHURCH RD. RT. 841 r ^x r nn rrNc ANI -rc C,I;:. �KG17,: UADlNiFRS[GT(ON NOi TO SGAL� ; D. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment The attached Figure 6 shows the proposed sanitary sewer layout. The majority of the site is a gravity based sanitary sewer that is directed to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority pump station and sanitation lagoon in the western portion of the site. The rest of the sanitation effluent outfalls into existing sanitary lines on Driftwood Drive and Branch Court in the Woodside Estates I and II subdivisions. A localized force main system (grinder pumps for example) may be required for lots in the central portion of the site. Based on an average of 200 gpd/unit sanitary service needs are approximately 45,600 gpd. The Applicant has received assurances from the FCSA that the proposed receiving facilities are adequately equipped to handle all sanitary flow increases from this development. MEADOWS EDGE (Raney Tract) christopher consultants (`� ► / engineering surveying land planning SANITARY SEWER EXHIBIT \ —sI, �o�=��a��s III NOT TO SCALE 459401h.—hoed (eine cool ��e�a�a. 119.— 2D166 FIGURE6 DATE: JANUARY 2004 703 444.3707 — 703 444.5230 E. Water Supply As shown in Figure 7, Water supply will connect with existing blow off valves in three locations, on Driftwood Drive and Branch Court in the Woodside Estates I and II subdivisions and off Ridgewood Avenue in the Stephens Ridge development. All existing lines in the area are 8" diameter lines and all proposed lines are expected to be as well. Lines will follow the roadways according to the attached Figure 7. Additional looping and/or larger pipe sizes shall be provided as deemed necessary by a detailed water line analysis, which will be performed in the design stage. Fire protection will be provided with strategically located fire hydrants within the development. There are no known deficiencies that would prevent adequate service from being provided for this project. The amount of water usage is reflected 200 gpd/unit previously calculated in Section "D" Sewage Conveyance and Treatment. MEADOWS EDGE (Racey Tract) christoP her consultants y engineering surveying - land planning WATERLINE EXHIBIT egne,.— eni,W I� 45940 norsesnoe tlriw (suite i00) - s ening, Nrginia 20165 NOT TO SCALE 7034443707 -703444.5230 FIGURE 7 DATE: JANUARY 2004 F. Site Drainage This project will employ a curb and gutter drainage system with connecting storm sewers that will outfall as dictated by natural drainage divides. Preliminary stormwater management (SWM) and best management practices (BMP) facilities are planned in the locations shown on the accompanied exhibit (See Figure 8). The size and location of the stormwater areas may change upon final engineering. All SWM and BMP facilities will be designed to meet the guidelines of the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook. The responsibility of the maintenance of these SWM and BMP facilities will be the established homeowners association. A majority of the site drains to the major floodplain on the western portion of the property, this will alleviate the need for SWM in that portion of the site. The rest of the runoff will outfall in existing storm sewer systems in either the Woodside Estates I and II developments or the Stephens Ridge development. SWM facilities will be provided to ensure the carrying capacity of these systems is maintained or improved. BMP design will be in accordance with the phosphorus removal guidelines set forth by the Virginia Stormwater Manaaement Handbook. The applicant has also been made aware of drainage issues on the Woodside Development lots that are adjacent to the Meadows Edge. The applicant will collect runoff from the Meadows Edge onsite, that is currently draining directly to the Woodside lots. In doing so, this will reduce the offsite drainage to the existing stormwater inlets on the Woodside lots and allow them to better drain the rear yards. This drainage issue will be studied further during final engineering phases to insure the final design of the Meadows Edge development achieves this improved drainage condition on the Woodside lots. (See Figure 9.) MEADOWS EDGE ;� christopher consultants STORMWATER MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT (` n\, engineering surveying land planning NOT TO SCALE ]03.404.—,.dam3707 t1. 703.444.523G(,Ws1eAr wgini —66 F, IGURE, 8 DATE: JANUARY 2004 r' M�AOOwS ,E (5E (Parry7-wd) f',` fUmlmiry L)PAINAGff IM POVIffmlffNT5'EXtNNr r/(5u f 9 Branch c�— 44 s I <-- PLOW Ai,eow r GOLLfGiION Paw ._. 1 jffXI5T/NO DP/VN INL,ffi" Branch court a \ I _ PX/ST/NO 2P/VNfi6E PLOW PPOP05,ffD DP/VNAOE PLOW -I1 MorflG,2003 t /v / Christopher consultants I I Y � �� l• — f I PPOP05,ffD DP/VNAOE PLOW -I1 MorflG,2003 t /v / Christopher consultants G. Impact on Community Facilities Frederick County's capital impact model has been run to reflect the impacts associated with this project. The Applicant has provided proffers which mitigate the associated financial impacts. H. Open Space Plan Single-family detached cluster projects are required by ordinance to provide 25% of the total site in open spaces. The total site area is approximately 132.15 acres. The area to be rezoned RP is 105.6 acres +/- and the area to remain RA is 26.5 acres +/-. The following table demonstrates the open space provided throughout the site: SITE AREA OPEN SPACE AREA PERCENT OF PROVIDED AREA 105.6 Ac. 31.9 Ac. +/- 30.2%" (RP Zoned) 26.5 Ac. 22.9 Ac. +/- 100.0%* (RA Zoned) 132.1 Total Ac. 54.9 Ac. +/- 41.5% Open space areas are being shown on the attached exhibit (Figure 10). *Area of open space remaining once 80' right-of-way is removed. VIRGINIA O DINATE SYSTEI'I OF 19Th NORTH ZONE ! ENISTING if ®� ® • � 'gFtlND / / N _ EXISTING l / 6'A , t I LEGEND ��.�..��..... of PARCEL AREA r� / \ ,�^ 1"1 _. \ II I /:.\ - STREAM M I _.... ............ 10' INTERVAL TOPOGRAPHY 1 \.1 . • - FLOODPLAIN OPEN SPACE *• -AREA \\... (L4 ACRES) ��\� ,;j` tit `moi / � ��s / �'• <� �\ is � 11� k \ � � / d.• ` � yyy--�///� t ' J 'I� 1\ : ( A r , - �- 6 / TOTAL RP AREA: 105.6 AC.+/- (1005) LOT AREA: 56.2 AC.+/- (53.25) PROPOSED PUBLIC ROAD AREA: 17.5 AC.+/- (1(,.65) OPEN SPACE AREA: 31.9 AC.+/- (3025) MEADOWS EDGE (Racey Tract) c h r i sto p h e r c o n s u I t a n t s (` r engineering surveying land planning OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT \ cM1ristopM1er consultants. ltd cea:�3s5—uag.hpllzo1NOT TO SCALE 7M=3707To<anzao 'IGURE 10 DATE: JANUARY 2004 Pedestrian Circulati As required by the Frederick County Subdivision of Land Section 144-18, sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the street throughout the subdivision. The applicant has also agreed with Parks and Recreation for the need to provide a connection for pedestrian and bicycle circulation connecting Town Run Lane to Double Church Road area. The applicant has proffered to construct a pedestrian/bicycle trail, 10' in width that will extend from Town Run Lane (Rte. 1012) to the subject properties western boundary, where at this point the trail will join the pedestrian system of Meadow Edge that leads to Woodside Estates I and II. This trail is conditional base on the approval of the Town of Stephens City to provide an easement for such trail. The applicant shall also make available the necessary easements to provide for a pedestrian/bicycle trail to be placed within the 80' R.O.W. of the collector road that will provide a direct east to west connection of the Town Run Land and Double Church Road. The Community Green has been centrally located and intended to be used as a gathering place for pedestrians, community events, meetings, picnics, and other outdoor events are envisioned taking place here. Directly north of the community green, a 50' wide pedestrian throughway has been provided to allow accommodating access to the community green and the pool facilities. FREDERICK COUNTY IMPACT MODEL OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Racey Tract LAND USF TYPE RP REAL EST VAL $Z9,8go,800 FIRE i4 RESCUE = I1 Fire and Flescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools Nigh Schools Parks and Recrealm Public Litxraq Sheriff's Offices Adminfstratfon Building Other Miscellaneous Facilities SUBTOTAL Lf -SS: NET FISCAL IMPACT NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Met Fiscal Impact costs of Impact Credit: Required (onlered in Capital Feclifiies cot sum only) $172.043 $977,592 $575,063 $843.039 $349,980 $60,8#4 $36.010 $46,213 $58,957 $3.119.740 sit Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid, (NPVI Total Potential Adjustment For Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap_ Future CIPI Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Oper Cap Equip Expendl0ebt S. Taxes, Other (Unadtustedi Cost Balance dikes impact Dwejlino unit SO $0 $172,043 4755 $159,965 $T76,480 5936,434 .$669,491 $1.726.203 $7,571 $78,874 $78.8T4 $56,390 $293.590 $1.288 317.018 $17.016 512.166 X48,678 $213 $29,505 '- $0 $7,356 $36.860 $26,352 $9.658 542 $D so $0 $46,213 $243 856,854 $62,771 $119.625 585.524 $0 $0 $248,314 $1139.251 3103.245 $1,188,809 $849.923 52,269,817 $9.955 So $0 g r7 SUNNI 7 9 INDEX '1 A' It Cap. Equip Included LD INDEX: "I Ar it Rey -Cast Bal. 'U 0' if R256 to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg METHODOLOGY- v 1- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the modej. z. Net F(acai Impact NPV from operations calculations is Input in row total of second column {zero it negative); included are the ane -time taxeslfees for ane year onty at full value. 3. NPV of future open cap equip taxes paid Iry third column as calculated in fiscal Impacts_ 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid In fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts_ 5_ NPV of rulurs taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 5. Columns three through five are added as "finial credits against the calculated capital facilitles requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs coveted by the revenues rrom the project tactual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development)_ NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include Include Interest because they aro cash payments up front, Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed_ NOTES: Model Run Date 12J30103 CMM PmjW De-scripiion: Assumes 228 single family dwelling units on 105.85 acres zoned RP District Dae 10 cit IKIng conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be volnd beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 0.533 0.715 PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 85-A-140 Opequon Magisterial District MEADOWS EDGE (RACEY TRACT) 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 rezoning, the undersigned applicant herby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of 105.6 acres +/- from the Rural Area (RA) to Residential Performance (RP). 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. Monetary Contribution The undersigned, who is the applicant of the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 105.6 acres +/-, with access from Town Run (Rt. 1012) in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay Frederick County at the time each building permit is applied for the sum of $10,072.00 per lot. This monetary proffer provides for $7,571.00 for Frederick County Schools; $1,288.00 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation; $755.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue; $213.00 for Public Library; $42.00 for Sheriff's Office and $203.00 for Administration Building. General Development Plan Voluntarily proffered is the attached General Development Plan including the following improvements: 1. On the 105.6 acres +/- to be rezoned RP no more than 228 single-family dwelling units shall be constructed. These units will create a single-family detached cluster development with a minimum of 8,000 s.f. lots. 2. Pursuant to an agreement with Stephens City, a public right of way will be dedicated through Parcel #85-A-142 from the existing right of way of Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012) to the subject property's western boundary, generally as shown on the General Development Plan. The applicant will grade the full width of the right of way so as to accommodate an ultimate 4 -lane undivided collector road. The applicant will construct 2 travel lanes, which would be compatible to the ultimate 4 laning of the roadway, if the County and VDOT should choose to proceed with such construction. 3. At the request of Frederick County or VDOT and at no cost to them, the applicant or homeowners association shall dedicate area for an 80' right of way along the southern boundary of the subject site; alignment of said right of way shall be determined upon final engineering. The applicant or homeowners association shall provide for all necessary construction easements needed in association with such 80' right of way. Such R.O.W. will run from where the 80' R.O.W. outlined in proffer 2 intersects the subject property's western boundary completely through the RP zoned portion of the site. Such a request may be made at any time for a period of 99 years from the date of approval of the rezoning. In any event, neither the applicant, nor the HOA will be prohibited from granting reasonable ingress/egress easements to any properties located adjacent to the southern boundary. 4. The 26.5 acres outside of the UDA to remain zoned RA shall be available to the county for a period of 99 years from the date of approval of the rezoning. The county may use said area or any part there of for any use deemed necessary by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. Upon request by the Board of Supervisors, the developer or the Homeowner's Association shall dedicate such land at no cost to Frederick County. In any event, neither the applicant, nor the HOA will be prohibited from granting reasonable ingress/egress easements to any properties located adjacent to the southern boundary. 5. No building permits will be issued for any residential units within the project until such time as the improvements shown on the Stickley Drive extension plans prepared by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates entitled "Stickley Dr. Extension," dated 4/5/02 and revised through 12/20/02, have been constructed and are open for traffic usage. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for residential units within the project, the applicant will construct improvements to the Fairfax Pike/Stickley Drive intersection. These improvements will include a second thru travel lane on Fairfax Pike, in both the east and westbound directions, an exclusive right turn lane on eastbound Fairfax Pike, and an upgrading of northbound Stickley Drive to three lanes so as to accommodate an exclusive left turn lane, a shared left thru lane, and an exclusive right turn lane. If the County and VDOT project to install a traffic signal at the Fairfax Pike/Stickley Dr. intersection is done concurrent with or in anticipation of this proffer's improvements, this applicant will make a cash contribution of $200,000, required immediately after completion of the proffer improvements to Frederick County, and such monies are to be used by the County and VDOT for other road improvements to Fairfax Pike between 1-81 and Double Church Rd. However, if the traffic signal has been installed in such a way as to require the applicant to modify the signal due to the applicant's improvements, the $200,000 cash contribution will be reduced by the applicants cost to so modify the traffic signal to meet the applicant's proffered improvements as stated above. If no signal has been installed at the Fairfax Pike/Stickley Drive intersection by the time the applicant starts these 2 improvements, the applicant will install the necessary signal but will not make any cash contribution. Either this installation or modification will occur prior to the first residential building permit being issued for the site. 7. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for residential units within the development, the applicant will re -stripe the westbound right turn lane on Fairfax Pike at the Town Run Lane intersection to a shared thru right lane, which will carry traffic through to the 1-81 northbound on-ramp. Prior to this applicant connecting to the existing interparcel roadways in the Woodside Estates subdivision, i.e. Branch Court and Driftwood Drive, the applicant will construct the following improvements to the Fairfax Pike/Double Church Road intersection. The applicant will construct a second eastbound thru travel lane on Fairfax Pike, an exclusive southbound left turn lane onto Double Church Road and re -stripe the northbound approach on Double Church Road to provide an exclusive left turn and a shared thru right turn lane. The applicant will modify the existing signals at this intersection to accommodate the lane improvements outlined above. 9. Prior to the applicant connecting to Branch Court and Driftwood Drive, the applicant will submit core samples, or other acceptable information of Branch Court, Trunk Drive, and Driftwood Drive, for the existing pavement of those roadways to VDOT. Included with that information will be an analysis of the existing pavement's capability to carry the anticipated traffic based on VDOT standards. If the analysis shows the pavement needs to be upgraded, the applicant will upgrade the pavement as directed by VDOT. 10. The applicant will use traffic calming measures at the connection points of Driftwood Drive and Branch Court, subject to VDOT approval. Subject to VDOT approval, the applicant will utilize a choker method recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, which will narrow lane widths at these connection points to minimize vehicle speed. (See Figure 5) In addition, the applicant will place $40,000 in an escrow account for a period of three years. The escrow account will be established concurrent with the issuance of the 220th building permit or upon opening of the connection points, whichever comes first. If the County and VDOT should identify the need for additional traffic calming measures, they may request these funds for use in installing same. 11. Pursuant to the General Development Plan, a centrally located community pool and bathhouse will be provided on approximately 1.4 acres of the site. This facility will be constructed and available for use prior to the issuance of the 1501h residential building permit in the project. The pool will be constructed at a minimum size of 3,500 s.f. On a one-time basis, approximately 6 months prior to the start of construction of the pool facility, membership to the facility will be offered to property owners in the adjoining Woodside Estates I, Woodside Estates II, and Ridgefield communities. Based on the number of additional memberships from the open membership period, the applicant will increase the size of the pool if such increase is warranted. 3 12. A tennis court and sports court will be located within the 1.4 acres associated with the community pool and bathhouse. These recreation areas will be constructed and available for use prior to the issuance of the 150"' residential building permit of the project. 13. A central green space will be preserved and will be shown on the General Development Plan. This green space will be at a minimum of 1.3 acres in size. A tree save area will also be provided in the northwestern portion of the Meadows Edge. This area is shown on the General Development Plan. The exact limits of this tree save area will be subject to minor adjustments based on final engineering. 14. Pursuant to the General Development Plan, an area 50 feet in width will be provided north of the town green area. This area will remain as open space and provide a pedestrian linkage to the town green and pool facilities for residents of Woodside Estates. 15. Open space will be provided along the existing communities of Woodside, Ridgefield and Stephens Ridge. This open space area will be a minimum of 40' in depth. This 40' open space area will be shown prominently on the General Development Plan. 16. No structures of any type, including but not limited to decks, additions, etc., shall be located within the 40 foot buffer area, tree save area or slopes of 15% or greater. 17. No lots nor structures shall be permitted within 200' of the southern boundary adjacent to the Agricultural District. 18. A landscape Buffer will be provided and shown on the General Development Plan within the southern green space parcel. The buffer will start approximately 400' East of the common boundary line with the FCSA parcel and continue in an easterly direction for a distance of 800' along the parcel's southern boundary, except where any driveway access must be maintained to the existing residences to the south. 19. A Homeowner's Association shall be formed; such association will specifically prohibit construction of any structures within any open space or buffer areas with the exception to the improvements of the pool and town green area. The Home Owners Association Documents shall further provide that all open space shall be kept free of litter and other foreign debris. They will stipulate that the HOA has responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the pool facilities, the community green and all other common open spaces. 20. The applicant will provide and construct a five-foot sidewalk along the east side of the Town Run Lane ROW on the Stephens City property from the northern side of the collector road's intersection with the T own Run Lane to the property's northern boundary. This sidewalk is conditional based on the approval of the Town of Stephen City to provide an easement for such sidewalk. n 21. The applicant shall construct a hard surface pedestrian/bicycle trail 10' in width from Rt. 1012 (Town Run Lane), to the proposed sidewalk located within the proposed development. This trail is conditional based on the approval of the Town of Stephens City to provide an easement for such trail. 22. A statement shall be added to the General Development Plan and covenants for all lots created by this project advising that agricultural uses exist to the South and East of the site, and wastewater treatment facilities exist or previously existed to the southwest of the site. 23. The applicant shall be issued building permits for no more than 75 single family units for each of the first two years and 78 single family units the third or any subsequent year following final subdivision approval for all or any portion of the project by the county, except that the applicant may carry over any unused portion of said units per year to subsequent years. 24. During construction the applicant will meet or exceed all requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and/or Frederick County requirements, whichever is more restrictive. Runoff from all disturbed areas will be channeled to onsite erosion and sediment control facilities. Such facilities will be inspected on a daily basis and shall be maintained in good working order until all disturbed areas draining to them have been fully stabilized. 25. The developed site will meet or exceed all requirements of the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook and/or Frederick County requirements whichever is more restrictive, both in terms of stormwater quantity and quality. However, the applicant will not utilize any stormwater management facilities that include permanent pools of water, i.e. wet ponds. Where the subject site drains to existing developed areas, the applicant will channel all onsite runoff to onsite stormwater management facilities, which will then discharge into any existing offsite storm drainage systems at or below the design capacity of those systems. Where onsite stormwater management facilities discharge into natural channels or streams, the onsite facilities will control the discharge and release it at a rate that will not increase the existing flow of the natural receiving channel. 26. The applicant will provide for the closure of an abandoned sanitation lagoon located on the Town of Stephens City, Parcel # 85-A-142. This sanitation lagoon closure will be in strict conformance with the closure plan titled Wastewater Lagoon Closure Plan identified as Appendix "B" provided within this rezoning application, approved by The Virginia Department of Health dated September 9, 2002. Furthermore, the applicant proffers additional procedures beyond the approved closure plan. These additional procedures are identified as Appendix "B1" and provided within this rezoning application. 5 The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors 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, PROPERTY OWNER By: o4j A'A,,C� By: Executrix of the Estate of ChariesqW Racey Date: Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: r1 y ' r Executrix of the Estate of�Charles W_ . Racey The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of r , 2ao� by VV I, i t �' 4- AlCe�z, My commission expires J3 1 a2b0(a Notary Public N� -Y 4V Di,rxo , )'} /jt"J(_6l [:1 AGENCY COMMENTS Meadows Edge Reply to Agency Comments December 30, 2003 Agency Comment Reply PC Staff Application Fee 105.65 ac -$1,000+$50x105.65=$6,332.50 Signatures All required signatures have been provided. Review Agencies Submissions were made to all required agencies. Winchester -Frederick Service Authority and the Frederick County Building Official referrals were not required at this time, as instructed by PC Staff. Single -Family House Type Revisions were made within the application package to specify that a single-family detached cluster is being proposed with a minimum lot area of 8,000 sq. ft. Rezoning Plat Figure 2 within the application has been revised to meet the rezoning application requirements. Access The Stephens City Agreement granting access through parcel tax map #85-A-142, and the Lagoon Closure Plan provided by the Virginia Department of Health has been included within this application. The intersection design at Town Run Lane providing access to the Meadows Edge will meet all VDOT standards and requirements. Traffic The traffic section of the impact analysis has been modified to identify the issues associated with Stickley Drive; Fairfax Pike and Double Church Road; Fairfax Pike; along with measures the applicant has proffered to address these issues. A complete analysis has been provided to illustrate the future level of services (LOS) within the traffic package. Water Supply The estimated water amount that will be used by the proposed subdivision has been added to the impact analysis. Proffer Statement Proffers and monetary values have been updated, and are reflected within the impact analysis. The per lot contribution of $10,072 required by the capital facilities impact has been updated. Pursuant to final negotiations with VDOT, the applicant has proffered to provide and construct the intersection improvements as stated in proffer 5 and proffer 6. The ownership of parcel #85-A142 is and will remain the Town of Stephens City. An agreement has been provided granting the applicant access. See Appendix "A". The construction of the primary access from Town Run Lane will be constructed prior to the first residential building permit. Every effort will be made to avoid wetlands disturbance. All required permits will be acquired from all necessary agencies prior to any disturbance of wetlands. The Lagoon Closure Plan has been provided as Appendix «B„ The primary access will be constructed prior to the first residential building permit issued. Road sections within the 80' right-of-way will be completed during the Master Development Plan and will meet all VDOT standards and requirements. A single sheet GDP has been provided as requested. Issues and Potential Road layout has been designed to limit cut - Impacts thru traffic by providing multiple turns and no direct access from one side of the development to the other. Ownership and maintenance of the community pool will be the homeowners association. The pool is proffered to be constructed and available for use prior to the 150th residential building permit. As stated in proffer 8, membership will be offered to neighboring communities, which will determine the size of the pool facilities. Attorney Public Works Fire Marshall Right-of-way for the "Major Collector Road" will be provided pursuant to any requested alignment by the County. The applicant has left the pending area to the south and east of the project as open space and will dedicate all or part of the area to the County or any agency thereof as requested. The application is not predicated upon the construction of any actual road. The dedication options are projected based on initial discussions which exposed the long term benefit of securing the aforementioned dedication at the time of rezoning so as to leave the County's options open for the future. Proffers Proffers are in proper form and have been signed. Access and Location The pond adjacent to the western property boundary will be identified as a wastewater detention pond owned and operated by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority in the impact analysis. The applicant is responsible for the closure of the Lagoon and will be specified within the impact analysis. See Appendix "B". Traffic The 24-hour trip generation has been updated to reflect the traffic analysis performed by Wells & Associates. Improvements have been addressed with VDOT comments. Site Drainage Stormwater Management will be finalized during master development plan, where all necessary measures will be adhered to. HRAB As shown The HOA will be responsible for all maintenance of SWM/BMP facilities. The applicant acknowledges the required and recommended items and will address them during the subdivision process. FCPS FCSA No Comments The applicant acknowledges the concerns of additional students that the Meadows Edge would generate into the school system. The 228 single-family lots proposed will produce approximately 166 school age children. This will include approximately 91 elementary students, 37 middle school students, and 38 high school students. Research has been completed to determine that the capacity of the following schools will be able to service the Meadows Edge. Middletown Elementary: Current Capacity 509 Practical Capacity 735. *R.E. Aylor Middle School: Current Capacity 968 Practical Capacity 965 Sherando High School: Current Capacity 1275 Practical Capacity 1610 *Ground has already been broken on a new middle school, which is scheduled to be complete before the first residential building permit has been issued. This will reduce the current capacity, including the projected Meadows Edge students, well below the practical capacity level. Parks & Rec. Bicycle/Pedestrian Access The applicant has agreed to provide the necessary easements and access to allow for bicycle/pedestrian connections from Double Church Road and Town Run Lane. Town of Stephens City Fire & Rescue The applicant has also opened the door for discussions with Parks and Recreation for the use of the 26.5 acres remaining zoned RA. As shown No referral sheet was As guided by PC Staff, multiple calls were returned. placed to Stephens City Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company asking them to return in writing any comments or concerns. The applicant has agreed to contribute the monetary amount required by the Frederick County Impact Model. VDOT Existing Right turn lane As stated in proffer 5, the applicant will add onto Stickley Drive to the additional pavement to provide a second remain a dedicated right thru lane and maintain a dedicated right turn turn lane. lane. Dedicated right turn lane As stated in proffer 6, the applicant will eastbound on Rt. 277 to provide an additional thru lane eastbound on Double Church Road. Fairfax Pike at the Double Church intersection. Additional pavement will be provided to maintain a dedicated right turn lane eastbound to Double Church Road. Tapers and lane The applicant will meet all VDOT configurations. requirements when providing the lane configurations and tapers. Frederick- No comments Winchester Service Authority COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 October 9, 2003 Mr. Brian Condie Christopher Consultants, Ltd. 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166 RE: Preliminary Comments - Racey Tract Rezoning Application Dear Brian: This correspondence includes preliminary review comments concerning the Racey Tract rezoning proposal, received by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development on August 22, 2003. It is noted that the 105.65 -acre portion of the property requested for rezoning is within the Frederick County Urban Development Area (UDA), and that the entire 131.7 -acre parcel is identified by Property Identification Number 85-A-140, located in the Opequon Magisterial District. The entire site is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) District. Through this proposal, the applicant is seeking the RP (Residential Performance) District Zoning for 105.65 acres, and requesting no change in zoning to the remaining 26.5 -acre portion of the tract. Staff has identified the following issues for your consideration as the application is finalized for submission: A. Application Form and Relevant Review Agencies Please ensure that a completed application form is attached and all required fees are included for the final submission of this rezoning application. The application fee for a rezoning petition consists of abase fee of $1,000.00 plus $50.00 per acre. In addition, a refundable deposit of $50.00 must be submitted for the public hearing sign required to be posted on site. The total fee for this application to rezone 105.65 acres, inclusive of the sign deposit, is $6,332.50. 2. Please ensure that signatures of the owners are on the application andif there are proffered conditions, that the proffered conditions are also signed by the owners and notarized. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. Brian Condie Re: Racey Tract Rezoning Application October 9, 2003 Additionally, if someone other than the property owner will represent this application, a completed Power of Attorney form must be submitted with the application, 3. Please submit review comments from the following departments and agencies with this application: Virginia Department of Transportation; Frederick County Sanitation Authority; Winchester - Frederick Service Authority; Department of Public Works; Frederick County Building Official; Frederica r L�lty Department ofplwT3P I2p an,a r�A;,er .p;re.;t; Del a� t :�l of Fire and Rescue Services; First Responder - Stephens City Fire and Rescue; County Commonwealth Attorney; and the Historic Resources Advisory Board. A completed review agency comment sheet is necessary from each of these agencies. 4. Please specify the type of Single-family housing types, or combinations of types, you are considering for the proposed use of this property. This is in reference to item number 6. B on the Rezoning Application Form. As it appears in your application, lot size could be anywhere from 6,000 sq. ft. (Single-family detached zero lot line) to 15,000 sq. ft. (Single- family detached traditional). Please clarify. 5. Please submit the completed application package to the Department of Planning and Development to schedule for the Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Department will advertise for a public hearing and notify adjoining property owners, once the completed application package is submitted and accepted. B. Rezoning Plat A plat titled, "Area to be Rezoned", delineating the land area subject to the requested rezoning that shows the meets and bounds identifying the area to be rezoned, is required with the application. Figure 1 within the application could convey the needed information, with the addition of the meets and bounds and the rezoning boundary limits outlined (not to include the residual RA portion of the parcel). Please also revise the rezoning information within the submitted plan sheets, if they are proffered. Ca Impact Analysis Access- The planning analysis states that the proposed access will be provided from Town Run Lane or, the western side ofthe site, with the entrance road north of Stephens Run. Please include with this rezoning request the agreement with Page 3 Mr. Brian Condie Re: Racey Tract Rezoning Application October 4, 2003 the Town of Stephens City, verifying the granting of access through Parcel Tax Map #85-A-142, as well as clarification of the closure of the abandoned sewage lagoon. The intersection design at Town Run Lane should also be considered. 2. Traffic - The impact statement notes that there are traffic issues associated with Town Run Lane (Route 1012); Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Double Church Road (Route 541). In the impact analysis, please state what the issues are with the identified roads, and any proposals to mitigate those concerns. The Impact Analysis notes that a traffic analysis performed by Wells and Associates, LLC has been provided within the appendix. Planning staff will need a copy of this traffic impact analysis submitted with the application. This information is missing from the draft rezoning application materials submitted on August 22, 2003. 3. Water Supply - The estimated water usage for the proposed residential development should be specified in the impact statement. D. Proffer Statement As proffered, the total sum of the monetary provisions for capital facilities impacts adds up to $10, 072. Please adjust the per lot contribution or the per unit capital facility contributions to equate to the same amount. 2. Please specify to whom the cash contributions towards road improvements will be paid. It is noted by staff that monetary contributions are sometimes offered with adjustments every two years by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to account for inflation over the years of project build out. 3. Item number 2 under the General Development Plan notes that a connector road will be constructed from Rt. 1012, Town Run Lane, through Parcel # 85-A-142 to the site. Please clarify ownership of Parcel # 85-A-142. There is no time frame specified as to when this road will be constructed. Please clarify if this is the primary access to the site and if it will be constructed prior to building residential structures. 4. The connector road location is shown through a wetland. Disturbance of the Page 4 Mr. Brian Condie Re: Racey Tract Rezoning Application October 9, 2003 wetlands is only permitted in accordance with the requirements of the US Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified state or federal agency. The disturbance of natural waterway or riparian buffers is prohibited, except when necessary for public utilities, public facilities, or roads. In the application package, please include all documentation from DEQ and the Town of Stephens City regarding the proposed access through the existing wetland/lagoon. Please clarify the right-of-way, road design, and road construction timing relative to the main access to the parcel requested for rezoning. Specifications on the classification of the proposed road, the pavement width, etc., would assist in the clarification. 6. Consider a single sheet GDP that illustrates the conceptual road layout and the eight (8) features noted under the General Development Plan portion of your proffer statement. After our meeting with VDOT, the Town of Stephens City, and County staff on Tuesday, October 7, 2003, staff identifies the following issues and potential impacts: • Utilizing existing roads in the adjacent development will impact the current residents. The applicant is expected to minimize these impacts. • The community pool and bathhouse facility should be further clarified as to the ownership, membership, maintenance, size, and completion time. It should be noted that a site pian, including parking areas, will be required for this facility. • The mai or collector road in the remaining portion of the tract, should show dedicated right- of-way as well as address who will be responsible for construction of the road. Transportation and access continue to be significant issues that should be appropriately addressed. Please contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence. Si cerely, Abbe S. Kennedy Senior Planner ASK/bad U\Abbe\R Z Kevie Letters\Racev Tract.wpd 05/04/04 TUE 02:21 FAX 0820 Rezoning Comments 10001 Frederick County Attorney Mail to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540)665-6383 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the County Attorney's office with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Blue Springs View, L_L.C_ Telephone: 703444-3707 Mailing Address: c/o christopher consultants, ltd. 45940 ]Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166 Location of property: Stephens City, east of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Route 227 (Fairfax .Pike) east of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane), south on Route 1065 (Ride field Avenue) to Ewings Lane Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R' Acreage: 105.6 County Attorney's Comments: l-�-f x 'ounty Attorney' rre & Date: c , o rtty Atter ,. _ P n-. n This F tiCan i8 October 7, 2003 Mr. Bryan Condie Christopher Consultants, ltd 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, Virginia 20166 RE: Racey Rezoning Comi-rlents Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Condie: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of the proposed Racey tract rezoning and offer the following comments: 1) Refer to Location and Access: Indicate that the pond adjacent to the western property boundary is actually a wastewater detention pond owned and operated by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. This treatment facility is referenced in the proposed proffer in a statement to be included in the plats and covenants. 2) Refer to Location and Access: The proposed development plan indicates that the main site access will be from Town Run Lane through property currently owned by the Town of Stephens City. A reference is made to the proper closure of the abandoned waste water lagoon on this property. However, no mention is made regarding who will be responsible for this closure. This item should be addressed in this rezoning request. 3) Refer to Trak: The 24-hour trip generation referenced in the report (2,141) differs from that mentioned in the traffic analysis (2,213) performed by Wells and Associates. Explain this discrepancy. 4) Refer to Traffic: It will be necessary to implement the road improvements proposed for the adjacent Southern Hills subdivision prior to issuing building permits for the Racey tract subdivision. These improvements include a connection om To;an 1\1111 La c to Stickley Drive and a light at Stic..ley Drive and Route 277 (Fairfax Pike). Also, indicate if the traffic analysis included the traffic patterns estimated for the previously approved Southern Hills subdivision'located south of the abandoned lagoon off of Town Run Lane. If not, the analysis needs to be 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Racey Rezoning Comments Page 2 October 7, 2003 revised to reflect the impact of this approved development. 5) Refer to Site Drainage: Explain why stormwater management will not be needed in the western portion of the property. 6) Refer to Site Drainage: Channel improvements will be required across the lagoon property to protect the Stephens Ridge townhouses. It may be necessary to design the drainage structures associated with the new entrance road to pass the 100 - year storm to minimize the impact on the upstream development. 7) Refer to Site Drainage: We concur with a design approach which projects Woodside Estates I and IL We also concur with the proposed use of SWP/BW facilities in these areas. Indicate who will be responsible for maintaining these facilities. I can be reached at 540-665-5643 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, HaneyE.trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works EES/rls CC' Frederick County Planning and Development file A: \racevrezcom.wpd Rezoning Comments Frederick County Fire Marshal Mail to: Frederick County Fire Marshal 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-6350 'RECEIVED AUG 2 2 20M Hand deliver to: Frederick County Fire & Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal County Administration Bldg., 1 st Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Fire Marshal with his review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Blue Springs View, L.L.C. Telephone: 703-444-3707 Mailing Address: c/o christopher consultants, ltd. 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166 Location of property: Stephens City, east of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Route 227 (Fairfax Pike) east of Route 10 12 (Town Run Lane); south on Route 1065 (Ridge field Avenue) to Ewings Lane. Current zoning: RA Fire Marshal's Comments: Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 105.6 Fire Marshal's Signature & Date Notice to Fire Marshal - Piease Return This Form to the AppIica, r - I I �HRISii?I'N_' f Control number RZ03-0009 Project Name Racey Tract Address 45940 Horseshoe Drive Suite 100 Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department Office. -of -the l=ire Marshal Plaln,Reuieuu and Comments Date received 8/22/2003 Date reviewed Date Revised 8/26/2003 Applicant Blue Springs View, L.L.C. City State Zip Sterling VA 20166 Tax ID Number Fire District 85-A-140 11 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System No Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway/Aisleway Width Adequate Applicant Phone 703444-3707 Rescue District 11 Election District Opequon Residential Sprinkler System Yes Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards No Emergency Vehicle Access Comments 7.re n . -ran`. i sraiian.cnc ::' I me '_mu' eme , _nenc,.. nTV _...i�_-r-er" .., Eiec "'Mrin Access Comments Additional Comments IIC-G 11-1 . -i �{ . G''�. ,�1:?n -::z !7 =-d r" -v-... furl r. r� '....., ..., i Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature Yes �- ' Timothy L. Welsh Title September 10, 2003 Mr. Bryan Condie Christopher Consultants, Ltd. 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 COUNT'S of FREDERICK Department of Manning and Development 540/665-3-651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Blue Springs View L.L.C. (Racey Tract) Rezoning Dear Mr. Condie: Upon review of the proposed Rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact his+oric properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formai review of the Rezoning application by the HRAB, According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any battlefields that this proposed Rezoning would impact. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Rebecca Ra,sdale Planner I RARAl ac 107 North Kent Street a Winchester. Virginia 22601-5000 Rezoning Comments Superilitendent of Frederick County Public Schools Mail to: N Z Frederick Count}, Public Schools Hand deliver to: Attn: Superintendent Frederick County Public Schools Box 3508 2 f',=" Attn: Superintendent Winchester, Virginia 2604 School Administration Building (540) 662-3888 1415 Amherst Street �_ Winchester Vrrginia 22604-2546 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in o Superintendent of Public Schools with his review, rher to assist the L_ proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other p py Of Our application form, location forinformatron. Applicant's Name: Blue Springs View, L.L.C. Telephone: 703-444-3707 Mailing Address: coo Christopher consultants, ltd. 45940 Horseshoe Drive Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166 Location of grape rty: Stephens City, est of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Route 2? Route 1012 (Town Run Lane); south on 7 (Fairfax Pike) east of Route 1065 (Ridge field Avenue) to Ewings Lane. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage; 105 6 ntendent of Public SuperiSchools' Comments: Superintendent's Signature & Date: Notice to School Superintendent -Please Return This Form to the Appiicant 24 o.. Frederick County Public Schools Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent September 3, 2003 Christopher Consultants, Ltd. 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166 RE: Racey Tract Rezoning Christopher Consultants, Ltd: Al Omdorff omdcrfa @frecierick. k 12. va. us This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning application for the proposed Racey Tract project from RA to RP. Based on the information included in the application packet, it is anticipated that the proposed 228 single family homes will yield 39 high school students, 32 middle school students, and 39 elementary school students, for a total of 160 new students upon build -out. The Frederick. County Fiscal Impact Model calculates a recommended cash proffer of $7,571.00 as proposed by the applicant. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding their practical capacity. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Respectfully Yours, Al Omdorff Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Copy: William C. Dean Ph. D., Supenntendent of Schools - - - Robert W. Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration 1415 Amherst Street www freoenck.k12.va.us 54662-3869 ext- 112 P.O. Box 3508 540-545.2439 Winchester, Virginia 226042546 540-662-3890 fax Rezoning Comments A Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Blue Springs View, L.L.C. Telephone: 703-444-3707 Mailing Address: c/o christopher consultants, ltd. 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166 Location of property: Stephens City, east of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Route 227 (Fairfax Pike) east of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane); south on Route 1065 (Ridge field Avenue) to Ewings Lane. Current zoning:+ Zoning requested: Sanitation Authority Comments: Acreage: 105.6 Sanitation Authority Signature & Dater;, Notice to Sanitatiog'Authority - Please Return This Form to the gg� P°, 4 1 P f �Ll J U - -G' r�: Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Parks &'Rt-ernfion mail, -to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5678 Hand -deliver -to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Parks& Recreation with their review. Attach copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement; impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Blue Springs View, L.L.C. Telephone: 703-444-3707 Mailing Address: c/o christopher consultants, ltd. 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166 - -- -- - -- -- - - — --- --- ---------- - __..... -- Location of ` rope�': - Stephens City, east of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Route 227 (Fairfax Pike) east of P - - --Route 1012 {Town Run Lane); south-on�toute-1A65{R:idge-fielt�^vennej-to�,win s -l. -ane:___._-.-. -------- ._._.- Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage. 105.6 Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: Pks. & kec. Signature & Bate: rl Notice to Depa-rtment�if ar-1 See Attached ---Please-R-etu.rn-3-his-Form-to-the APpheant 23 Racey Tract Comments: The Parks and Recreation Department strongly recommends that a bike/pedestrian facility be a requirement for this development and that it include a location for a connector offering eventual access to Double Church Road. The long range plan for this trail would be the completion of a connector accessing Sherando High School, Sherando Park, and connect to the trail system already being developed north of route 277. The monetary proffer proposed for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate to offset the impact this development will have on this department. Although adequate open space has been provided, it appears that the 80' right-of-way to be used for a future collector road, will eventimlly diminish the intended purpose of the required open space. No recreational requirements required. Rezoning Comments Town of Stephens City Mail to: Town of Stephens City Attn: Town Manager P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 (540) 869-3087 Hand deliver to: Town of Stephens City Attn: Town Manager Stephens City Town Hall 1033 Locust Street Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Town of Stephens City with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicants Name: Blue Springs View, L.L.C. Telephone: 703-444-3707 Mailing Address: c/o christopher consultants, ltd. 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166 Location of property: Stephens City, east of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Route 227 (Fairfax Pike) east of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane); south on Route 1065 (Ridge field Avenue) to Ewings Lane. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 105.6 Town of Stephen City's Comments: The Town has signed an agreement with the applicant to grant a right-of—way across the old town lagoon site. The applicant will in turn close out the lagoon. The Town would therefore encourage approval of this development if traffic impacts are acceptable to Frederick County. Town of Stephens City's Signature L Date: to the Town of Stephens Citv - Please Return Form to Applica 28 Rezoning Comments Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984.5600 Hand deliver to:,� Virginia Department of Transpo w-_'E4jr! Attn: Resident Engineer burr, 2275 Northwestern Pii4eZAi,�4 brpep� Winchester, Virginia 22603 ZU�3 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with their review. Attach three copies of your application form, Iocation map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Blue Springs View, L.L.C. Telephone: 703-444-3707 Maiiing Address: c% christopher consultants, ltd. 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166 Location of property, Steahens City_, east of Interstate 81.0.5 miles south of Route 227 (Fairfax Pike) oast of Route 1012 (Town Run Cane); south on Route 1065 (Ridge field Avenue) to Ewings Lane. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 105.6 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached VDOT_comments dated 3anuary 12, 2004. VDOT Signature & Date: Notice to VDOT- Please Return Form to Applicant 20 COMMONWEALTH TT of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE JERRY A. COPP COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22824 RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5W0 FAX (540) 984-5607 VDDT Rezoning Comments Blue Springs View,, LLC January 12, 2004 The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Interstate 81, Routes 277, 641, Town Run Lane (Route 1012), and Stickley Drive (Route 1085). Routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as access to the property referenced. VDDT has reviewed the transportation proffers offered in the original submittal received in this office on August 25, 2003 and believe the applicant has addressed the site generated traffic by proffering improvements to Route 641, Route 277, Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with the following clarifications: • The existing right tum lane on Route 277 eastbound shall remain a dedicated right 'tum lane from Town Run Lane to Stickley Drive and shall not be allowed to be incorporated as a thru lane. The additional thru lane proffered shall require the addition of new pavement to accommodate the additional lane. • The existing right tum lane from the most western Food Lion Shopping Center entrance to Double Church Road shall remain a dedicated right tum lane and shall not be allowed to be incorporated as a thru lane. The additional thru lane proffered shall require the addition of new pavement to accommodate the additional lane. • The lane geometrics as detailed on the January, 2004 preliminary road improvements exhibit appear to only address the immediate intersection and appear to not properly line up on this rough schematic. The applicant needs to be aware of the proper tapers and lane configurations that will be required to accommodate the speck additional lanes as proffered. This also will include any modifications required to all drainage structures impacted by the additional lanes. VirginiaDOT_arg WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING VDGT Rezoning Comments - Blue Springs Vie%N, LLC January 12, 2004 Paae #2 In regards to Proffer #4, this re -striping isnot necessary since the current. Nest bound right turn lane also acts as a shared thru lane to the I-81 north bound on ramp. It appears, as stated above, these modifications will help to address traffic impacts to local streets, including Route 641 and Route 277. However, there are no improvements detailed that would address the proposed impacts to the Level of Service at the intersections of Route 277 and I-81 South and North Bound Ramps. It appears at build -out and incorporating the background traffic, the Level of Service drops to "B", "C", "D" and "'T n . Therefore, although you are addressing traffic volumes on Routes 541 and 277 (with the exceptions as noted above%, the proposed development will further exasperate conditions at the interchange of I-81 North and South Bound and Route 277. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the LT_. Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDGT 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 orrice and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. --Z 9 y Ben H. Lineberry, Jr., P.E. Trans. Assistant Resident Engineer BHL/rf Enclosure Rezoning Comments Frederick - Winchester Service Authority Mall to. Hand deliver to: Fred -Weis Service Authority Fred-Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Attn: Jesse W. Moffett Winchester, Virginia 22604107 North Kent Street (540) 722-3579 'Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please Fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Fred-Winc Service Authority u7tlt their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Blue Springs View, L.L.C_ Telephone: 703-444-3707 lMaiiing Address: c/o christo ter consultants, ltd. 45940 Horseshoe I3rive, Suite lGo, Sterlin , VA 20166 Location of property_ Ste hens Ciry. east of Interstate 87, 0.5 miles south of Route 227 (Fairfax Pike) east of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane); south on Route 1065 (Ride Field Avenue) to Ewings Lane, Current Zoning:RA _____-, Zonin„ o requested: �_ Acreaje: 105.6 Fred—Winc Service A �� uthority's Comments: Fred-Winc Service Signature & Date: 34 131o4- z a1 OCaSV"COL unopno-l- I oo '02:80 tall r l qaA MEADOWS EDGE DEED S20 115140 sX5a5PG820 THIS DEED, made this -73' day of _ -,,,_f , 1984, between Lester E. Racey, Executor of the Estate of Ruth Racey, of the one part, hereinafter called the Grantor, and Charles W. Racey, of the other part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid and other valuable consid- eration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does grant and convey, with Special Warranty of Title, unto the Grantee, in fee simple, together with all rights, rights of way, privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, all of that certain tract of land, containing 13.15 Acres, more or leas, lying just South of Route 277 about one mile Southeast of Stephen City in Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virg and being all of the 138 Acre tract of land conveyed to Robert W. Racey and Ruth Racey, as joint tenants, with right of survivor- ship, by deed dated December 21, 1964 and of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 306, at Page 357 except for an off conveyance of 6 Acres by deed recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book Hr 3 , at Page 7S-?-, Upon the death of Robert W. Racey, Ruth Racey, sole surviving tenant, became the sole owner of the property, Ruth Racey died in December of 1983 and by her Will probated in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Will Book ! Y , at Page 3 ? 7, , she directed her Executor, Laster E. Racey, to sell all her real estate, including the above described property. Lester E. Racey duly qualified as Execut= . This conve•7r.nce is made 'subject to all legally enforceable restrictive covenants and easements of record affecting the aforesaid realty. 1 TAX TICKET T A X R E C E I P T - Y E A R 2 0 0.3 FREDERICK COUNTY Ticket 4:00269120002 Cmr� C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR Date : 12%02/2003 P.O. BOX 225 Register: COS/CO Trans. #: 25971 WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 Dept # RE200302 _ 2003 REAL ESTATE TAXES ACCT# 25342 132.15 ACRES Previous 8S A 140 Balance $ 380.99 Acres: 132.15 Land: 46882 Principal Being Paid $ 380.99 Imp: 57S00 Penalty $ .00 RACEY, CHARLES W. Interest $ _00 C/O ALCBSTA R DyeAmount Paid $ 380.99 293 OLD EXEC_ *Balance Due CHARLES TOWN RD s o 12/02/2003$ STSPHENSON, VA a £ .00 22656 1724 Check 380.99 # FVB 1017 Pa by RACHY, CHARLES W. ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST- (DUPLICATE) APPENDIX AGREEMENT d THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") made and entered into this day of C>, 2002, by and between the Town of Stephens City, Virginia, a municipal corporation, hereinafter the "Town", and SCP, Inc., a Virginia corporation, hereinafter "SCP". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, SCP is the Contract Purchaser of a 132 acre tract, Tax Map No. 58, Parcel 140, hereinafter the "Racey Tract", located in Frederick County, Virginia, and adjacent to property owned by the Town, Tax Map No. 85, Parcel 142,hereinafter the "Parcel", a portion of which property was formerly used as a wastewater lagoon ("Lagoons"), and WHEREAS, SCP is desirous of obtaining the necessary access to the Racey Tract from the Town, and to proceed with the filing of a Rezoning Application with Frederick County for such zoning as SCP desires on the Racey Tract ('Rezoning Application"); SCP has two different plans and approaches to obtain the necessary access to the Racey Tract, as shown on Exhibit A (Plat by Christopher Consultants dated September 4, 2002) and B( Plat by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., dated 4117102), and WHEREAS, the Town is desirous of having the existing two wastewater Lagoons closed ("Closure") and a building pad ("Building Pad") constructed on a portion of the Parcel within the area of the main Lagoon as shown on Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, SCP is willing to undertake the Closure and to construct a Building Pad on the closed main Lagoon, all at its sole cost and expense; and (" � ��S 2002 a copy WHEREAS, the Town adopted a Resolution Resolution) on , of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit C, whereby the Town authorized the Town Administrator to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Town and bind the Town hereto; and WHEREAS, the Town in consideration of SCP's undertaking the Closure and the construction of the Building Pad, is willing to convey to SCP, or its designee, or at the option of SCP. to grant, dedicate and convey a portion of the Parcel for a right-of-way for pubic street purposes ("Road") to Frederick County, Virginia ("Right -of -Way"). FURTHER WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the NOW, THEREFORE, premises and the mutual promises and undertakings of the parties, the parties agree as follows: 1. The recitals herein shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. 2. SCP shall, at its sole cost and expense, undertake the closing of the Lagoons in accordance with a proposal from GeoConcepts Engineering—TU-1c. ("rGeoConcepts"), as set forth 1� X t l generally in their closure plan submitted to the Virginia Department of Health on September 9, 2002 with three attachments. This does not limit SCP, who may also use other qualified professionals retained by SCP in connection with the Closure. SCP shall obtain such approvals as may be required by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Division of Wastewater Engineering ("Division"), such that SCP shall meet the requirements of the Division for the Closure Plan ("Closure Plan"). Wastewater and soils disposal shall be at SCP's sole expense. SCP shall satisfy the Division that the closure is complete and that the closure meets all legal and regulatory requirements. Upon completion of the Closure, SCP shall have GeoConcepts, or other qualified professionals, verify that the work was performed in accordance with the Closure Plan. 3. After the Closure of the Lagoons, SCP, at its sole cost and expense, shall be responsible for construction of the Building Pad to be constructed on the site of the closed main Lagoon, generally as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto. 4. SCP will be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for obtaining any and all permits necessary for the Closure and the construction of the Building Pad. 5. The Town, without cost or expense to the Town, will fully cooperate with SCP, its experts, and any governmental authorities in connection with the Closure and the construction of the Building Pad, including but not limited to allowing access to the Parcel for the purposes of surveying, testing and construction until such time as construction of the Building Pad has been completed and approved by the Division and verified by GeoConcepts, or other qualified professionals. The Building Pad shall generally cover the same amount of area as the previous main lagoon and shall consist of an excavated and compacted pad certified to meet the building requirements in force and effect at the time of the construction. 6. The Town shall grant, dedicate and convey a portion of the Parcel as a Right-of-Way for public street purposes ("Road") to Frederick County, Virginia, which Right-of-Way is shown on Exhibit A or B, as selected by SCP. SCP shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated with the conveyance. At the option of SCP, the Right-of-Way shall be conveyed to SCP or its designee. The Right-of-Way shall be as follows: (a) At the option of SCP, the Right-of-Way may be located as may be reasonably required to comply with engineering and/or governmental requirements, and shall be generally as shown on Exhibit A or B. In the event the right of way encroachs on the Building Pad site, adjustments shall be made to the Building Pad site so as to prepare a comparable area. (b) At the time of filing of the Rezoning Application, the Town shall deliver a letter to Frederick County, Virginia, stating that the Town will provide for and convey or dedicate the Right-of-Way for the Road or grant the same to SCP or its designee. (c) The Right of Way shall be dedicated or conveyed contemporaneously with the approval of the first section of the Subdivision Plat ("Subdivision Plat") by Frederick County, Virginia, for the development of the Racey Tract. The application for the approval of the 2 rezoning will not be more than six (6) months from the date of this Agreement. Upon approval of the rezoning application SCP shall diligently pursue the application to the County for subdivision, but in no event will the application for subdivision be filed later than two (2) years from the date of this Agreement. (d) The Right -of -Way will be of sufficient width and design to meet the requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") or any other governmental agency. (e) The Right of Way shall provide a minimum of two commercial/industrial entrances to the Town property;, e� These entrances shall conform to VDOT n {,� 4-j.,u,+ -{� requirements. T � S'c P slw R s t' /e f , a�,' g, 4c' P� �-� S+'P� I ,,� r, fn cin ; c�eoi -}�z. Tw�yk f -✓ Lvic� 51,�� (i'fa� ��Pe% -fG '� i � bOt f+1 nc &,Upl+ I5 SLf LtiJ�-trp-7,n�lrwi' (f) The Town shall grant such temporary additional construction easements on the Parcel as may be required by governmental authorities where it maybe necessary because of r- engineering requirements Land the construction of the Road, including slope and grading easements. �Yat, w 7. Contemporaneously with the conveyance or dedication of the Right -of -Way, SCP shall "0,�� ' post a performance bond ("Performance Bond") with the Town, with an AM Best rating of AA or better, based upon an estimate prepared by GeoConcepts, and in an amount, form and substance reasonably acceptable to the Town for the Closure and Building Pad. The Performance Bond shall be in an amount sufficient to cover 150% of the estimate of the costs of all the work required for the Closure and the construction of the Building Pad. SCP shall be responsible for and pay the cost to GeoConcepts for preparing the said estimate. (SCP shall also post an additional Performance Bond to cover the construction and cleanup of the Road as would be customarily by VDOT and the County.) 8. As soon as is feasible after the first section of the Subdivision Plat has been approved, is final and is of record, but in no event more than one (1) year thereafter, SCP will commence the Closure and, thereafter, construction of the Building Pad and, at all times, will diligently pursue the completion of the same. In no event shall the Closure and construction of the Building Pad be completed later than two years after the Right -of -Way is dedicated or conveyed by the Town. The said two (2) year period may only be extended by written agreement of the Town, which consent the Town agrees shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed, for such a reasonable period of time as may be required because of delays resulting from such things as acts of God, fire or other casualties. 9. (a) In the event the Closure and the Building Pad have not been finally completed within the said two (2) year period, except as above set forth, the Town shall have the right in which to require SCP, its successors or assigns, to reconvey the Right -of -Way to the Town, at no cost or expense to the Town. That amount of the Performance Bond necessary to complete the Closure and Building Pad shall be forfeited to the Town, provided, however, that in the event the J Town elects to exercise its option to forfeit the said Performance Bond as hereinbefore set forth, the Town shall first give SCP written notice of the same and SCP shall have a period of ninety (90) days thereafter in which to finally complete the Closure and Building Pad. In the event SCP completes the same within the said ninety (90) day period, the Performance Bond shall not be forfeited. (b) In the event that Frederick County will not approve the first section of the subdivision because of the aforementioned possibility of a reverter of the Right- of -Way, and the County documents this as the sole reason for the subdivision's rejection, the Town agrees to release this reverter restriction contemporaneous with proof of a signed and fully funded contract by SCP for the Closure and Building Pad, with work to begin on the closure within sixty days from the signed contract, and completion within 24 months. 10. SCP shall select either Exhibit A or Exhibit B as its location for the right of way within a reasonable period of time, and shall advise the Town of the selected location. 11. The Town an#. SCP agree, that, at all times, they will cooperate in order to achieve the objectives set forth in this Agreement, including obtaining any and all permits necessary therefor. 12. This Agreement and the rights and liabilities hereunder of the parties shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 13. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, shall replace and supersede all prior agreements between the parties, whether written or oral, and may be amended only by a written agreement signed by all of the parties. Each patty executing this Agreement represents and warrants that said party has the right, power and authority to execute the same and bind the said party hereto. 14. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holdings shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. 15. This Agreement and all of the terms, conditions and obligations hereunder shall inure to the benefit or obligation, as the case may be, and shall be binding upon the parties and their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns. 16. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, any one and all of which shall constitute the Agreement of the parties and each of which shall be deemed an original. 17. Any notice, request, demand, instruction or other communication to be given to either party hereunder, shall be in writing and shall be hand -delivered or sent by Federal Express or a comparable overnight mail service, or mailed by U.S. registered or certified mail, return receipt 4 requested, postage prepaid, to SCP, Town, SCP's Counsel, and Town's Counsel, at their respective addresses set forth below. The addressees and addresses for the purposes of this Section may be changed by giving notice. Unless and until such written notice is received, the last addressee and address stated herein shall be deemed to continue in effect for all purposes hereunder. 18. SCP shall reimburse the Town $1425.00 to assist in covering the expenses incurred in reaching this agreement. If to SCP: Scott C. Plein, President SCP, Inc. 43571 .Toho Mosby Highway, Suite 120 Chantilly, VA 20152 Telephone: 703-222-0449 Facsimile:.,703-327-6760 With a copy to: If to Town: David E. Feldman, Esq. Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C. 9302 Lee Highway, Suite 1100 Fairfax, VA 22031 Telephone: 703-218-2108 Facsimile: 703-218-2046 Town of Stephens City Attention: Mike Kehoe, Town Manager P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, VA 22655 Facsimile: 1-540-869-6166 With a copy to: J. David Griffin, Esq. Fowler Griffin Coyne Coyne & Patton, P.C. 29 North Braddock Street Winchester, VA 22601 Telephone: 540-667-6400 Facsimile: 3"40-72, 4S'S 5 WTTNESS the following signatures and seals: SCP, INC., a Virginia corporation D Name: Scott C. Plein Title: President TOWN OF STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA, A municipal corporation and body politic Date: (SEAL) By: (SEAL) Name: Mike Kehoe Title: Town Administrator, its authorized representative COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF 3✓'u'rL LC t to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that Scott C. Plein, of SCP, Inc., who is known to me as the person who executed the foregoing Agreement, personally appeared before me in my said jurisdiction and acknowledged this to be his act and deed. Given under my hand and seal this I day of , 2002. Notary Public j My Commission Expires: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF": �t'�r�Lg/I ctl- , to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that Mike Kehoe, the Town Administrator of the Town of Stephens City, Virginia, who is known to me as the person who executed the foregoing Agreement, personally appeared before me in my said jurisdiction and acknowledged this to be his act and deed. Given under my hand and seal this / day of CCS .2002. Jar Notary Public My Commission Expires: n C.l a j , ') c �\ 71- 7 I D EXT. I ARRY F 77/'9P50N IU �� P1N # 5 A 146 f R. 0. X.� J I FACE OF CURB I h NCE TOWN OF � STEPHEN C177 .MAW L,gGA7N � E1J7R.4NCE \\ I � �j � y l � ,\F kEN5 CITY JI \TOWN OF ST€P PIN # 8r'\A 142 scaie: ;0 100 200 - 1 inch = 200 ft. OF O5 ED 51t 1AEN Ci Tr R.O.W. FRr,V"=R/CX XUM77' VIRGINIA ,0 �,S christopher'consultant Oengineering surveying • taric pianning fTstIttl . 4_W4()norseshoeMrfe Isom t00) stpmc, rcava 21766 I/ 703.444.3707 fax 703.x.4.5230 LA, F .:7 rAVD ;7-4, VET PREDWIVARIv PLAT A -7P;k - REr-::?ICK rl)MM7' 06r f 011"r-27 17 -NRTshVGI Jz� — & someLata, inc- OL13crt V. olfiiord 4r, vrowc 1280, ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT THISAENDUM TO AGREEMENT ("Addendum") made and entered into this --J— day2003, by and between the TOWN OF STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter the "Town," and SCP, INC., a Virginia corporation, hereinafter "SCP". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into an Agreement on the 1 a' day of October, 2002 ("Agreement") related to the Closure of Lagoons and the construction of a Building Pad; and WHEREAS, the Town adopted a new Resolution ("New Resolution") on the day of J N . , 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit E, whereby the own authorized the Town Administrator to execute this Addendum on behalf of the Town and bind the Town hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, FURTHER WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises and undertakings of the parties, the parties agree as follows; 1. The recitals herein shall be deemed a part of this Addendum. 2. (a) Amend Paragraph b of this Agreement by deleting the reference in the third line to "Exhibit A or B" and inserting "Exhibits A, B or D". (b) Amend Paragraph 6(a) in the third Iine by deleting "Exhibit A or B" and inserting "Exhibits A, B or D". (c) Amend Paragraph 6(c) by deleting the second sentence and inserting the following; "The application for the approval of the rezoning will be made on or before March 1, 2004." Amend Paragraph 10 in the first line by deleting "Exhibit A or Exhibit B" and inserting "Exhibits A, B or D". 4. Except as otherwise expressly modified herein, all other terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: Date: 1 0 SCP, INC., a Virginia corporation c By; (SEAL) N e: Scott C. Plein Title: President TOWN OF STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA A municipal corporation and body politic Date: '7 ! z... / 0 3 By; �Ji� �t � _.(SEAL) Name: Mike Kehoe Title: Town Administrator, its authorized representative COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, r CITY/COUNTY to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that Scott C. Plein, President of SCP, Inc., who is known to me as the person, who executed the foregoing Addendum to Agreement, personally appeared before me in,rpy . . said jurisdiction and acknowledged this to be his act and deed. Given under my hand and seal this i day of , 003. �. Notary Public My Commission Exres: J UL --U I - Z-uuJ I I : qZ) t-'1.1 b I CY"GN Zb l..1 1 T COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITYICOUNTY O l C l �±S: , to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that Mike Kehoe, Town Administrator of the Town of Stephens City, Virginia, who is known to me as the person who executed the foregoing Addendum to Agreement, personally appeared before me in my said jurisdiction and acknowledged this to be his act and deed. cc.L.c Given under my hand and seal this Z day 43m NO3, Notary Public My Commission E res; N wnr 6-24-03,TO nGRUNIHM do' Jun 25 03 01:260 acl-Laudoun 7034445230 p•2 SII �A�Rr F T117PSON 111 �1 PIN # A 146 M i /TOWN OF STEPkEN CITr LAGO1 \ \ FACE OF CURB k -~ �t \6U, TCWN OF STEPNEN5 C17'' Scale: PIN M12 B A 142 100 0 100 200 `•_,� 1 inch = 200 R. 51cD STFPINEN CITi R.O.N. Christopher consult engineering aurveying , land planning FREDERICK CXN77, VIRGINIA eNriataPnvnoneUtonm,nd, rr�� r� r� 45940 ta-O n4a 6-0 OUL- I00) 41 -IM, -Ugft 201 Be JUNE 25, 2003 LA -31 703."4.7707 - tax 703,444423D UeoCnqePts _a E.g, Inc. J 604 South King St., Suite 200, Leesburg, Virginia 20175 (703) 443-0309 * Fax (703) 589-1592 September 9, 2002 Mr. John Scofield Virginia Department of Health Division of Wastewater Engineering 131 Walker Street Lexington, Virginia 24450 Subject. Wastewater Lagoon Closure Plan, Stephens City Wastewater Treatment Plant, Stephens City, Virginia (Our 22031) Dear Mr. Scofield: GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc. (GeoConcepts) is pleased to present our closure plan for the above referenced wastewater lagoon. This plan has been submitted at the request of our client, SCP, Inc. Background The subject lagoon, located off of Town Run Lane, has been out of service for a significant period of time. The lagoon has a surface area of about 3 acres. A sounding investigation completed in the lagoon in March 2002 indicated the lagoon contained 508,650 cubic feet (3,804,966 gallons) of water and approximately 142,650 cubic feet (5,283 cubic yards) of accumulated sediment. A summary of the sounding probe location data and the sounding probe location plan are presented as Attachment 1. In addition, a composite sample of the water/sediment in the lagoon was obtained and submitted for chemical analysis of Virginia waste disposal parameters. The chemical results did not indicate the presence of any parameters tested to the limits of detection employed. Accordingly, the water/sediment is considered non -hazardous and non -contaminated. A copy of the chemical test results are presented in Attachment 2. Waste,vater Lagoa„t Closure The existing wastewater lagoon described above is planned for closure. The closure of the lagoon will include the following steps: 1. Removal of wastewater. 2. Removal of sediment. 3. Reclamation of the wastewater lagoon area to provide a new building pad area through the addition of compacted fill to approximate proposed subgrade elevations. Details of each step are provided herein. Removal of Wastewater As indicated previously, a March 2002 investigation estimated 508,650 cubic feet (3,803,966 gallons) of water in the lagoon. It is noted that the estimated volume of water in the lagoon was obtained during a wet period of the year. Actual water volume in the lagoon will be dependent on the time of year. The water will be pumped into a nearby sewer for treatment at the Frederick County Wastewater Treatment Plant. The timing of the water removal will be coordinated with the Frederick County Water Authority (FCWA). In addition, we will complete any requested chemical testing of the water within the lagoon that is requested by the FCWA. Mr. Mike Keyhoe of the Towel of Stephens City will also be contacted prior to the water disposal to coordinate this operation. Removal of Sediment After removal of the water in the lagoon, we estimate a volume of sediment in the lagoon of about 142,650 cubic feet (5,283 cubic yards). In addition, it is expected that up to an additional 1.5 feet depth of soil below the sediment may be excessively wet and soft. The sediment in the lagoon will be allowed to dry sufficiently to allow it to be handled as a soil material. The existing sediment will be mixed with the upper excessively soft and wet soils to a depth determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer. The sediment and soil mixture will then be spread out off site on adjacent fields in lifts not exceeding 1.5 feet thickness for additional drying. Sediment and soil from the lagoon will not be spread within 100 feet of any stream, pond, or drainage ditches. Off site borrow material is anticipated to be used to fill the lagoon as detailed below. Off site borrow pits may be returned to existing grades using the sediment/soil mixture from the lagoon. Construction of a Building Pad After removal of sediment and excessively soft subsoils in the lagoon, the lagoon area will have a new building pad constructed in its place. The building pad will be constructed of new compacted, structural fill that will be capable of supporting building foundations with a spread footing bearing capacity of 3,000 psi Detailed specifications for the construction of the building pad with regard to subgrade preparation and compacted fill requirements are presented as Attachment 3. Finished grades for the building pad have not been set at this writing. For planning purposes, it is assumed that the building pad will have a finished floor at about existing grades. Therefore, it is expected the lagoon embankment side slopes will be removed and re -used for filling the interior of the lagoon area. Ouality Control The wastewater lagoon closure steps detailed herein will be monitored and documented by GeoConcepts, the owner's representative, to verify the closure is implemented as planned. The quality control services described below will be completed under the supervision of a Professional Engineer registered in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The amount of water removed from the lagoon, approximate quantity of sediment and soil, and building pad September 9, 2002 Virginia Department of Health Pa5ge 2 construction will be documented. With regard to the building pad construction, GeoConcepts will provide a full time field representative during fill operations to verify the fill meets classification and placement requirements, and conduct field density tests on each lift of fill to verify the fill meets compaction requirements. At the completion of the wastewater lagoon closure, GeoConcepts will prepare a report that provides documentation of the lagoon closure, including photographs of the various steps detailed above. The report will also include documentation of the building pad construction with field density test data and locations. GeoConcepts will provide a statement indicating that the wastewater lagoon closure was completed in accordance with the intent and requirements of the approved wastewater lagoon closure plan. We have prepared this wastewater lagoon closure pian for review and approval. Please contact us with any questions regarding the information contained herein. If not, please provide a letter indicating approval of the plan as presented herein. Sincerely, GEOCONCEPTS ENGINEERING, INC. Rodney Whittaker Staff geologist i ? Tadeu�Lewis, P.E. Principal '•s, ca TADEUSZ W. LEtkdiS No. 021276 w Attachments: c7,rr�,O}KCAL Fey` 1) Sounding Probe Investig and Location Plan 2) Water/Sediment Composite Sample Chemical Test Results 3) Building Pad Construction Specifications copy: SCP, Inc. Mr. Scott Plein RW/TL F:'YROJECTS`-12031 MI'V.Final) Lagoon closure plan. 9-09-02.doc September 9, 2002 Virginia Department of Health Paye 3 GeoConcepts ENGINEERING FIELD REPORT Engineering, Inc. 604 South King St., Suite 200, Leesburg Virginia 20175 (703) 443-0309 * Fax (703) 589-1592 Project Name: E Project No.C7 GeoConcepts R, -p: �! E s�. ,� C Date: /3' O Contractor:% �} Supt.: VVeather: Rim) ° Temperature: Summary of Observations and Recommendations: i + � n PPS'xn Crsea — . rZ ANALYTICAL REPORT GEOCONCEPTS ENGINEERING, INC. 9996 604 SOUTH KING ST-, STE 200 LEESBURG, VA 201?5 merica f N C O R P O R A T E D Lab Number: 02-A42436 Sample ID: RACEY TRACT DEVELOPMENT Sample Type: Liquid waste Site ID: LABORATORY COMMENTS: ND - Not detected at the report limit. - Recovery outside Laboratory historical or method prescribed limits. All results reported on a wet weight basis. and of Sample Report. 2960 Fos,rEK CREIGHTON DRIVE/ NASA II,i.E.TN 37204 / 615-726-0177 / F,\x: 615-726-0954 / 800-766-6980 Date Collected: Project: 22031 Time Collected: Project Name: RACEY TRACT DEVELOPMENT Date Received: 3/16/02 Sampler: Time Received: 9:00 Page: 1 Report Quan Dil Analyte Result Units Limit ---- Limit ----- Factor ------ Date Time -------- ----- Analyst Method ------------------- Batch ----- *GENERAL CHEMISTRY PARAMETERS* pH 8.20 pH Units 1 3/19/01 19:00 M.Womack 9040/150.1 1171 TCLP Results Matrix Spike Analvte Result Units Reg Limit ---------- Recovery (%) ------------ Date Time --------- ----- Analyst ---------- Method ------ QC Batch -------- Arsenic < 0.100 mg/l 5.0 108 3/20/01 13:42 C.Johnson 6010B 2728 Barium < 1.00 mg/1 100 91 3/20/01 13:42 C.Johnson 6010B 2728 Cadmium 0.100 mg/l 1.0 103 3/20/01 13:42 C.Johnson 6010B 2728 Chromium < 0.500 mg/l 5.0 95 3/20/01 13:42 C.Johnson 6010B 2728 Lead < 0.500 mg/1 5.0 100 3/20/01 13:42 C.Johnson 6010B 2728 Mercury < 0.0100 mg/1 0.2 110 3/21/02 11:59 W. Choate 7470A 2762 Selenium 0.100 mg/1 1.0 108 3/20/01 13:42 C.Johnson 6010B 2728 Silver 0.100 mg/l 5.0 96 3/20/01 13:42 C.Johnson 6010B 2728 TCLP Extraction Initiated 3/19/02 14:00 M.Womack 1311 1155 LABORATORY COMMENTS: ND - Not detected at the report limit. - Recovery outside Laboratory historical or method prescribed limits. All results reported on a wet weight basis. and of Sample Report. 2960 Fos,rEK CREIGHTON DRIVE/ NASA II,i.E.TN 37204 / 615-726-0177 / F,\x: 615-726-0954 / 800-766-6980 TestAmerica I N C 0 � :' 0 R A T E D ANALYTICAL REPORT GEOCONCEPTS ENGINEERING, INC. 9996 Lab Number: 02-A42437 Sample ID: RACEY TRACT DEVELOPMENT 604 SOUTH KING ST., STE 200 LEESBURG, VA 20175 Sample Type: Liquid waste Site ID: Date Collected: Project: 22031 Time Collected: Project Name: RACEY TRACT DEVELOPMENT Date Received: 3/16/02 Sampler: Time Received: 9:00 Page: 1 Report Dil Analysis Analysis Analyte Result Units Limit Factor Date Time Analyst Method Batch *ORGANIC PARAMETERS* TPH (Gasoline Range) ND mg/1 0.100 1 3/25/02 16:01 D. Cooper 8015B/5030 5504 *VOLP.TILE ORGANICS* Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes (Total) Acrolein Acrylonitrile Bromofcrm Bromomethane Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane Dibromochloromethane 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobei{zetle Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-Dichioroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1.1-Dichlcroethene 1,2-Dichioroethane (rerai) ND NO NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND LTD ND ND ND ND ND mg/1 mg/l mg/1 mg/l mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/l mgll mg/1 mg/l mg/1 mg/l mg/1 mg11 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/l mg/1 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.0050 0.01000 0.01000 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 w,00500 0.00500 0.06500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0,00500 6.00500 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3;22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22:02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3/22/02 3i22/0- .3/22/02 1:21 1:21 1:2i 1.21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:2'- 1:21 1:21 1:21 L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L. Lowery L_ Lawery L. Lowery 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 634 2,120 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 .3_0 2320 2320 2320 Sample report continued . . , 2960 FosT6K CnrAGIII' N DRIVE/ Nnsuviw,i.,,.TN 37204 / 615-726-1)177 / Fa.x: 615-726-0951 / 800-7E� C -JBU TestA erica I N C O R P O R A i F D ANALYTICAL REPORT Laboratory Number: 02-A42437 Sample ID: RACEY TRACT DEVELOPMENT Project: 22031 Page 2 ;ample report continued . . . 2960 FINJ'ER CREJctiTUN DRivE ; MkmivjU,E.TN 37204 / 615-736-0177 ;' F,1X: 615-726-0954 / 800-765.09130 -Report nil Analysis Analysis Analyte Result Un+ts ---- Limit Factor Date Time Analyst Methcd Batch 1,2-Dichloropropane ND mg/l ----- 0.00500 ------ 1 --------- 3/22/02 -------------------__ i:21 L, Lowery 624- cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND mg/1 0.00500 1 3/22/62 1:21 232C trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND mg/1 0,00500 1 L. Lowery 624 2320 Methylene chloride ND 3/22/02 1:21 L. Lowery 624 2320 mg/l 0.00500 1 3/22/02 1:21 L. Lowery 624 2320 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane ND mg/l 0.00500 1 3/22/02 1.21 L. Lowery 624 Tetrachloroethene ND mg/1 0.00500 1 3/22/02 1:21 L, Lowery 624 2320 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane ND mg/l 0.00500 1 2320 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane ND 3/22/02 1:21 L. Lowery 624 2320 mg/1 0.00500 1 3/22/02 1:21 L. Lowery 624 2320 Trichloroethene ND mg/1 0.00500 i 3/22/02 1:21 L. Lowery 624 2320 Vinyl chloride ND mg/1 0.00500 1 3/22/02 1:21 L. Lowery 624 2320 Bromodichloromethane ND mg/1 O.00500 1 3/22/02 1:21 L. Lowery 624 2320 Trichlorofluoromethane ND mg/1 0.00500 1 3/22/02 1:21 L. Lowery 624 2320 *PESTICIDE/PCB's/HERBICIDES* Aldrin ND mg/1 0.00025 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 Aroclor 1016 ND mg/1 0.00250 1 3/25/02 12:25 Carmichael 608 5491 Aroclor 1221 ND mg/1 0.00500 1 3/25/02 12:25 Carmichael 608 5491 Aroclor 1232 ND mg/1 0.00250 1 3/25/02 12:25 Carmichael 608 5491 Aroclor 1242 ND mg/l 0.00250 1 3/25/C2 12:25 Carmichael 608 5491 Aroclor 1248 ND mg/l 0.00250 1 3/25/02 12:25 Carmichael 608 5491 Aroclor 1254 ND mg/1 0.00250 1 3/25/02 12:25 Carmichael 608 5491 Aroclor 1260 ND mg/1 0.00250 1 3/25/02 12:25 Carmichael 608 5491 a -BHC ND mg/l 0.00025 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 b -BHC ND mg/l 0.00025 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 d -BHC ND mg/1 0.00025 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 g -BHC, Lindane ND mg/1 0.00025 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 Chlordane ND mg/1 0.00025 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 4,4' -DDD ND mg/1 0.00050 _ 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 4,4' -DDE ND mg/1 0.00050 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 4,4'DDT ND mg/l 0.40050 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 Dieldrin ND mg/l 0.00050 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 Endosulfan I ND mg/1 0.00025 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 Endosulfan II ND mg!l 0.00050 1 3/24/02 6:2i Henderson 608 5860 Endosulfan Sulfate ND mg/1 0.00050 i 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson, 608 5860 Endrin I'D mg/1 0.00050 i 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 50"60 Endrin Aldehvde N -D mg/1 0.00050 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 ;ample report continued . . . 2960 FINJ'ER CREJctiTUN DRivE ; MkmivjU,E.TN 37204 / 615-736-0177 ;' F,1X: 615-726-0954 / 800-765.09130 TestAmerica ANALYTICAL REPORT I N c o R P o R a r E o Laboratory Number: 02-A4243i Sample ID: RACEY TRACT DEVELOPMENT Project: 22031 Page 3 Dil Analysis Analysis Report Analyte Result Units Limit Heptachlor ND mg/1 0.00025 Heptachlor Epoxide ND mg/1 0.00025 Methoxychlor ND mg/1 0.00050 Toxaphene'. ND mg/l 0,02500 *MISCELLANEOUS CHEMISTRY* 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson Total 0 5860 1 3/24/02 I N c o R P o R a r E o Laboratory Number: 02-A4243i Sample ID: RACEY TRACT DEVELOPMENT Project: 22031 Page 3 Dil Analysis Analysis 0.100 10 3/19/02 11:13 Factor Date Time Analyst Method Batch 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 1 3/24/02 6:21 Henderson 608 5860 rganic Halogens Reactive Cyanide O.I26 mg/1 0.100 10 3/19/02 11:13 Weather_ 9020B 1541 Reactive Sulfide ND mg/kg mg/kg 50.0 1 3/20/02 15:15 S. Prayter SW -846 1547 ND mg/kg 100. 1 3/20/02 15:15 S. Prayter SW -846 1547 ample Extraction Data ------------------------- 76. ------------------------------------------- VOA Surrogate, Dibromofluoromethane ----------------------- Wt/Vol - 132. 78. - 136. Parameter Extracted - Extract Vol --------- Date -------- Time ----- Analvst ---------- Method --------- OC Pest 100. ml 5. ml 3/21/02 D. Harris 608 15. - PCB's 100. ml 5.00 m1' 3/21/02 D. Harris 608 Surrogate ------------- % Recovery ---------- Target Range BTEX/GRO Surr., a,a,a-TFT 104. 67. - 135. VOA Surrogate, 1,2-Dichloroethane, d4 123. VOA Surrogate, Toluene d8 106_ 73. - 136. VOA Surrogate, 4-BrOMDfluorobenzene 115. 76. - 131. VOA Surrogate, Dibromofluoromethane 108. 68. - 132. 78. - 136. pest surr-TCMX 12. # 53. - 125. pest surr-DCB 4 /i 15. - 153. Sample report continued , 2960 FO STEP Crt rrnrJ'0N DRIVE / NnSrlvn,r,r, TSN 37204 / 615-726-0177 / r-i.r: 61,--,-7—')6-095-1/ 800-765-09€30 TestAmerica ANALYTICAL REPORT Laboratory Number: 02-A42437 Sample ID: RACEY TRACT DEVELOPMENT Project: 22031 Page 4 LABORATORY COMMENTS: ND - Not detected at the report limit. # - Recovery outside Laboratory historical or method prescribed limits. Pest surrogate outside QC limits. Insufficient sample for re -extraction. End of Sample Report. 2960 F��Srr;H CXEWIITON) Dtiive i Mkuviu,E.TN 37204 / 615-736-0177 / F:vt: 615-726-0951 / 800-765-6980 TestAmerica I N C 0 P P 0 R A T E D 3ROJECT QUALITY CONTROL DATA 2roject Number: 22031 Page: 1 Matrix Spike Recovery Analyte units Orig. Val. MS Val Spike Conc Recovery Target Range Q.C. Batch Spike Samplt ------------------------------------------------------------- **UST ANALYSIS** TPH (Gasoline Range) mg/1 0.0420 0.899 1.00 90 72. - 126. 5504 BLANK BTEX/GRO Surr., a,a,a-TFT % Recovery 100 67. - 135. 5504 Matrix Spike Duplicate Analyte -- units ------- Orig. Val. Duplicate RPD Limit Q.C. Batch **UST PARAMETERS** ---------- ---------- ---------- ----- ---------- TPH (Gasoline Range) mg/1 0.899 0.870 3.28 20. 5504 BTEX/GRO Surr., a,a,a-TFT % Recovery 101. 5504 Laboratory Control Data Analyte units ------- Known Val, ---------- Analyzed Val ------------ % Recovery ---------- Target Range Q.C. --------------------- Batch **UST PARAMETERS** TPH (Gasoline Range) mg/l 1.00 0.899 90 75 - 126 5504 BTEX/GP0 Surr., a,a,a-TFT % Recovery 98 67 - 135 5504 Pest surr-TCMX % Rec 75 53 - 125 5491 pest surr-DCB % Rec 75 15 - 153 5491 Blank Data Analyte - Blank Value Units --------------------- Q.C. Batch ---------- Date Analyzed Time Analyzed -------------------------- **UST PARA.f,F-TERS** 7P?1 (Gascline Range) < 0.0420 1-ng/1 5504 3/25/02 15:34 Project QC contir-ued . . , 2960 Fos'rER CREIGlrroN DRIVE / NasiiVu.I.L,TN 37204 / 615-726-0177 / Fu: 615-726-0954 / 800-765-0980 TestAmerica I � C 0 R P 0 R A T E D ?ROJECT QUALITY CONTROL DATA �roject Number: 22031 Page: 2 Blank Data Analyte --------------- Blank Value ------------ Units --------- Q.C. Batch ---------- Date Analyzed ------------- Time Analyzed ------------- **UST PARAMETERS** BTEX/GRO Surr., a,a,a-TFT 106. % Recovery 5504 3/25/02 15:34 VOA Surrogate, 1,2-Dichloroethane, d4140. % Rec 2320 3/25/02 21:04 VOA Surrogate, Toluene d8 106. % Rec 2320 3/25/02 21:04 VOA Surrogate, 4-Bromofluorobenzene 107_ % Rec 2320 3/25/02 21:04 VOA Surrogate, Dibromofluoromethane 119. % Rec 2320 3/25/02 21:04 pest surr-TCMX 72. % Rec 5491 3/24/02 3:28 pest surr-DCB 75. % Rec 5491 3/24/02 3:28 End of Report for Project 276237 2960 FOSTER CKEu:n'roN DRIVE / NAsiiVIIAE.TN 37204 / 615-726-0177 / FAX: 615-726-0954 / 800-765-0980 Attachment 3 Contract No. 22031 Building Pad Construction Prior to placement of any new compacted fill, the fill subgrade should have all topsoil, organic matter, excessively soft or wet soil or other deleterious matter removed. Areas planned for new compacted fill should be proofrolled with a loaded, minimum 10 ton dump trick under the observation of the owner's representative. If proofrolling reveals excessive pumping or movement of subgrade soils, these materials will require removal and replacement with suitable fill material as detailed herein. Accordingly, the contractor should be prepared to excavate additional depths, and provide unit rates for additional excavations required to reach suitable subgrade soils and for replacement with suitable compacted fill. Once suitable subgrade soils are encountered as determined by the owner's representative, new compacted fill shall be placed and compacted in the lagoon area. The compacted fill shall consist of soil classifying as fat clay (CH), elastic silt (MH), or more granular soil per ASTM D-2487. The compacted fill shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density per VTM-1. Drying of on-site soils by spreading and aerating may be necessary to obtain proper compaction, especially the relatively high plasticity clay or silt soils that classify as CH or MH, respectively. The CH or MH soils, if used as compacted structural fill, must be placed at +/- 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content, to facilitate compaction and minimize shrink/swell potential. Individual borrow areas, both from on-site and off-site sources, shall be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for sampling and testing to verify classification of materials prior to their use as fill. Fill materials shall not be placed on frozen or frost -heaved soils and/or soils that have been recently subjected to precipitation. All frozen or frost -heaved soils shall be removed prior to continuation of fill operations. Borrow fill materials shall not contain frozen materials at the time of placement. Fill placed along slopes steeper than 5H:1 V shall be benched into the existing slope. Benches shall consist of a minimum 8 feet wide level cut, and at least one such bench shall be used for each 3 feet of vertical rise of fill placed. Proposed finished slopes shall be no steeper than 3H:1 V. Compaction equipment that is compatible with the soil type used for fill shall be selected. Theoretically, any equipment type can be used as long as the required density is achieved; Attachtneszt 3 Contract No. 22031 however; sheepsfoot roller equipment are best suited for fine-grained soils and vibratory smooth drum rollers are best suited for granular soils. A smooth drum roller should be used for sealing the surface soils at the end of the day or prior to upcoming rain events. All areas receiving fill shall be graded to facilitate positive drainage of any free water associated with precipitation and surface run-off. After completion of fill operations, the building pad subgrade shall be protected from degradation due to exposure to inclement weather to the extent possible. The pad shall be rolled with a smooth dram roller, and graded to allow water to drain off of the pad. A vegetative cover should be established on the pad after it is completed. tushm FAPROJECM22031\WP\Attachment 3 - Building pad specs, 8-24-02.doc ROBERT B. STROUBE, M.D., M.P.H. STATE HEALTH COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Mr. Michael Kehoe Town of Stephens City P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Dear Mr. Kehoe: r' 22-03 131 WALKER STREET Department of Heallh LEh1NGTON, VIRGINIA 24450 Division Of wastewater Engineering Phone (540) 463-1642 Fax (540) 463-3892 Western Area email jschofield()vdh.state.va.us October 2, 2002 SUBJECT: Frederick County Sewerage - Town of Stephens City A lagoon closure plan for the old Stephens City sewage treatment lagoon has been received by this Department. The plan is detailed in a letter report dated September 9, 2002 from GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc. The proposal is to remove the water by pumping, remove the residual solids and incorporate these into soil adjacent to the site, and reclaim the lagoon area by filling and properly compacting so the site will have structural integrity for future building construction. The review of the subject lagoon closure plan has been confined to technical requirements and design criteria as stipulated in the Commonwealth of Virginia Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. In accordance with the Virginia Water Control Law, Code of Virginia 195o, as amended, Title 62.1, Chapter 3.1, Article 4, Section 62.1-44.19, Paragraph 3, this letter report is to advise the closure plan is technically adequate and is approved by this Department. This letter constitutes your formal approval to proceed with the project By direction of the State Health Commissioner. JCS f i stephenscity cc GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc. - Attn: Tadeusz W. Lewis SCP, Inc. - Attn: Scott Plein Mr. John Riley, Frederick County Administrator Frederick County Health Department DEQ - Valley Regional Office VDH - DWE - Attn: C. M. Sawyer Sincerelv. V-/-HOFVIRGINIA HEALTH Exhibit B-1 RACEY TRACT WASTEWATER LAGOON CLOSURE SPECIFICATIONS I. Introduction A previously abandoned wastewater lagoon owned by the Town of Stephens City, Virginia is planned for closure. GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc. (GeoConcepts) developed the protocols for the lagoon closure in a Wastewater Lagoon Closure Plan (referred to herein as the "closure plan") dated September 9, 2002, The closure plan was approved by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Health in their letter dated October 2, 2002. While the closure plan has been formally approved by the Department of Health, more details regarding the closure activities have been requested. Accordingly, these specifications have been prepared to provide more details regarding the activities related to the lagoon closure. It should be clearly understood that these specifications should not be considered as modifications or changes to the original closure plan approved by the Virginia Department of Health. II. Pre -Closure Sampling and Testing Prior to any work being completed on the lagoon closure, a detailed sampling and chemical testing program will be completed to characterize the pre -closure conditions of the lagoon, Stephens Run, and the designated 26 acres where the sedimentis proposed for spreading (referred to herein as "receiving field"). The objective of the pre -closure sampling and testing program will be to establish the baseline conditions prior to the closure work. Sampling Locations The sampling in the lagoon will include obtaining a composite sample of the sediment and a sample of the surface water in the lagoon. Surface water samples will be obtained from Stephens Run at the following locations: where Stephens Run emerges from the culvert under Interstate 81 (upgradient of the lagoon), just down gradient from the lagoon but upgradient from the receiving field, and down gradient from the receiving field. The soil samples from the receiving field will be randomly selected, but will be spread out over the 26 acres (with the exception of buffer and slope areas) to ensure they are representative of the characteristics of the surficial soils within the receiving field. Sampling Procedures A composite sample from the existing lagoon will be obtained by using a sediment sampler with butterfly valve. We will obtain samples of the sediment at four locations, and then mixing the individual samples to create a composite sample. Soil samples from the receiving field will be obtained by using hand auger equipment, and will be obtained in the first 12 inches of soil at each sampling location. All sediment/soil sampling equipment will be decontaminated prior to mobilization to the site. In addition, the hand auger equipment will be decontaminated between sampling events in the receiving field. The decontamination will consist of washing the equipment with a mixture of distilled water and alconox and then rinsing it completely with distilled water. Sampling of the surface water in the lagoon and the samples in Stephens Run will be obtained in accordance with EPA approved protocols for surface water sampling. Chemical Testing The approved lagoon closure plan required chemical testing of the sediment in the lagoon that consisted of standard parameters used for evaluating disposal requirements in Virginia. The intent was to ensure that special disposal provisions would not apply for the sediment. Based on the parameters tested, no elevated contaminant levels were encountered, and accordingly, no special disposal provisions are required. As part of the wastewater lagoon closure operations, additional chemical testing will be completed as detailed herein. The additional testing will include the same parameters previously analyzed, and in addition, will also include Total Coliform/E coli testing. The specific chemical tests to be completed on all soil and water samples include the following: • TCLP RCRA Metals, EPA Method 6010 (Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Selenium, and Silver) • Volatile Organic Compounds, EPA method 624 (34 parameters) • Pesticides/PCBs/Herbicides EPA Method 608 (26 parameters) • Total Organic Halides, EPA Method 9020 (Total Organic Halogens, Reactive Cyanide, Reactive Sulfide) • Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, EPA Method 8015 • pH, EPA Method 9040 • Total Coliforms/E. coli, Method MMO-MUG Please note that all of the testing proposed as a part of this project was completed for the sediment sample tested as a part of the waste water lagoon closure plan study, except for total coliforms/E Coli. This parameter was not previously tested as it is not considered when evaluating disposal provisions, but has been included at the request of adjacent property owners. The total coliforms/E Coli testing does require special provisions because the tests must be completed within three hours of obtaining the samples. Accordingly, we will obtain these samples separately from the others and submit them to a local laboratory in close proximity to the site. All other samples will be submitted to TestAmerica, the laboratory that conducted the initial testing of the sediment sample as part of the lagoon closure study. The testing will be completed using a standard turn around time of two weeks. III. Pre -Construction Meeting After completion of chemical testing, but prior to any closure activities, a pre -construction meeting will be held on site to discuss the operations. The meeting will be attended by the applicant, a GeoConcepts representative, and an appropriate representative of both the Town of Stephens City and Frederick County as they so designate. During the meeting, items to be discussed include the chemical test results, coordination between the various parties, sediment and erosion control measures, weather restrictions, and other issues related to the closure operations. IV. Removal of Water from Lagoon This activity will be completed by the applicant, or the Town of Stephens City, at the discretion of the Town of Stephens City. Either party will coordinate their work with Fredrick County Water Authority personnel. V. Sediment Volume Calculation Immediately after the removal of the water in the lagoon, a GeoConcepts representative will observe the excavation of several test pits to determine the thickness of the sediment and any excessively soft native soils. The sediment depth information will be used to estimate the total quantity of material to be removed from the lagoon, and ultimately the expected thickness of sediment to be spread on the receiving field. Also, a loader will be used to collect and stockpile the sediment for loading and subsequent transportation into the receiving field. During removal of the sediment, typical sediment and erosion control measures will be implemented around the lagoon closure area. VI. Preparation of Receiving Field The approved closure plan provides for spreading the sediment to within 100 feet of property lines. However, the spreading limit, pursuant to an agreement by the applicant, will now be no closer than 200 feet from any property line. In addition, it has also been agreed that spreading of sediment will not occur within drainage ways that have slopes of over 15 percent. Prior to the start of spreading operations, a survey will be completed of the receiving field and flags will be inserted to delineate the 200 feet buffer area and any drainage ways where spreading is prohibited. After installation of the flagging as detailed above, it has been agreed that an additional sediment and control measure will also be implemented to provide additional redundancy and protection to the area. The sediment and erosion control measure will consist of installation of silt fence that will encompass the receiving field. VII. Transportation and Spreading of Sediment The sediment to be spread on the receiving field will be loaded onto dump trucks using loader or track hoe equipment. The sediment can only be loaded onto trucks and transported after it has dried sufficiently to be handled as a soil product. If during loading of sediment, excessive water is observed coming form the truck beds, sediment loading operations will be suspended until the sediment has dried adequately. The trucks will transport the sediment to the receiving field without using public roads. A temporary road will be constructed from the lagoon to the receiving field. Prior to loading of any trucks, the temporary road will have silt fences and other appropriate erosion control measures installed to ensure that there is not excessive erosion or runoff from the temporary road. Sediment will be stockpiled on the north side of the receiving field, away from Stephens Run. The stockpile area will have standard sediment and erosion control silt fence installed around it. The stockpiled sediment will be transported across the site using loader equipment, and then will be spread out in the pre -determined thickness (based on sediment volume estimate detailed in section V) using dozer equipment. After spreading of the sediment, the sediment will be worked into the surficial soils using plow or rotor tiller equipment. The spreading operation will be closely monitored to ensure that whenever sediment is spread onto the receiving field, there will be adequate time during the same day to work the sediment into the surficial soils. In no case will more sediment be spread on the receiving field than can be worked into the surficial soils that same day. Accordingly, it will be necessary to monitor the spreading operation and halt spreading of sediment at such time that will allow the sediment that was already spread to be adequately worked into the surficial soils. Also, sediment will not be spread or worked into surficial soils during precipitation events, and when there is more than 50 percent chance of precipitation for that day. In order to provide a consistent source for weather reports, we plan on using www.weather.com and inputting the zip code for the Town of Stephens City. After all of the sediment is spread and worked into the surficial soils, the receiving field will be seeded with a commercially available seed mix which closely mimics the current vegetation. VIII. Quality Control During the waste water lagoon closure, GeoConcepts will have a resident engineer on site on a full time basis. This individual will be responsible for monitoring the operations of the contractor, and ensuring the intent of the approved closure plan and these specifications are implemented. This individual will prepare a daily report that provides a summary of weather conditions, individuals or companies who are on site, general activities at the site for the day, number of trucks loaded with sediment, and any deviations or modifications from the closure plan or specifications. GeoConcepts will prepare a weekly summary transmittal that presents the field reports and provides a brief overview of the progress of the closure operations, and shall deliver a copy of the same to any representative as so designated by Frederick County. The GeoConcepts representative will use a digital camera to provide relevant photographic documentation of the site activities. At all times during the operation, the site will be available for insxnection by representatives of Frederick County. The resident engineer will be able to provide both geotechnical and environmental services for the project. The resident engineer will be prepared to obtain samples for chemical analysis at any time during the closure operations at the request of a Frederick County representative. IX. Post Closure Sampling and Chemical Testing After completion of the sediment spreading activities, GeoConcepts will conduct a post closure sampling and chemical testing program. This program will consist of obtaining water samples from Stephens Run and three soil samples from the receiving field. The samples will be obtained using the same procedures as detailed for the pre -closure sampling operations, and will be tested for the same parameters as previously detailed. X. Construction of the Building Pad After removal of sediment and excessively soft subsoils in the lagoon, the lagoon area will have a new building pad constructed in its place. The building pad will be constructed of new compacted, structural fill that will be capable of supporting building foundations with a spread footing bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. Detailed specifications for the construction of the building pad with regard to subgrade preparation and compacted fill requirements are presented in the approved closure plan. Finished grades for the building pad have not been set at this writing. For planning purposes, it is assumed that the building pad will have a finished floor at about existing grades. Therefore, it is expected the lagoon embankment side slopes will be removed and re -used for filling the interior of the lagoon area. XI. Final Report At the completion of the lagoon closure operations, GeoConcepts will develop a closure report. The closure report will include a brief narrative of the various activities completed, all chemical test results, compaction test results for the fill placed in the lagoon, and the total volume of sediment applied to the receiving field. A copy of the report will be submitted to the Virginia Department of Health, Frederick County, the Town of Stephens City and any other entities that we are directed to submit the report to by our client. N:\PROJECTS\24030\WP\Specifications 03-24-04.doc