The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15-99 Channing Drive - Stonewall - Backfile (2)IP t REZONING TRACKING SHEET Date � 1 Q' 9' ! ! Apple ation rece-99 iv d/file opened j�_ Reference manual updated/number assigned j1-3-` 1 D-base updated File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary Four sets of adjoiner labels ordered from data processing 40 color maps ordered from Mapping & Graphics PC public hearing date ACTION: BOS public hearing date ACTION: Signed copy of resolution for amendment of ordinance, with conditions proffered, received from County Administrator's office and placed in Proffers Notebook. (Note: If rezoning has no proffers, resolution goes in Amendments Without Proffers notebook.) Action letter mailed to applicant Reference manual and D-base updated �a -aa .99 File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary (final 62.8A- action) File given to Mapping & Graphics to update zoning map 9 j Zoning map amended Other notes: U:\Czo1\Conunon\tracking.rez FILE COPY COdJl*dTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 December 30, 1999 Mr. Mark D. Smith Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: REZONING APPLICATION #15-99 OF CHANNING DRIVE; Property Identification Numbers 55-A-206, 209, 211, 213 and 65-A-30, 39, 40 Dear Mark: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on December 8, 1999. The Board approved your request to rezone 354.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) and of 22.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) with the proffers submitted by the applicant. The proffers that were approved as a part of this rezoning application are unique to this property and are binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Sincerely, it Evan A. Wyatt Deputy Director EAW/ch Attachment cc: Charles Orndoff, Stonewall District Supervisor Jane Anderson, Real Estate *Steven Melnikoff, VDOT *Denny Linaburg, Fire and Rescue *John Trenary, Building Inspections *Tom Sullivan, FCPS 10 *Jim Doran, Parks and F.ecreation (*cc's with copy of proffers) O: Agendas\APPR_DEN.LTR\REZ's\ChanningDrive.REZ.wpd 107 North Kent Street a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PC REVIEW DATE: 11/03/99 BOS REVIEW DATE: 12/08/99 REZONING APPLICATION #15-99 CHANNING DRIVE To rezone 3 54.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, and 22.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District LOCATION: This property is located on the north side of Senseny Road (Route 657), on both sides of Bean's Pond Lane, and adjacent to the Bedford Village, Apple Ridge, Senseny Glen, and Carlisle Heights subdivisions. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55-A-206, 209, 211, 213 & 65-A-30, 31, 39, 40 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Agricultural and Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District South: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District RA (Rural Areas) District East: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District RA (Rural Areas) District West: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Vacant (Fieldstone Heights) Residential and Vacant Use: Residential (Burning Knolls, Apple Ridge, Senseny Glen) Residential Use: Residential (Bedford Village, Apple Ridge) Residential and Vacant Use: Residential (Carlisle Heights) Residential and Vacant 6 0 Charming Drive REZ #15-99 Page 2 October 21, 1999 PROPOSED USE: Residential and Commercial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Please refer to E-mail correspondence from VDOT to Greenway Engineering dated September 1, 1999, and letter from VDOT to Mrs. Gina A. Forrester dated September 2, 1999. Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended. County Engineer: The submission of the revised traffic study adequately addresses the previous review comments. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company,: Please refer to minutes from Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company Special Board Meeting dated May 18, 1999. Parks and Recreation: If the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model used for this development reflects current information from the Planning Department, it would appear the proposed proffer will meet the Parks and Recreational needs created by this development. Also, the Parks and Recreation Department would recommend that the trail system be designed to accommodate bicycles and connect with adjacent developments being considered. Frederick County Public Schools: Please refer to three letters from Frederick County Public Schools to Greenway Engineering dated June 7, 1999. County Attorney,: Proffer statement appears to be in proper form. Planning & Zoning_ Project Scope The applicants have proposed to rezone eight parcels totaling 376.3 acres to establish 354.3 acres of residential land use and 22 acres of commercial land use. This proposal calls for the development of 846 residential lots (excluding townhouse and apartment units); 220,000 square feet of commercial use, a community recreation center that will be available to all area residents through membership, and a pedestrian trail system which connects all land areas east of Channing Drive. Charming Drive REZ #15-99 Page 3 October 21, 1999 Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the eight parcels as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. This zoning classification was modified to RA (Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. Location The eight properties, totaling 376.3 acres, are located in the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). This acreage is currently accessible from Senseny Road (Route 657), Beans Pond Lane which intersects Senseny Road (Route 657) near Parkwood Circle (Route 1235) and Sunset Drive (Route 812), and Eddy's Lane (Route 820) which intersects Valley Mill Road (Route 659) near Berryville Pike (Route 7). Surrounding properties are primarily residential in nature or are planned for future residential development. Site Suitability The 376.3 acres does not contain areas of floodplain; however, areas of steep slope, woodlands, wetlands, and prime agricultural soils exist on the property. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies eight properties within the proximity of this acreage which contain historic structures; however, none of these structures are identified as potentially significant historic resources. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify potential historic districts within the proximity of this site. Issues Identified by Planning Commission The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the rezoning of the eight parcels identified in this staff report on March 3, 1999. The applicant asked the Planning Commission to table action on this request to allow for adequate time to address the concerns that were raised during the meeting. The following information is intended to identify the concerns and issues raised by the Planning Commission and how the applicant has proposed to mitigate these issues through the development of additional information and through the submission of a revised proffer statement: 1) The Planning Commission felt that a detailed traffic impact analysis statement needed to be prepared which provided Level of Service (LOS) information for the existing road system and LOS information for the road system based on the impacts of the proposed rezoning. 0 • Channing Drive REZ #15-99 Page 4 October 21, 1999 The applicant has incorporated a detailed traffic impact analysis statement which was prepared by Callow Transportation Consulting (CTC) of Marshall, Virginia. The CTC traffic analysis provides 1999 average daily traffic count (ADT) information volumes for A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic at all intersections within proximity of this acreage; traffic volume increase at all intersections through 2005 utilizing a 3.5% annual growth rate which accounts for the acreage proposed for rezoning, as well as seven developments within this area that have been approved but are not at build -out; trip generation information for the proposed residential and commercial land use, trip distribution percentages for traffic movements from this acreage onto the existing road systems; and LOS information for existing road systems and intersections, as well as LOS information for build -out conditions of this acreage. 2) The Planning Commission felt that the detailed traffic impact analysis statement needed to be reviewed by VDOT and that new comments needed to be provided to the county based on the results of their review. The CTC traffic impact analysis statement was submitted to VDOT and reviewed by their traffic engineering division in Staunton. The results of this review are provided in two correspondences from the VDOT Edinburg Residency. Please refer to E-mail correspondence from VDOT to Greenway Engineering dated September 1, 1999, and letter from VDOT to Mrs. Gina A. Forrester dated September 2, 1999. 3) The Planning Commission felt that the method for providing access from Senseny Road (Route 657) to Berryville Pike (Route 7) needed to be determined, and that the issue of widening the existing single -lane bridge adjacent to the McHale property needed to be addressed. The CTC traffic impact analysis provides information for the segment of Valley Mill Road (Route 659) between Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Berryville Pike; however, it does not state if this information is based on the current road alignment or for an alternative alignment. Previous discussions between the applicant and staff indicate that the current road alignment is proposed to be utilized, as the ability to provide an alternative alignment is not feasible since the applicant does not own the property. The applicant's proffer statement provides a monetary contribution of up to $84,600 that can be utilized by VDOT for improvements to the existing single -lane bridge adjacent to the McHale property. A monetary contribution of $100 is available on a per -lot basis as building permits are issued by the County. These funds are available as matching funds through VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program should the County submit a request for this type of project. Channing Drive REZ #15-99 Page 5 October 21, 1999 4) The Planning Commission felt that phasing for the residential and commercial land uses would need to be associated with LOS impacts to the existing road system within the proximity of this acreage. The applicant's proffer statement provides a phasing schedule for the residential land use which calls for the issuance of 79 building permits annually. This phasing program would limit the build -out of the residential land use to a minimum of 11 years. Furthermore, the applicant's proffer statement limits the issuance of building permits to a total of 475 until the off -site portion of Channing Drive is developed to Valley Mill Road. The CTC traffic impact analysis does not associate the LOS of the existing road system to the applicant's residential phasing plan; however, it does state that appropriate turn lanes will need to be provided at the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection to adequately accommodate the build -out of the residential component. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $30,000 to be used towards the installation of two of the four turn lanes identified by the CTC traffic impact analysis. The applicant has not proffered a phasing plan for the development of the 22-acre commercial land use; however, the proffer statement limits the development of this acreage to 220,000 square feet of floor area. The CTC traffic impact analysis identifies the need for Senseny Road to be improved to a four -lane condition between Channing Drive and the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection to adequately accommodate the commercial component of the proposed rezoning. 5) The Planning Commission felt that the applicant needed to revisit the proffer associated with the provision of a new elementary school site to ensure that the County was not put in the position of funding the difference between the cost of land and the per -unit impact that was demonstrated by the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model. The Frederick County Public Schools civil engineer determined that the proposed 15-acre site contained development constraints which would make it difficult to construct a new elementary school facility. The applicant's proffer statement was revised to eliminate the dedicated 15-acre elementary school site and to provide a per -unit monetary contribution that is consistent with the results of the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model. 6) The Planning Commission felt that the applicant needed to address solid waste issues which may involve the provision of land to accommodate a new solid waste citizen's convenience center. The applicant's proffer statement was revised to provide a monetary contribution to the 0 Charming Drive REZ #15-99 Page 6 October 21, 1999 County to expand the existing solid waste citizen's convenience center located on the east side of Greenwood Road (Route 656). This proposal satisfies the County Engineer and the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company. Please refer to the minutes from the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company Special Board Meeting dated May 18, 1999. Issues Identified by Review Agencies 1) Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS): FCPS has stated that the cumulative impact of the proposed rezoning and existing residential subdivisions within close proximity of this acreage will require the County to construct new school facilities to ensure that existing facilities do not exceed design capacities. FCPS believes that it is very important to consider the impacts of the proposed rezoning on current and future school needs. The applicant has based the impacts to community facilities and services on the results of the Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model as applied to this rezoning request. The applicant has provided a building permit phasing schedule as a part of the proffer statement which calls for the development of 79 new residential units on an annual basis. The following table provides information for the impact that the building permit phasing schedule would create for the public school system on average: Proposed Building Permit Phasing Schedule Year Total Building Permits Issued Elementary School Impact @ . 39 Pupils/Dwelling Middle School Impact @ .14 Pupils/Dwelling High School Impact @ .17 Pupils/Dwelling 1999 79 31 12 14 2000 158 62 23 27 2001 237 93 34 41 2002 316 124 45 54 Ll Channing Drive REZ #15-99 Page 7 October 21, 1999 Year Total Building Permits Issued Elementary School Impact @ . 39 Pupils/Dwelling Middle School Impact @ .14 Pupils/Dwelling High School Impact @ .17 Pupils/Dwelling 2003 395 155 56 68 2004 474 185 67 81 2005 553 216 78 95 2006 632 247 89 108 2007 711 278 100 121 2008 790 309 111 135 2009 846 330 119 144 The attendance zones established by the Frederick County School Board depict Senseny Road Elementary, James Wood Middle School, and James Wood High School as the current facilities in which student enrollment would occur. The 1999-2000 School Capacity and Enrollment data demonstrate that Senseny Road Elementary has a practical capacity of 570 students with a current enrollment of 537 students, or 98% capacity. James Wood Middle School has a practical capacity of 1,000 students with a current enrollment of 960 students, or 96% capacity. James Wood High School has a practical capacity of 1,670 students with a current enrollment of 1,572 students, or 94% capacity. Therefore, the information in this table suggests that the practical capacity for student enrollment at all three school levels will be exceeded prior to the build -out of these properties. The Frederick County School Board has identified the need for a new elementary school and a new high school in this area to address the impacts from this proposal coupled with the existing developments that have not achieved build -out at this time. 2) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT): The completion of the improvements on Greenwood Road (Route 656) between Senseny Road (Route 657) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659) are assumed to be in place as a component of the CTC traffic impact analysis. This road improvement project is proposed to be advertised for construction in March 2000 and is anticipated to be complete by March 2002. The Greenwood Road improvement project calls for the provision of traffic signalization at the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection. Channing Drive REZ #15-99 Page 8 October 21, 1999 VDOT has identified the need to construct Senseny Road between Channing Drive and the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection to a four -lane condition with appropriate turn lanes prior to the build -out of the proffered land uses in this rezoning proposal. Furthermore, VDOT has identified the need for traffic signalization at the intersection of Greenwood Road and Valley Mill Road prior to the build -out of the residential component of this acreage. The applicant's proffer statement provides a monetary contribution of $75,000 for traffic signalization at the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection which may be transferred to the Greenwood Road/Valley Mill Road intersection if warranted by VDOT. 3) Frederick County Parks and Recreation (FCPR): FCPR has recommended that the proposed trail system be developed to accommodate bicycle travel and that this trail system connect to adjacent developments. The applicant's proffer statement provides an exhibit which depicts a trail system which connects to the Senseny Glen and Fieldstone Heights subdivisions; however, this trail system will not accommodate bicycle travel if it is constructed with wood chips or mulch as proposed by the applicant. Proffer Statement The applicants have prepared a revised proffer statement that has been signed by all owners, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney. The revised proffer statement is divided into four articles which reflect conditions that are applicable to the entire acreage, as well as conditions that are specific to the 91.4-acre Lynnhaven parcel, the 152.2-acre Giles parcel, and the 132.7-acre Futral/Sheppard parcel. This is a very detailed and complex proffer statement; therefore, the following information attempts to provide the essence of the proffered conditions based on category: 1) Residential Component * 846 total permits on 354.3 acres creating an overall gross density of 2.4 units per acre. * Issuance of 79 building permits on an annual basis. * Limitation of 475 building permits until Channing Drive is extended to connect with Valley Mill Road. * Prohibit the development of townhouse and apartment buildings on the entire acreage. 2) Commercial Component Maximum of 240,000 square feet of development creating a Floor -to -Area Ratio of 0.25. • 0 Channing Drive REZ #15-99 Page 9 October 21, 1999 * Prohibit specific commercial land uses that are allowed by -right in the B2 District. * Provide architectural requirements for three walls on all buildings. 3) Transportation Component * Installation of traffic signalization at the intersection of Senseny Road and Channing Drive. * Turn lanes on Senseny Road at the intersection of Channing Drive. * Boulevard design with deciduous tree landscaping along main entrance road within the residential portion of this acreage owned by Giles. * A $75,000 monetary contribution for traffic signalization at the intersection of Senseny Road/Greenwood Road that is transferrable to the intersection of Greenwood Road/Valley Mill Road. * A monetary contribution of $100 per residential lot payable at the time of building permit issuance to be earmarked for improvements to the one -lane bridge on Valley Mill Road near Berryville Pike. * A $30,000 monetary contribution towards the installation of turn lanes at the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection. 4) Recreational Amenities Component * Development of a membership -based community recreational center with a minimum floor area of 3,000 square feet which will contain a pool and outdoor multi -purpose courts. * Provision of a trail system to be constructed of wood chips or mulch which will link the majority of this acreage and connect to Senseny Glen and Fieldstone Heights subdivisions. 5) Solid Waste Component * A monetary contribution of $3,600 per year for a maximum of 10 years to allow for the expansion of the existing solid waste citizen's convenience center at the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company on Greenwood Road. 6) Community Facilities and Services Component * A monetary contribution to mitigate the negative fiscal impacts associated with Frederick County Public Schools, Frederick County Parks and Recreation, and Frederick County Fire and Rescue Services that is consistent with the results of the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model. The following table provides a summary of the monetary contributions that have been proffered by the applicants to mitigate the negative fiscal impacts to community facilities and services: 0 Channing Drive REZ #15-99 Page 10 October 21, 1999 Proffered Monetary Contributions for Community Facilities and Services @ 846 Residential Lots and 240,000 square feet of Commercial Use Community Facility or Service Total Monetary Contribution Frederick County Public Schools $ 2,628,183.77 Frederick County Parks & Recreation $ 476,794.72 Frederick County Fire & Rescue Service $ 45,324.26 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11/03/99 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposal to rezone 354.3 acres to the RP (Residential Performance) District and 22 acres to B2 (Business General) District is consistent with the land use patterns for urban and suburban residential development and commercial development identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The general road network layout for the proposed development is consistent with the needs identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan's Eastern Road Plan Map. The overall gross density for residential development is less than the densities identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, and is consistent with the development patterns within surrounding developments. The proffered commercial square footage is 25% of the allowable coverage identified within the Zoning Ordinance. The Frederick County Planning Commission tabled this rezoning request during the March 3, 1999 meeting and directed the applicants to identify how they proposed to mitigate the issues and concerns raised during the meeting. The applicants have provided additional information and have developed a revised proffer statement in an attempt to address these issues and concerns. The revised proffer statement mitigates the majority of the identified issues and concerns; however, some issues and concerns remain unresolved. These involve the ability to provide access between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike (other than by improvements to the existing road system); the establishment of a residential and commercial development phasing plan that is related to Level of Service impacts to the existing road system (other than limiting residential building permits to 475 lots until Channing Drive is extended to Valley Mill Road); the ability to construct Senseny Road to a four -lane condition between Channing Drive and the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection; and the provision of a surface material that would allow for bicycle travel on the proposed trail system. Channing Drive REZ 4 15 -9 9 Page 11 October 21, 1999 The language within the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Policy Plan states that new development should only be approved within the Urban Development Area (UDA) when roads and other infrastructure with sufficient capacity have been provided. Several improvements to the existing transportation system were identified through the Callow Transportation Consultants (CTC) traffic impact analysis. Some of these improvements are proposed to be accomplished by the applicants, while some would require improvements funded through the County's Secondary Road Improvement Plan allocations. Of these, the most significant issue involves the four -lane improvements to Senseny Road between Charming Drive and the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection. Currently, this segment of Senseny Road is the 23`d priority identified on the County's Secondary Road Improvement Plan. The top five priorities are currently identified as receiving allocations from VDOT over the next six years. Additionally, the Frederick County Public Schools comment identifies that the development of this acreage, coupled with approved residential development within the area, will necessitate the development of new school facilities. The County's Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) identifies land acquisition for a new elementary school site and the construction of a third high school within the proximity of this acreage to be funded through allocations made between the 1999-2000 and the 2001-2002 fiscal years; however, allocations for these capital facilities have not begun. The applicants should advise the Planning Commission how the four -lane improvements to Senseny Road can be accomplished outside of the normal Secondary Road Improvement Plan allocation process. The CTC traffic study identifies this road improvement need when the retail component is realized, as this land use will attract 11,990 average daily vehicle trips at build -out. One method to mitigate this impact is to delay construction of the commercial acreage until this segment of Senseny Road is improved to a four -lane condition. Similarly, other improvements to the road network system that are outside of the applicant's ability to complete, such as off -site turn lanes and bridge improvements, could be tied into the residential building permit phasing schedule to ensure that adequate Levels of Service are maintained on the road network system. The Planning Commission should determine if the items proffered by the applicant reasonably mitigate the impacts to the County's infrastructure, services and to adjoining properties when forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter. O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\REZONING\Staff Report\ChanningDnve.REZ wpd CHANNI6 DRIVE REZONING REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff. - Zoning Amendment Number 15— Date Received I - 1 PC Hearing Date - BOS Hearing Date /Z - �% 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: Greenway Engineering_ Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owners (if different than above) Name: Robert A. Giles, et als 2309 Senseny Road Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Lynnehaven L. C. 112 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Fu-Shep Farm Partnership 309 S. Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S., Telephone: (540) 662-4185 DEPT, OF PLA161jl GiDEVELOPMENT Telephone: (540) 667-4460 Telephone: (540) 662-0323 Telephone: (540) 667-1359 Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Plat X Deed to property X Verification of taxes paid X Agency Comments X Fees X Impact Analysis Statement X Proffer Statement X 0 • 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: Wanda G. High, Janita Giles, Robert A. Giles, Richard F. Giles John Scully, Steve Bridgeforth Dr. George Sheppard, Dr. Allen Futral 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural, undeveloped 354.3 acres - Residential B) Proposed Use of the Property: 22.0 acres Commercial 7. Adjoining Property: Please see attached PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): North side of Senseny Road, on both sides of Bean's Pond Lane, and adjacent to the Bedford Village, Apple Ridge, and Carlisle Heights subdivisions. 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: 55-((A))-206, 209, 211, 213, & 65-((A))-30, 31, 39, 40 Districts Magisterial: Senseny Road High School: James Wood Fire Service: Greenwood Vol. Fire Co. Middle School: James Wood Rescue Service: Greenwood Vol. Fire Co. Elementary School: Senseny Road, Redbud 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 354.3 RA RP 22.0 RA B2 376.3 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: 846 Townhome: _ Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Multi -Family: Hotel Rooms: Office: Service Station: Retail: 220,000 Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other: 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: Owner(s): Date:Z .(�t%> LI G, Date: Date: V r S - `ln 7 Date: 'K ., - % / Date: Date: G� Date: • 0 Green way Engineering July 13, 1999 Channing Drive Rezoning Application Giles Farm - Adjoining Property Owners Parcel First Name Last Name Addl Address City State Zip Code Zone Use 55-A-180,181 Eastern Frederick Development Co. P.O. Box 2097 Winchester VA 22601 RP 6 55-A-206 Lynnehaven, L.C. 112 N. Cameron Street Winchester VA 22601 RA 5 55-A-208 Martin Bean et ux 561 Beans Pond Road Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 55-A-209 Fu-Shep Farm Partnership 405 Briarmont Drive Winchester VA 22601 RA 6 65-A-30 Lynnehaven, L.C. 112 N. Cameron Street Winchester VA 22601 RA 2 65-A-34 Louella Parsons 2239 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65-A-36 Margaret Giles 2251 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65-A-37 Richard Giles et ux 2265 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65-A-38 Wanda High et als 2283 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65-A-40 Fu-Shep Farm Partnership 405 Briarmont Drive Winchester VA 22601 RA 6 65B-4-A-1 Robert Emmons et ux 2366 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65B-4-A-2 Charles Mellot et ux 2360 Senseny Road wnchester VA 22602 RP 2 65B-4-A-3 David Adams 1408 28th street Niceville FL 32578 RP 2 65B-4-A-4,5 Benton Heironimus 98 Dixie Belle Drive Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65B-4-A-6 Teresa Bowers 2324 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65B-4-A-7, 9 Robert See et ux 2310 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65B-4-A-8 Robert See, Jr 2310 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65B-4-A-10,11 Robert Gilmer et ux 2286 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65B-5-1 Irene Jenkins 2374 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65B-5-2 John Keeler 2384 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 6513-5-3 Melvin Kump et ux 2303 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65B-5-4 Charles Nickleson 108 Boad Avenue Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65B-5-5, 6 Edward Snyder et ux 125 Boad Street Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65B-5-7 Zane Kerns et ux 401 Three Oaks Road Winchester VA 22603 RP 2 65B-5-8 Elizabeth Mason et al 2444 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65B-5-9, 10 Shirley Lambert P.O. Box 362 Berryville VA 22611 RP 2 65E-1-31 Kenneth Williams et ux 428 Maple Avenue Waukesha WI 53188 RA 2 Green way Engineering July 13, 1999 Channing Drive Rezoning Application Lynnehaven, L.C. - Adjoining Property Owners Parcel First Name Last Name Addl Address City State Zip Code Zone Use 55-((A))-181 Eastern Frederick P.O. Box 2097 Winchester VA 22604 6 RP 55-((A))-184A Greenwood Road P.O. Box 2097 Winchester VA 22604 5 RP 55-((A))-184C Eugene Grove et ux 340 W. Parkins Mill Rd Winchester VA 22602 5 RA 55-((A))-201 Orrick Cemetery Co., Inc 501 S. Braddock Winchester VA 22601 5 RA 5-((A))-208 Martin Bean et ux 561 Beans Pond Lane Winchester VA 22602 2 RA 5I-((1))-4-186 Gordon Greer et ux 308 Woodrow Rd Winchester VA 22602 2 RP 55I-((1))-4-187 Rex Pugh et ux 307 Woodrow Rd Winchester VA 22602 2 RP 551-((1))-4-188 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 55I-((1))-4-189 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 551-((1))-4-190 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 551-((l))-4-191 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 551-((1))-4-192 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 551-((1))-4-193 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 551-((1))-4-194 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 55I-((1))-4-195 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 551-((1))-4-196 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 55I-((l))-4-197 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 1-((1))-4-198 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 551-((1))-4-199 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 55I-((1))-4-200 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 551-((1))-4-201 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 551-((1))-4-202 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 551-((1))-4-203 C. C. Longerbeam Inc. P.O. Box 3276 Winchester VA 22604 2 RP 65-((A))-23 Russell Moreland et ux 2105 Senseny Rd Winchester VA 22602 2 RA 65-((A))-24 Sharley Morris 2123 Senseny Rd Winchester VA 22602 2 RA 65-((A))-25 Gary Baker et ux 2135 Senseny Rd Winchester VA 22602 2 RA Green way Engineering July 13, 1999 Channing Drive Rezoning Application Lynnehaven, L.C. - Adjoining Property Owners Parcel First Name Last Name Add9 Address City State Zip Code Zone Use 65-((A))-25A Skip Baker P.O. Box 174 Stephenson . VA 22656 2 RA 65-((A))-25B Robert Byers et ux 2159 Senseny Rd Winchester VA 22602 2 RA 65-((A))-27 Douglas Clark et ux 2044 Senseny Rd Winchester VA 22602 2 RA 65-((A))-28 Douglas Clark et ux 2044 Senseny Rd Winchester VA 22602 2 RA 65-((A))-30 Lynnehaven L. C. 112 N. Cameron St Winchester VA 22601 2 RA -((A))-39 Wanda High et als 2283 Senseny Rd Winchester VA 22602 6 RA is 4 Green way Engineering July 13, 1999 Channing Drive Rezoning Application. Sheppard/Futral - Adjoining Property Owners Parcel First Name Last Name Addl Address City State Zip Code Zone Use 55-((A))-181 Eastern Frederick P.O. Box 2097 Winchester VA 22604 RP 6 55-((A))-210 Linden Adams et us 310 Eddys Lane Winchester VA 22602 RA 5 55-((A))-212 John Haggerty et al 5 Partridge Lane Lincoln MA 01773 RA 6 65-((A))-39 Wanda High et als 2283 Senseny Rd Winchester VA 22602 RA 6 65-((A))-41 Jasbo Inc. & Fred Glaize III P.O. Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 RP 5 65-((A))-195 Forest Riggleman et ux 2737 Senseny Road Winchester VA 22602 RA 5 65D-((1))-(3)-22 Lewis Strother, Sr. 101 Edgewood Drive Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65E-((1))-13 David Critchley et ux 105 Wayfaring Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-14 Franklin Sholes et ux 102 Wayfaring Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-16 Charles Dawson et ux 129 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-17 Dennis Conner et ux 131 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-18 Scott Straub et ux 133 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-19 Troy Bingman et ux 135 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-20 John Ham, Jr. et ux 137 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-21 Steven Jones 139 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-22 Michael Brown et ux 141 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-23 Edward Fawns et ux 143 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-24 Marilyn Harold 145 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-25 Anne Sendecke 147 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-26 Timothy Schock et ux 149 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-27 David Hyman et ux 151 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-28, 29 William Machardy et ux 155 Morning Glory Drive Winchester Va 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-30 Paul Nelson et ux 157 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-31 Kenneth Williams et ux 428 Maple Avenue Waukesha WI 53188 RA 2 65E-((1))-32 Ronald Ladesic et ux 158 Morning Glory Drive Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-33 Melco Inc. 609A Cedar Creek Grade Winchester VA 22601 RA 2 Green way Engineering July 13, 1999 Channing Drive Rezoning Application Sheppard/Futral - Adjoining Property Owners Parcel First Name Last Name Addl Address City State Zip Code Zone Use 65E-((1))-34 John Swigart et ux 105 Primrose Place Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-35 Leonard Williamson et ux 107 Primrose Place Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-36 Bonnie Martin 109 Primrose Place Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-37 Bruce Everett et ux 111 Primrose Place Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((1))-38 Michael Wade et ux 113 Primrose Place Winchester VA 22602 RA 2 65E-((2))-10 Howard Dunn et ux 115 Bedford Drive Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65E-((2))-11 Mary Coston 113 Bedford Drive Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65E-((2))-12 Betty Mullen 111 Bedford Drive Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65E-((2))-13 Dennis Grubbs 109 Bedford Drive Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65E-((2))-14 Leslie Hubbard 107 Bedford Drive Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 65E-((2))-15 Paul Miller 3203 Patterson Avenue Richmond VA 23221 RP 2 65E-((2))-16 Michael Swedberg et ux 103 Bedford Drive Winchester VA 22602 RP 2 0 I 9 IWEIVED AUG 1 1 2004 August 9, 2004 Manning and Ross Developers, LLC P.O. Box 27 Winchester, Virginia 22604 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 RE: Channing Drive Rezoning, REZ #15-99 Contributions Towards Traffic Signal Property Identification Numbers (PIN) 65-A-39, 39A Dear Greg and David: p E C E WE AUG 1 3 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT When Rezoning # 15-99 for Channing Drive was approved by the County in 1999, the applicant had proffered a monetary contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal. In reviewing both County and VDOT records, it appears that the contribution has not yet been paid for your project. VDOT has determined that a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood and Valley Mill Roads is now warranted; therefore, receipt of your proffered contribution is now requested. More specifically, the proffered conditions associated with the Channing Drive rezoning, in terms of the cash contribution identified in Article III, Section C3(b), states : "The owners shall make a $25,000 cash contribution toward the installation of a traffic signal....". The County and VDOT request that this $25,000 contribution be made payable to the "Frederick County Treasurer", and be submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me should you have additional questions. Sincere , Eri R. Lawrence, AICP Planning Director cc: Jerry Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation ERL/bad 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • MANNING & ROSS DEVELOPERS, INC. P. 0. Box 27 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 723-9868 (540) 723-9869 (fax) From thel Dew Of . 8/ 13/04 To: Mr. Eric R. Lawrence Planning Director County of Frederick . Lo;lk Mctdiaosv Attached is our check #5249 in the amount of $25,000 for our contribution to the traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood and Valley Mill Roads. Please call Greg (974-7668) if you have any questions or need any further information. 0 z w �:CL zCL a �o o� LLJ r O U Ci o z � z ccLL-z a J d MANNING & ROSS DEVELOPERS, LLC BANK OF CLARKE COUNTY 5239 P.O. BOX 27 WINCHESTER, VA WINCHESTER, VA 22604 68-251/514 (540) 723-9868 8/6/2004 PAY TO THE Virginia Dept. of Transportation $ ** ORDER OF 25,000.00 Twenty -Five Thousand and 00/100********* DOLLARS 8 Virginia Dept. of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 MEMO Traffic Signal Cont., Rt. 657, Fred. Co. �� -- --- "" II' 0 0 S 2 3 Tim 1: 0 S 140 2 S 18 L. 1: II' 1 S 2 6 1 1 II' •, ,T.;. FOE I V E D AUG 1 7 2004 4 r" p ECEodE AUG "'6b0NW EALTH ®f VIRGIN IA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Philip A. Shucet COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 CERTIFIED MAIL — RECEIPT REQUEST REQUESTED August 9, 2004 Mr. Greg Bancroft C/O Manning & Ross Developers, LLC P. O. Box 27 Winchester, VA 22604 Ref: Sovereign Village Dear Mr. Bancroft: JERRYA. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 I apologize, I advised you incorrectly that the check needs to be made out to VDOT. In fact, it should be to Frederick County so the money can be utilized as part of a revenue sharing project to install the signal at the intersection of Route 656, Greenwood Road, and Route 659, Valley Avenue. Please find attached the check being returned to your attention. Plcasc resubmit the check to Frederick County. Again, I apologize for this mistake. Should you have any questions, do not liesitate to tali. S' erely, Ben H. Lineberry, Jr., P.E. Trans. Assistant Resident Engineer BHL/rf Enclosure — Check #5239 Copy: Mr. Eric Lawrence I VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING is • 5249 MANNING & ROSS DEVELOPERS, LLC BANK OF CLARKE COUNTY P.O. BOX 27 WINCHESTER, VA 68-251/514 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 $/13�2004 (540) 723-9868 PAY TO THE ORDER OF Frederick County Treasurer $ **25,000.00 Twenty -Five Thousand and 00 100************************************************************ DOLLARS 8 Frederick County Treasurer P. 0. Box 220 Winchester, VA 22604 MEMO Greenwood Traffic Signal Contribution 11100521, 9"m i:05LL,025L81: II'1+ L52 GLLII' 4-0o� -� Cori rni ss;�� r ,Q- I COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 March 29, 2004 Manning & Ross Developers, LLC PO Box 27 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Lynnhaven LC 112 N Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Fu-Shep Farm Partnership 405 Briarmont Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Channing Drive Master Development Plan MDP #08-00 Dear Gentlemen: On March 23, 2004, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution which pertains to the Channing Drive Master Development Plan. Specifically, the adoption of this resolution enables the three developers to proceed with Master Development Plan revisions, which would be reviewed independently of one another. However, I would note that the major collector road known as Channing Drive would need to be dedicated and its construction guaranteed prior to the approval of any of the master development plan revisions. The adopted resolution has been attached for your information. Please contact me with questions concerning this letter. amc eiy, E is . La4ence, AICP P ing Director Attachment: Resolution cc: %John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 r RESOLUTION OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS To consider individual master development plan revisions of Master CO Development Plan #08-00 for Charming Drive, for the three developments within the 376-acre project, following the dedication and guarantee assuring w the construction of the road known as Channing Drive. m+ Action: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: March 23, 2004 IZA APPROVED ❑ DENIED WHEREAS, Rezoning #15-99 of Channing Drive was submitted to rezone 354.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) and of 22.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) with the proffers submitted by the applicant. This property is located on the north side of Senseny Road (Route 657), on both sides of Bean's Pond Lane, and adjacent to the Bedford Village, Apple Ridge, Senseny Glen, and Carlisle Heights Subdivisions, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 55-A-206, 209, 211, 213 & 65-A-30, 31, 39, 40 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. WHEREAS, Rezoning #15-99 of Channing Drive was adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 8, 1999, and WHEREAS, Master Development Plan #08-00 of Charming Drive was adopted by Frederick County on December 5, 2001 and such master development plan illustrated planned and coordinated land uses and infrastructure improvements for the entire 376-acre site, and WHEREAS, the current three development owners were party to or have assumed the original Master Development Plan, which arose as a request of those three property owners and/or their predecessors, and WHEREAS, the County was requested to consider each development separately to enable revisions to the Master Development Plan by the individual developments, and WHEREAS, a key element of the Master Development Plan was the coordinated effort to construct Channing Drive as a major collector roadway, and WHEREAS, the dedication of Channing Drive and the guarantee of its construction would achieve an intent of the Proffered Conditions with the Rezoning; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Frederick County would be amenable to consider individual master development plan revisions for the three developments within the 376-acre development project following the dedication and improvement guarantee for Channing Drive. Passed this 23rd day of March 2004 by the following -recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Gary W. Dove Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Barbara E. VanOsten Aye Lynda J. Tyler Ave Bill M. Ewing Ave Gina A. Forrester Aye A COPWATE T John R� �J. ey, Jr. Frederi�lC County Administrator Resolution No.: 054-04 r. ►"1 RESOLUTION OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS To consider individual master development plan revisions of Master Development Plan #08-00 for Channing Drive, for the three developments within the 376-acre project, following the dedication and guarantee assuring the construction of the road known as Charming Drive. IIN Action: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: March 23, 2004 APPROVED ❑ DENIED WHEREAS, Rezoning #15-99 of Channing Drive was submitted to rezone 354.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) and of 22.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) with the proffers submitted by the applicant. This property is located on the north side of Senseny Road (Route 657), on both sides of Bean's Pond Lane, and adjacent to the Bedford Village, Apple Ridge, Senseny Glen, and Carlisle Heights Subdivisions, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 55-A-206, 209, 211, 213 & 65-A-30, 31, 39, 40 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. WHEREAS, Rezoning #15-99 of Charming Drive was adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 8, 1999, and WHEREAS, Master Development Plan #08-00 of Channing Drive was adopted by Frederick County on December 5, 2001 and such master development plan illustrated planned and coordinated land uses and infrastructure improvements for the entire 376-acre site, and WHEREAS, the current three development owners were party to or have assumed the original Master Development Plan, which arose as a request of those three property owners and/or their predecessors, and WHEREAS, the County was requested to consider each development separately to enable revisions to the Master Development Plan by the individual developments, and WHEREAS, a key element of the Master Development Plan was the coordinated effort to construct Charming Drive as a major collector roadway, and WHEREAS, the dedication of Charming Drive and the guarantee of its construction would achieve an intent of the Proffered Conditions with the Rezoning; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Frederick County would be amenable to consider individual master development plan revisions for the three developments within the 376-acre development project following the dedication and improvement guarantee for Charming Drive. BOS Res #054-04 Passed this 23rd day of March 2004 by the following -recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Gary W. Dove Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Barbara E. VanOsten Aye Lynda J. Tyler Ave Bill M. Ewing Ave Gina A. Forrester Aye A COPY A TET �J John R R'ley, Jr. Frederi County Ad inistrator Resolution No.: 054-04 • • KUYKENDALL, JOHNSTON, MCKEE & BUTLER, P.L. C. 112 SOUTH CAMERON STREET P. 0. DRAWER 2097 WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22604-1297 (540)662-3486 Facsimile (540)722-3787 E-Mail: kjmb@dstnet.com J. SLOAN KUYKENDALL(1906-1995) PETER K. McKEE (1934-1%7) BENJAMIN M. BUTLER STEPHEN G. BUTLER GEORGE W. JOHNSTON, III Mr. Evan Wyatt Frederick County Planning 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Giles Farm My File No. 10521-B Dear Evan: December 22, 1999 J. SLOAN KUYKENDALL, III EDWIN B. YOST OF COUNSEL: JOHN F. ANDERSON I am enclosing herewith a copy of the Amendment to Frederick County Zoning Ordinance which has been placed of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, as indicated thereon. truly yours, amin M. Butler BMB/cah cc: Mark Smith, Greenway 0 r. � d !c`g�+nrza rve+SS COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDINBURG, VA 22824 COMMISSIONER January 16, 2002 Dr. Allen Futral 405 Briarmount Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: Traffic Signal Contribution Route 657 Frederick County Dear Dr. Futral: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984.5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 We are in receipt of your Check #0747 per our request dated January 8, 2002. Attached please find Receipt #264007 acknowledging this contribution. Thank you for your speedy reply. /rf Enclosure xc: Mr. Dave Heironimus Mr. Leon Sheets Mr. Evan Wyatt Mr. Mark Smith Mr. David Madison Mr. Greg Bancroft Dr. George Sheppard Mr. John Scully Sincerely, Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer JAN! I .? 100Z "PT OF PUNNING/DR/Ropf�1PNI„ WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING -o-/LI 1-Di AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended Approval on November 3, 1999 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Approved December 8, 1999 THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #15-99 OF CHANNING DRIVE WHEREAS, Rezoning #15-99 of Charming Drive was submitted to rezone 354.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) and of 22.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) with the proffers submitted by the applicant. This property is located on the north side of Senseny Road (Route 657), on both sides of Bean's Pond Lane, and adjacent to the Bedford Village, Apple Ridge, Senseny Glen, and Carlisle Heights subdivisions, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 55-A-206, 209, 211, 213 & 65-A-30, 31, 39, 40 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on November 3, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on December 8, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 3 54.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) and of 22.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), as described by the application and plat submitted, and subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. 5;z-9`i PDRes #/-99 0 • This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 8th day of December, 1999 by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam, Chairman W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. Aye Richard C. Shickle Aye Margaret B. Douglas Aye Robert M. Sager A COPY ATTEST Jo . Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator i O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\REZONING\RESOLUPN\CharmingDrive. R E S.wpd PDRes 1131-99 Aye Aye Aye Greenwa.y b Engineering • cl j s I- Chnrtrrin?Drive Rezoning I` r: e b C A NNI 7 G DJ? I V E REZONING PROPERTY ID NUMBERS 55-((A))-206, 209, 211,213 & 65-((A))-30, 31, 39, 39A, 40 Pursuant to Section 15.2 - 2296 Et Seq., of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia shall approve rezoning application 915-99 for the rezoning of approximately 354.3 acres from the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district to the Residential Performance (RP) zoning district, and the rezoning of 22.0 acres from the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district to the Business General (132) zoning district, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with said code and zoning ordinance. 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 successors, heirs, or assigns. ARTICLE P PHASED CONST R UCTION PLAN This article shall apply to the following parcels: Lynnehaven, L.C.: 55-((A))-206, and 65-((A))-30, 31 Giles Farm: 65-((A))-39, 39A Sheppard/Futral: 55-((A))-209, 211, 213 and 65-((A))-40 The total number of residential building permits that may be issued for any parcel within the subject property in combination with all other above -referenced parcels shall not exceed the following phasing schedule: Greenway Engineering • Channing Drive Rezoning Permits Issued to Date 79 158 237 316 395 474 553 632 711 790 846 ADZ TICLE 11: L YNNEHA VEN, L. This article shall apply only to those properties currently owned by Lynnehaven, L.C., property identification numbers 55-((A))-206, and 65-((A))-30, 31. The subject properties are more particularly described as all of the land owned by Lynnehaven, L.C. as recorded in Deed Book 843 at Pages 415, 418, and 424 and reported to collectively contain 91.4 acres. The conditions proffered are as follows: AREA ZONED RP - 81.4 ACRES IVIAXIMUNI DENSITY The total number of lots shall be limited so as not to exceed a 2.5 unit per acre density for the entire subject area. PROHIBITED UNIT TYPES Townhouses, weak -link townhouses, and garden apartments, as defined in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, shall not be permitted. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS Pedestrian walkways shall be provided in the master development plan in addition to required sidewalks. Nature trails shall be constructed by the applicant in open space areas, in dedicated easements, and in tandem with the regional stormwater management network. Said trails shall also link to similar trail systems in adjacent housing developments, and shall be six feet wide with a wood chip or mulched surface. See Exhibit A attached. Greenway Engineering 0 r ; r Channing Drive Rezoning Ldi j;-L}; ij I ,511 4. SOLID WASTE The owners of the subject property shall pay $100.00/mo. to Frederick County for the use of the solid waste facility located on the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company property and serving the Greenwood/Senseny Road area. Said payment shall be made from the time Frederick County encumbers and signs a new lease for the expansion of said facility, or acquires another facility serving this general area, and shall continue for a period of ten years, or the term of said lease, whichever is less. B) AREA ZONED B2 - 10.0 ACRES 1. PROHIBITED USES The following uses shall not be permitted on the subject property: Description SIC Automotive dealers 55 Hotels and motels 701 Organization hotels and lodging 704 Golf driving ranges & miniature golf courses 7999 Self-service storage facilities --- Commercial batting cages operated outdoors --- 2. MAXIMUM BUILDOUT In the B2 area established by this rezoning, the maximum cumulative floor area of all buildings in said B2 area shall not exceed 100,000 square feet. 3. BUILDING FACADES Commercial structures within the proposed B2 area shall be faced with brick, drivet, or architectural block on three (3) sides. C) ENTIRE PARCEL 1. MANNING DRIVE Channing Drive is a new major collector which will be constructed along the eastern boundary of the subject property. Channing Drive shall consist of an 80' dedicated right-of-way with two 12' lanes, along with any associated turn lanes required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. This thoroughfare will be built in sections as warranted by adjacent development. The following criteria establish when the property owner is required to extend Channing Drive: 3 Green►vay Engineering h Channing Drive Rezoning b a) Each subdivision plan for residential housing adjacent to a portion of Channing Drive that has not yet been constructed shall include the construction of the adjacent portion of said drive in the subdivision plan. b) The construction of the first section of Channing Drive, from Senseny Road to the proposed B2 area, shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area if said road section has not yet been constructed. c) All of Channing Drive from Valley Mill Road to Senseny Road shall be constructed, open for traffic and dedicated to Frederick County before the 475th residential building permit is issued for any of the parcels listed in Article I of this proffer. 2. TRAFFIC SIGNALS a) The installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Senseny Road and Channing Drive shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area, if a traffic signal has not yet been installed at said intersection should residential traffic meet signalization warrants. The developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final site plan approval. b) The owners shall make a $25,000 cash contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Senseny Road (Route 657). This contribution shall be made to the Virginia Department of Transportation upon their request and upon approval by said department for the installation of this traffic.signal. In the event a traffic signal is installed at said intersection before this contribution is made, the Virginia Department of Transportation may request the transfer of said contribution towards signalization at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659). The developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final subdivision and/or site plan approval. 3. BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS There is currently a one -lane bridge on Valley Mill Road where it crosses Abrams Creek. The owners of the subject property shall pay towards feasibility studies, engineering, or construction of improvements to this crossing. These monies, paid to Frederick County, VA, are to be set aside for said improvements, and may be considered by the county for matching funds. Said payments shall be $100.00 per residential lot, at the time the initial building permit is issued for said lot. The owner of the subject property shall be required to pay said monies until the Virginia Department of Transportation awards a contract for a two lane expansion and construction of these improvements on said bridge. 4. TURN LANES AND RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION a) Right and left turn lanes shall be constructed on Senseny Road at the intersection with Channing Drive. Said lanes shall be constructed by the applicant at the time Channing Drive is connected to Senseny Road. b) Right and left turn lanes shall be constructed on Channing Drive at the intersection with the main entrance road into the Lynnehaven subdivision. 4 Greenway Engineering 0 Channing Drive Rezoning c) The installation of a total of two turn lanes at the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area, if two turn lanes have not yet been installed at said intersection. The necessity of said turn lanes, and their configuration will be subject to later review by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The owners of the subject property shall install said turn lanes or pay to the Virginia Department of Transportation up to $15,000 per turn lane towards the installation of said turn lanes. d) This paragraph shall apply to parcels 55-((A))-206, and 65-((A))-39, 39A: The first site plan submitted for either of these parcels which will result in more than 120,000 sf of commercial area for both parcels collectively shall result in an updated traffic study to determine if additional offsite improvements are required. Said traffic study shall require approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 5. DRAINAGE AND WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT Sediment forebays shall be constructed upstream of Twin Lakes in order to decrease the siltation of said lake and settle out man-made impurities. These sediment forebays shall be constructed in such a way as to encourage their development into a wetland with locally indigenous vegetation and wildlife. 6. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION a) Residential: In the event rezoning application 915-99is approved for rezoning, the owners of the subject property will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, $3,278.31 per residential lot prior to the initial building permit being issued for said lot. This per lot monetary proffer provides for: $2,694.11 for Frederick County Public Schools' $539.07 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation $45.13 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue These payments are intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services. b) Commercial: In the event rezoning application 45-99is approved for rezoning, the owners of the subject property will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, $3,245.60 prior to the initial building permit being issued within the B2 zoned area. This monetary contribution is intended to offset the additional capital costs to Frederick County for fire -and rescue services. a 5 Green►vay Engineering C'hanning Drive Rezoning ARTICLE III: RDBEAA. �-_ALS, ?'et als This article shall apply only to those properties currently owned by Robert A. Giles, et als, and Manning and Ross, LLC, property identification numbers 65-((A))-39, 39A. The subject property includes all of the land described as being owned jointly by Wanda G. High, Janita Giles, Robert A. Giles, and Richard F. Giles as recorded in Will Book 79, page 317, and in Deed Book 889 at Page 741. Said property is further described by a survey by Curtis L. McAllister dated February 13, 1990 and is reported to contain in aggregrate a total of 152.20 acres. The subject property includes all of the land now owned by Manning and Ross, LLC as recorded in Deed Book 948 at page 1760, and contains 51.0 acres. The conditions proffered are as follows: A) AREA ZONED RP -140.2 ACRES 1. MAXIMUM DENSITY The total number of lots shall be limited so as not to exceed a 2.5 unit per acre density for the entire subject area. 2. PROHIBITED UNIT TYPES Townhouses, weak -link townhouses, and garden apartments, as defined in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, shall not be permitted. 3. RECREATION CENTER A community recreation center shall be included in the master development of the subject site. This recreation center shall have a floor area of at least 3,000 square feet and shall include a pool and an outdoor multi -purpose playing court; the facade shall be constructed of brick, wood product, masonry, or drivet. Said facility shall be open for membership by residents of all subdivisions resulting from this Channing Drive Rezoning and shall also be open for membership to all other area residents. 4. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS Pedestrian walkways shall be provided in the master development plan in addition to required sidewalks. Nature trails shall be constructed by the applicant in open space areas, in dedicated easements, and in tandem with the regional stormwater management network. Said trails shall also link to similar trail systems in adjacent housing developments, and shall be six feet wide with a wood chip or mulched surface. See Exhibit A attached. 5. SOLID WASTE The owners of the subject property shall pay $100.00/mo. to Frederick County for the use of the solid waste facility located on the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company property and serving the Greenwood/Senseny Road area. Said payment shall be made from the time Frederick County encumbers and signs a new lease for the expansion of said. facility, or acquires another facility serving this general area, and shall c6ntinue for a period of ten years, or the term of said lease, whichever is less. Greenway Engineering 0 0 Channing Drive Rezoning B) AREA ZONED B2 -12.0 ACRES 1. PROHIBITED USES The following uses shall not be permitted on the subject property: Description SIC Automotive dealers 55 Hotels and motels 701 Organization hotels and lodging 704 Golf driving ranges & miniature golf courses 7999 Self-service storage facilities --- Commercial batting cages operated outdoors --- 2. MAXIMUM BUILDOUT In the B2 area established by this rezoning, the maximum cumulative floor area of all buildings in said B2 area shall not exceed 120,000 square feet. 3. BUILDING FACADES Commercial structures within the proposed B2 area shall be faced with brick, drivet, or architectural block on three (3) sides. C) ENTIRE PARCEL 1. MANNING DRIVE Charming Drive is a new major collector which will be constructed along the western boundary of the subject property. Charming Drive shall consist of an 80' dedicated right-of-way with two 12' lanes, along with any associated turn lanes required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. This thoroughfare will be built in sections as warranted by adjacent development. The following criteria establish when the property owner is required to extend Charming Drive: a) Each subdivision plan for residential housing adjacent to a portion of Charming Drive that has not yet been constructed shall include the construction of the adjacent portion of said drive in the subdivision plan. b) The construction of the first section of Charming Drive, from Senseny Road to the proposed B2 area, shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area if said road section has not yet been constructed. VA fm Greenway Engineering -i' l -1 s x Charming Drive Iezotting QJJr_''SI ' c) All of Channing Drive from Valley Mill Road to Senseny Road shall be constricted, open for traffic and dedicated to Frederick County before the 475th residential building permit is issued for any of the parcels listed in Article I of this proffer. 2. STREETSCAPE The main entrance road into the residential subdivision established on the Giles Farm property shall have four travel lanes, and shall have a median strip at least 10 feet wide. Said roadway shall be streetscaped with deciduous trees (at least one tree per 80 lineal feet), ground cover and shrubbery as allowed by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 3. TRAFFIC SIGNALS a) The installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Senseny Road and Channing Drive shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area, if a traffic signal has not yet been installed at said intersection should residential traffic meet signalization warrants. The developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final site plan approval. b) The owners shall make a $25,000 cash contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Senseny Road (Route 657). This contribution shall be made to the Virginia Department of Transportation upon their request and upon approval by said department for the installation of this traffic signal. In the event a traffic signal is installed at said intersection before this contribution is made, the Virginia Department of Transportation may request the transfer of said contribution towards signalization at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659). The developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final subdivision and/or site plan approval. 4. BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS There is currently a one -lane bridge on Valley Mill Road where it crosses Abrams Creek. The owners of the subject property shall pay towards feasibility studies, engineering, or construction of improvements to this crossing. These monies, paid to Frederick County, VA, are to be set aside for said improvements, and may be considered by the county for matching funds. Said payments shall be $100.00 per residential lot, at the time the initial building permit is issued for said lot. The owner of the subject property shall be required to pay said monies until the Virginia Department of Transportation awards a contract for a two lane expansion and construction of these improvements on said bridge. 5. TURN LADIES AND RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION a) Right and left turn lanes shall be constructed on Senseny Road at the intersection with Channing Drive. Said lanes shall be constructed by the applicant at the time Channing Drive is connected to Senseny Road. b) Right and left turn lanes shall be constructed on Senseny Road at the intersection with the main entrance road into the GilesTarm subdivision. • i Greenway Engineering Q `� 1 F1 J i i t , ; i Channing Drive Rezoning t �J c) Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Commonwealth of Virginia along the entire frontage of Senseny Road. Said right-of-way shall extend 40' from the existing road centerline. d) The installation of a total of two turn lanes at the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area, if two turn lanes have not yet been installed at said intersection. The necessity of said turn lanes, and their configuration will be subject to later review by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The owners of the subject property shall install said turn lanes or pay to the Virginia Department of Transportation up to $15,000 per turn lane towards the installation of said turn lanes. e) This paragraph shall apply to parcels 55-((A))-206, and 65-((A))-39, 39A: The first site plan submitted for either of these parcels which will result in more than 120,000 sf of commercial area for both parcels collectively shall result in an updated traffic study to determine if additional offsite improvements are required. Said traffic study shall require approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 6. DRAINAGE AND WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT Sediment forebays shall be constructed upstream of Twin Lakes in order to decrease the siltation of said lake and to settle out man-made impurities. These sediment forebays shall be constructed in such a way as to encourage their development into a wetland with locally indigenous vegetation and wildlife. 7. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO OFFSET IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT a) Residential: In the event rezoning application # 15-9qs approved for rezoning, the owners of the subject property will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, $3,558.73 per residential lot prior to the initial building permit being issued for said lot This per lot monetary contribution provides for: $2,958.80 for Frederick County Public Schools $554.80 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation $45.13 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue These payments are intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services. b) Commercial: In the event rezoning application 45-99is approved for rezoning, the owners of the subject property will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, $3,898.68 prior to the initial building permit being issued within the B2 zoned area. This monetary contribution is intended to offset the additional capital costs to Frederick County for fire and rescue services. 0 Greenway Engineering Channing Drive Rezoning nu ADZTIC'LE IV: DPS GEORGE SHEPPARD & ALLEN FUTRAL This article shall apply only to those properties currently owned by Drs. George Sheppard & Allen Futral, property identification numbers 55-((A))-209, 211, 213, and 65-((A))-40. The subject property is more particularly described as all of the land owned by Fu-Shep Farm Partnership as recorded in Deed Book 789 at Page 1022 and further described by a survey by Curtis L. McAllister dated February 13, 1990. The conditions proffered are as follows: 1. M4,XIIv1UM DENSITY The total number of parcels shall be limited so as not to exceed a 2.2 unit per acre density for the entire collective area for parcels 55-((A))-209, 211, and 213, and a 2.5 unit per acre density for parcel 65-((A))-40. 2. PROHIBITED UNIT TYPES Townhouses, weak -link townhouses, and garden apartments, as defined in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, shall not be permitted. 3. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS Pedestrian walkways shall be provided in the master development plan in addition to required sidewalks. Nature trails shall be constructed by the applicant in open space areas, in dedicated easements, and in tandem with the regional stormwater management network. Said trails shall also link to similar trail systems in adjacent housing developments, and shall be six feet wide with a wood chip or mulched surface. See Exhibit A attached. 4. SOLID WASTE The owners of the subject property shall pay $100.00/mo. to Frederick County for the use of the solid waste facility located on the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company property and serving the Greenwood/Senseny Road area. Said payment shall be made from the time Frederick County encumbers and signs a new lease for the expansion of said facility, or acquires another facility serving this general area, and shall continue for a period of ten years, or the term of said lease, whichever is less. 5. CHANNING DRIVE All of Channing Drive from Valley Mill Road to Senseny Road shall be constructed, open for traffic and dedicated to Frederick County before the 475th residential building permit is issued for any of the parcels listed in Article I of this proffer. a 101 C� Greenway Engineering 0 Channing Drive Rezoning 6. TRAFFIC SIGNAL u'\ J " h z J 6 The owners shall make a $25,000 cash contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Senseny Road (Route 657). This contribution shall be made to the Virginia Department of Transportation upon their request and upon approval by said department for the installation of this traffic signal. In the event a traffic signal is installed at said intersection before this contribution is made, the Virginia Department of Transportation may request the transfer of said contribution towards signalization at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659). The developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final subdivision and/or site plan approval. 7. BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS There is currently a one -lane bridge on Valley Mill Road where it crosses Abrams Creek. The owners of the subject property shall pay towards feasibility studies, engineering, or construction of improvements to this crossing. These monies, paid to Frederick County, VA, are to be set aside for said improvements, and may be considered by the county for matching funds. Said payments shall be $100.00 per residential lot, at the time the initial building permit is issued for said lot. The owner of the subject property shall be required to pay said monies until the Virginia Department of Transportation awards a contract for a two lane expansion and construction of these improvements on said bridge. 8. DRAINAGE AND WETLANDS DEVELOPIVIENT Sediment forebays shall be constructed upstream of Twin Lakes in order to decrease the siltation of said lake and to settle out man-made impurities. These sediment forebays shall be constructed in such a way as to encourage their development into a wetland with locally indigenous vegetation and wildlife. 9. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO OFFSET IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT In the event rezoning application #15-99 is approved, 'and the property is subsequently developed within an RP zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia $4,205.14 per residential lot prior to the initial building permit being issued for said lot. This per lot monetary contribution provides for: $3,568.94 for Frederick County Public Schools $591.07 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation $45.13 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services. 11 0 0 Green way Engineering July 2, 1999 tanning Drive Rezoning ARTICLE V: SIGNATURES The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: i Robert A. Giles, hXeCutor, Giles Farm Commonwealth of Virginia, `f To Wit:Cit JCountty T, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 33day of A4.:z� . �,��! , , 1999 by n I 1 1. Notary Public My Commission Expires ,� �� 1�';� C' '1 /i"t�' ohn Scully, tynnehav4L.0 Commonwealth of Virginia, r) CityCC �_2C4s1 j'\1A- ' : 4� > To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of : o:�M� �r��1999 by U n-r,�MWV- , Notary Public 1 My Commission Expires In.—)\ t_ _ L :3 i 12 S5�� - �- ''�--r Dr. George Sheppdi l - Margie Sheppard f Commonwealth of Virginia, C44goun�of A--� s? X 0 AQt C .-r To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of AJ Uk a U n !1, 1999 by lNotary Public t My Commission Expires ---�C-- Dr. Allen Futral Commonwealth of Virginia, City/ounty of s,\ 2 X1 o n v �r- ., To Wit: etty Futral The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 4 k day of OAu�f i , r'n r -�'\. � �- i- L V / Notary Publict My Commission Expires LI ' IC( )\ ,h �I , 0OC� 1 V Greenrvay Engineering • Channing Drive Rezoning Commonwealth of Virginia, La City ty of To Wit: 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this + day of C_ , 1999 by r c-,o rkl\f-\ Notary Public My Commission Expires ancroft, Manager, Manning and Ross, LLC Commonwealth of Virginia, Ci /CCoun of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this L p day of�� , 1999 by Notary Public My Commission Expires Lr , I 14 0 C� TRAIL RC EXI Engineer Surveyor Founded in 1971 9, 1999 =1000, G COMMONWEALT F VIRGINIAIR -'I-- , - - - -:`IN - --- * ------- - - - - - - ; : - , � : - ': 06-^ ------ ------- - - . ..... .. - - - � .1 :=- -- --------- --- -- ----- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - EX: 7 -Alt !A6 TECHNELE-S' 4:5 VSL FF T,'NDE;;D 29. 0 AMOUNT CHANGE PT CLc EBECCA F. HIGGAN DC-1 8 (3/99) Page 1 of 2 C7 • Greenway Engineering From: Ziemer, Vega <VZIEMER@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> To: <greenway@visuallink.com> Cc: Diamond, Jim <Diamond_JB@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>; Harris, Clarence (C.B.) <CHarris@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>; Heironimus, David (Dave) <Heironimus_D@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>; <ewyatt@co.frederick.va.us>; <ktierney@co.frederick.va.us>; Melnikoff, Steve <SMELNIKOFF@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>; Funkhouser, Rhonda <Funkhouser_R@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 9:08 AM Subject: Traffic Analysis, Channing Drive Rezoning, Route 657, Frederick County << ... >> Commonwealth of Virginia - Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 ' (540) 984-5600 - Fax (540) 984-5607 September 1, 1999 Mr. Mark Smith, P.E., L.S. Greenway Engineering, Inc. 151 Windy Hill Lane Ref: Traffic Analysis Winchester, VA 22602 Channing Drive Rezoning Route 657, Frederick County Dear Mr. Smith: VDOT has completed the review of a traffic impact analysis prepared by Callow Transportation Consulting (CTC) for the referenced development rezonings. Based on this review, we have the following comments and concerns: 1. This analysis is based on the assumption that Route 656 will be constructed according to plan and additional lanes constructed at the intersection of Routes 656 and 659. 2. The CTC study has determined that the Route 657 link east of the Route 657/656 intersection will need to become a four -lane section to the first project entrance with the retail component (Channing Drive). The four-laning of Route 657 will need to be completed prior to the build -out of the developments outlined in the Channing Drive rezoning. • 3. A traffic signal will be needed on Route 659 at the intersection of Route 656 prior to build -out of the residential areas. VDOT will ask the 9/3/99 Page 2 of 2 developer to enter into a signal agreement at all locations in this CTC study, along with those locations stipulated in the rezoning documents. iBased on our review of the CTC study, VDOT concurs that the traffic growth associated with this rezoning will be acceptable and manageable with the proposed improvements. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Steven A. Melnikoff Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer SAM/vcz Cy: Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. C. B. Harris Mr. D. A. Heironimus Mr. Evan Wyatt Mr. Kris Tierney • • 9/3/99 �i COpBw I ' i O COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAVID R. GEHR EDINBURG RESIDENCY JERRYA. COPP COMMISSIONER 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE RESIDENT ENGINEER P.O. BOX 278 TELE (540) 984-5600 EDI NBURG, VA 22824-0278 FAX (540) sea-5607 September 2, 1999 Mrs. Gina A. Forrester c/o Friends of Frederick P. 0. Box 3771 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mrs. Forrester: Ref: Channing Drive Rezoning Traffic Impact Analysis Route 657 — Frederick County VDOT has just completed a review of the final traffic impact analysis prepared by Callow Transportation Consulting (CTC). Based on our review, VDOT concurs that the traffic growth associated with this rezoning will be acceptable and manageable with the proposed improvement. Please find attached herewith for your review and information a copy of the CTC document. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call. SAM/vcz Cy: Mr. D. A. Heironimus Mr. Evan Wyatt Sincerely, Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer S f�r:n s P 0 7 '1999 DEPT. OF PLANNINGIDEVELOPMENT WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 01/14/1994 18:02 154072*8 GREENWAV ENGI*ING PAGE 02 Greenwood Volunteer Fire & Reserve Company, .Inc. P. 0. Box 3023 Winchester, �Iitginia 22604 Special Board Meeting May 18, 1899 meetina was opened by President, Charlie Dunn at 9:W P.M. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering had a site plan and land swap for the dumpster site with the-CO'unty of Frederick after reviewing the plan 3,ddie Keeler made a motion to move the dums>eter site according to the site plan, extend lea0e.to County of Frederick. until 2004 at $300.00 dollars per month, seconded by Cunpingham, motion carried 10 yes, 1 no, and 1 abet, president did not cast a vote. Meet irig adjourned Mikie Cli.i' O , Secretary c/o to Mark Smith, Greunway Engineering Aderick County Public Scholps 1415 Amherst Street Post Office Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 Telephone: (540) 662-3888 — FAX (540) 722-2788 Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent June 7, 1999 Mr. Ralph Beeman Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 REF: Rezoning Comments, Sheppard/Futral Parcel Dear Mr. Beeman: I am in receipt of your request for rezoning comments concerning a parcel of land to be rezoned from RA (Rural Area) to RP (Residential Performance). It is my understanding the proposed rezoning from RA to RP will allow the construction of approximately 293 single family homes. You have also indicated the land to be rezoned is approximately 132.70 acres in size and is at the following location: At the end of Eddy's Lane (Route 820) and adjacent to the Apple Ridge Subdivision. The prior approval of a number of subdivisions in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollment near or exceeding their design capacity. The cumulative impact of this project, along with the potential for the development of approved residential lots in this area, will necessitate the construction of additional school facilities requiring a significant expenditure of financial resources to accommodate growth in student enrollment. In addition to the initial capital expenditure needed for the construction of new school facilities, the process of providing educational services to the students generated by this rezoning will result in an increase to the annual operating cost of the school division. It is very important that the impact of the proposed rezoning on current and future school needs be considered during the approval process. Sincerely, Thomas Sullivan Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent p.c.: Dr. William C. Dean, Superintendent of Schools, Frederick County Public Schools Mr. Robert Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration, Frederick County Public Schools Arderick County Public SchoRs 1415 Amherst Street Post Office Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 Telephone: (540) 662-3888 — FAX (540) 722-2788 Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent June 7 1999 Mr. Ralph Beeman, Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 REF: Rezoning Comments, Lynnehaven, L.C. Dear Mr. Beeman: I am in receipt of your request for rezoning comments concerning a proposal to rezone a parcel of land containing approximately 91.4 acres in the following manner: (1) 81.4 acres from RA (Rural Area) to RP and B2 (Residential Performance and Business General); and, (2) 10.0 acres from RA (Rural Area) to B2 (Business General). It is my understanding the proposed rezoning from RA to RP and B2 will allow the construction of approximately 203 single family units and commercial development of a maximum of 100,000 square feet in the areas designated RA and B2, respectively. You have also indicated the land to be rezoned is 91.4 acres in size and is at the following location: On the west side of Beans Pond Lane, 150' from the intersection with Senseny Road, and adjacent to the Carlisle Heights subdivision. The prior approval of a number of subdivisions in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollment near or exceeding their design capacity. The cumulative ?n?paCt ofthis protect, .'.lb 1JIL the p0`' i;tiai for .y ie Ci�'�%eivpiileI'iL OI approved residential IOIS in this area, Wlll necessitate the construction of additional school facilities requiring the expenditure of significant capital resources to accommodate growth in student enrollment. In addition to the initial expenditures needed for the construction of new school facilities, the process of providing educational services to the students generated by this rezoning will result in an increase to the annual operating cost of the school division. It is very important that the impact of the proposed rezoning on current and future school needs be considered during the approval process. 4"�' Sincerely, T o as Sullivan Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent p.c.: Dr. William C. Dean, Superintendent of Schools, Frederick County Public Schools Mr. Robert Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration, Frederick County Public Schools Aderick County Public Sch 0s 1415 Amherst Street Post Office Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 Telephone: (540) 662-3888 — FAX (540) 722-2788 Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent June 7 1999 Mr. Ralph Beeman, Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 REF: Rezoning Comments, Giles Farm Dear Mr. Beeman: I am in receipt of your request for rezoning comments concerning a proposal to rezone a parcel of land containing approximately 152.2 acres in the following manner: (1) 140.2 acres from RA (Rural Area) to RP (Residential Performance); and, (2) 12 acres from RA (Rural Area) to B2 (Business General). It is my understanding the proposed rezoning from RA to RP and B2 will allow the construction of approximately 350 single family units and commercial development of more than 120,000 square feet in the areas designated RA and B2, respectively. You have also indicated the land to be rezoned is approximately 152.2 acres in size and is at the following location: North side of Senseny Road, 650' east of Beans Pond Lane, across from the Burning Knolls subdivision and adjacent to the Bedford Village and Apple Ridge Subdivisions. The prior approval of a number of subdivisions in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollment near or exceeding their design capacity. The cumulative impact of this project, along with the potential for the development of approved residential lots in this area, will necessitate the construction of addi%ioiial school Iacilities requiring a significant expenditure of nnanciai resources to accommodate growth in student enrollment. In addition to the initial capital expenditure needed for the construction of new school facilities, the process of providing educational services to the students generated by this rezoning will result in an increase to the annual operating cost of the school division. It is very important that the impact of the proposed rezoning on current and future school needs be considered during the approval process. Sincerely, Thomas Sullivan Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent p.c.: Dr. William C. Dean, Superintendent of Schools, Frederick County Public Schools Mr. Robert Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration, Frederick County Public Schools /:N GREENWAY ENGI EERING is k*T007 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Founded in 1971 TRANSMITTAL Project Name: CHANNI VG DRIVE REZONING File No.: Date: 2185, 2285, 2286 September 9, 1999 To: Frederick County Planning Dept. From: Ralph Beeman Attn: Evan Wyatt GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Copied: Remarks: r- Urgerrt W For Your Review r As You Requested r Please Comment Message: Please find enclosed the following documents for the CHANNNG DRIVE REZONING: 1. Application 2. Proffer 3. New comment sheets from VDOT, Public Schools, Public Works, Commonwealth Attny 4. Exhibit 5. Verification of taxes paid These documents should be all that is necessary, combined with all previously submitted documents for the Giles Farm, Lynnehaven, and Sheppard/Futral Rezonings, for this CHANNING DRIVE REZONING to be put on the agenda for the October 6"' Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions or comments, please call me. Thank you Ralph SEP ]_ 0 1999 Engineers Surveyors Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528DEPT, OF PLANNING/DE"VELOPMENT greenway@visuallink.com • COUNTY of FREDERICK September 9, 1999 Mr. Mark D. Smith, P.E. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Channing Drive (Giles) Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mark: Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 Your submission of the revised traffic study for the subject rezoning had adequately addressed our previous review comments. Therefore, we grant our approval of the proposed rezoning. Sincerely, to HarveY E. Straw sn der Jr. P.E. Y � Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Frederick County Planning and Zoning file 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 6 0 0 fIANNING DRIVE REZONINIP Rezoning Comments 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 icant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Coun ney's office with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, er statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Greenway EnIzineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Attn: Ralph Beeman Location of property: On Senseny Road, on both sides of Beans Pond Lane, and off of Eddy Lane (Route 820) and adjacent to the Apple Ridge Subdivision 22.0 ac B2 Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: 354.3 ac RP Acreage: 376.3 (`nnnty Affnrnnv9c Cnmmnnfc- ssistant County Attorney'0-,,- Signature & Date: Notice to ty Attornev - Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments 0 0 Frederick County Fire Marshal .............. Mail to: Frederick County Fire Marshal Fire & Rescue Dept. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-6350 0 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attn: Fire Marshal County Administration Bldg., I st Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia ............ ... ... .. . .. ........ ....................... ................ ...::,.:...... ...................:...... ............................................................ ....... ...............................:........-`.:.,."............"..... .-......................."... .........................s............................................................... .......... ........... ..........I............................. ...................... .......................... .............. ..... . ................I.. :b.fiM:'cbura .......bossibte:.m;:ordOf:t... ..-..........;.......... . �ptAnt!:Pleas&fidt brmatond pp :.,,y ............................................................ ........................................ .... OuJ#T r6he.. AI ac .x.orm.":; ..... ..... Y4c .... e"j ft- iiiem::e:***ni:,�j,mP:; a'cf:ana.-.YMs*::,an i ah�vii*dt lb ''t. mentIn orma, ow: ... ..... ........ Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Ell Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Attn: Ralph Beeman Location of property: Sheppard/Futral Rezoning - At the end of Eddy's Lane (Route 820) and adjacent to the Apple Ridge Subdivision. Current zoning: RA Fire Marshal's Comments: ire Marshal's Signature & Date: Notice to Fire Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 132.70 ac - Please Return This Form to the Applicant COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No.RZ98-0019 Date Received 12/28/98 Date Reviewed 2/3/99 Applicant Greenway Engineering Address 151 Windy Hill Ln. Winchester, VA Project Name Sheppard / Futral Phone No. Type of ApplicationRezoning Current Zoning RA 1st Due Fire Co. 18 1st Due Rescue Co. 18 Election DistrictShawnee Tax I.D. No. RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler System Residential Sprinkler SystemXX Automatic Fire Alarm SystemXX Other REQUIREMENTS Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Fire Lanes Required Yes No XX Comments Emergency access must be maintained. Roadway/Aisleway Widths Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Special Hazards Noted Yes No XX Comments Hydrant Locations Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Siamese Location Adequate Inadequate Not Identified XX Additional Comments Attached? Yes No XX Plan Approval Recommended? Yes XX N Pq Signature Title AV, Rezoning Comments .'� L YNNEHA VEN;� L: @'�r Frederick County Fire Marshal ..,no.`.`r{::S:S�:F�.c'v`.�„w...... £........., uu4.......i....,... f k.....�..........w.......„..r...........,a........w.,..........�........,:::=.3;'.;::is:..;:"RG::............:£f...../ �..G r.G�:G..S,LG ..cw�...::.Lcw...,�•a;? Mail to: Frederick County Fire Marshal,,: !` Fire & Rescue Dept.' 107 North Kent Street .. ; Winchester, Virginia 22601.;� (540) 665-6350 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attn: Fire Marshal County Administration Bldg., 1 st Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia ... ..... .................... .... :...............:.........:........::.......:...:..:::...::....:......:....:.::................................ ................... ............... ....:......:.......::::..:::...................................................................... ................................. .... ................................ ........ .............. . ................. ::.....:......:........:...:....: A .an t: Please,fill:_out :the.uif©rrriation:°as.aecuratel ,..,as;.:osi .. _e_iri:or....er.to° assist. y P Frederick County Fire. arshal::: �v th lus review Attach a copy ofyour application form, ,:. P:::p ::: p ........::..�'......... ........... . . locatzon:ma ,. roller stafeu�ent;:.1m act anal s1s, and an other ertlnenf information Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 Attn: Ralph Beeman Location of property: On the west side of Beans Pond Lane, 150' from the intersection with Senseny Road and adjacent to the Carlisle Heights subdivision. Z RP-81.4ac Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B2 - 10.0 ac Acreage: 91.4 ac Fire Marshal's Comments: ire Marshal's Signature & Date: Z Notice to Fire Marshal - Please Return This Form to the Applicant COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No.RZ98-0019 Date Received 12/28/98 Date Reviewed 2/2/99 Applicant Greenway Engineering Address 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA Project Name Lynnhaven, L. C. Phone No. Type of ApplicationRezoning Current Zoning RA 1st Due Fire Co. 18 1st Due Rescue Co. 18 Election DistrictShawnee Tax I.D. No. RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler System Residential Sprinkler SystemXX Automatic Fire Alarm SystemXX Other REQUIREMENTS Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Fire Lanes Required Yes No XX Comments Emergency access must be maintained. Roadway/Aisleway Widths Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Special Hazards Noted Yes No XX Comments Hydrant Locations Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Siamese Location Adequate Inadequate Not Identified XX Additional Comments Attached? Yes No XX Plan Approval Recommended? Yes XX No Signature Title G Rezoning Comments • Frederick County Fire Marshal ...»»',': ';>:�;>s»ors%.)m)»;r)n»»)r»»»>.>mz?:.»�»:»yaza`•o.:.,..,»:�».'rr.�»�unz»,.»):.z�n.:'.))'--r. .> ,::;;•�;>zcw's;:�;<„:::::�ci;'Sax;:::r.::z:•.,�:zxE<a::�xs>:�.r�H:wr::o:::.:�.�..:::::.:.:...::..::.%%,:.:...rcm:';:>:::.w»"w:;wssM. :_:.....:....:>.. .,.»,..:� Mail to: Frederick County Fire Marshal Fire & Rescue Dept. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 J �' (540) 665-6350;^ Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attn: Fire Marshal County Administration Bldg., 1 st Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia order:. ... s .... ....... ................. ............ li A lzcan#:: Please:f�ll':out:ah :iriforrrmatiori'as .accuratet° as...ossible,m......:.......:..:::to_.,as . s..::.....:: ......... .............. PP.:::Y:::::::..P:.::::.::::.:::::::..:::..::::.::::.:::::::::::::::::::.:::::: :: ............. ......... :... Erederick:C.ount :F�re.Marshal::vuith:lus:revFew::Ataeh;;a;ca af::::our:a : lcat�oriform? Y:.:::....:........:..::......::.......:.......::....::...:.::.....::...::..: PY::::::::::Y:::::::::::::.::: P::.::.:::::..:::::::::::::::::.:.::................... . ..............:...... ..............................:.:......,.... locatiori::ma roffer'tafement im act'aaal :pis ari'da:: titer: ertienfxnfor.:mation; P::....:..:.::..:.............................a..::..::P: Y..:.::....................Y..:::.....::::::::::::P::::::::::::::.::::':::::................... Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 Attn: Ralph Beeman Location of property: GILES FARM -North side of Senseny Road, 650' east of Beans Pond Lane across from the Burning Knolls subdivision, and adjacent to the Bedford Village and Apple Ridge Subdivisions. 142.2 ac RP Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: 12.0 ac B2 Acreage: 152.2 ac Fire Marshal's Comments: ire Marshal's Signature & Date: Notice to Fire Marshal - Please Return This Form to the Applicant • COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No.RZ98-0018 Date Received 12/28/98 Date Reviewed 2/3/99 Applicant Greenway Engineering Address 151 Windy Hill Ln. Winchester, VA 22602 Project Name Giles Farm Type of ApplicationRezoning 1st Due Fire Co. 18 1st Due Rescue Co. 18 Tax I.D. No. RECOMMENDATIONS Phone No. Current Zoning RA Election DistrictShawnee Automatic Sprinkler System Residential Sprinkler SystemXX Automatic Fire Alarm SystetnXX Other REQUIREMENTS Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Fire Lanes Required Yes No XX Comments Emergency access must be maintained. Roadway/Aisleway Widths Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Special Hazards Noted Yes No XX Comments Hydrant Locations Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Siamese Location Adequate Inadequate Not Identified XX Additional Comments Attached? Yes No XX Plan Approval Recommended? Yes XX No Signature Title • 0 Rezoning Comments .rnri.l r:...r....�..:rr riR%ii�/HrfiY.•:%riFf%/hctir.'ii:`iiln):'9riRY»rSF:rY':Y'.:»itie:»»::??'>:irk'k:.b`Y."r:Y':'.?h::SiiYXti.»e.'f?.Fri� Sv .r. Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia A.:::::::::......:.::.:::::::::::.............::::::::::::::::: :::::;;; :::;:::::; ::::::::::::. ............:: ... ..:................. iicant:. please. l� :out the:information:asaccuratel..;:as:..ass�i......:;; r.:...er. to:assstt.. l P...::.:.::...:.....:.:..... ::::::::-::::.......:: ::::: P:.:..:::::::::::::::::.::::.:::::.:::::::::::::::.::.::...::::::::::.::.:..;. ......::::...::::....::: >:::::::::: Sanitation .Authority;.wth their review_:::Attach. a. copy: of dour appljcaticsn form;: locatio ::.:::: .....:.....:.:......... .......... .n ::.. f.::: ma roffer::atatement :.un act .anal ..sis;: and :an .::other:: ertme.....t;;m . ormatian ....::.....::.:.:::::::::.::.:::.::.:.:..:.:....:..... ...........:...... Y..:...::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-P::::::::::::::::::.::::::::..::::.......................:::..::::::::::.-:::: Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 Attn: Ralph Beeman Location of property: Sheppard/Futral Rezoning - At the end of Eddy's Lane (Route 820) and adjacent to the Apple Ridge Subdivision Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 132.70 ac Cn.,i+ntinn A i■+hnri+v Cnmman+a- Sanitation Authority Signature &Date: Notice to Sanitation Authority - Please Return This Form to the Applicant • L FAMIL4 PTN L.C. 0 Rezoning Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer - P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia . ......... .........:............ ...................................................... ......... .. ....................... :. .................... ................... ............................ ....... .......................... ........................... .. *......................... .... .::... ........... .............................:................. ..... '...... ..... .... ................................ ... ............... .......... -:;as ........................... . *"'*"-':.;:::::... .......... .. .i' s':`:::: . ....Abucanb,Pl fill: -out: effifbina fias:accur bossi:qn.0er..0siftt � '........ $WkidJAdth htheir ;Attach . I lon:Iorft location proffer. statement,:unpact an any other ............. ..................... . ............ .. .. Applicant's Name: - Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Attn: Ralph Beeman Location of property: On the west side of Beans Pond Lane, 150' from the intersection with — SenseU Road, and adjacent to the Carlisle Heights subdivision. RP - 81.4 ac Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B2 - 10.0 ac Acreage: 91.4 ac Sanitation Authority Signature & Date-:70.4�'//Z.' c Notice to Sanitation Authority - Please Return This Form to the Applicant I Rezoning Comments .:....:::.:..:::i'aV5i:w5�".'.:::`''^;«i`S'/.555,:».:.5»»S,S�:.,i:5.,5...:. �....5 .:^:.:,»,...^.:: »:,:^.,:.:....::. ...:.:.,.... .,^.:.:...:.:,...^•: iis"bi2 �i%S. :v.;xaZc�:x;:a� :r�a�;rma �::Q�:a..§".,:EE•.�.`:.: r��:'»>x:•�`.:�;>;»:;;.:;� >'m � � .`i'.�: rca::;:."S.>a.,£�.:;.:a:? �-Z<,`�aizGC:,�:,`z':FS'=>i>!os:.:..z.�.G�..c.....,.`:.:<;::c::c: E:',w.::::iio»:„"� Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia :::.:........:::.:...-::.::..:... ..... ............ :....:............. .................................................................... A 'scant Tull vu�...lit iTif iiila�i0i2 aS a�Utii.a cly; aS OS 1 lii, vt.uZl w aBSlZc. Lu ...... . Sanitation Authori with their'review � Att-a' : . ©... af:.:q:ur:.:. °a I cation %rin :: °oca;.Yon;' ` ty.......:.::...:::::::::...:.:..::..........:................ p�'....... Y.....:.:.........pA::....::.....:.......:...:....:...:....::_:.::::.:.......... ............ ........ ma rof%rafatement im .act anal ss'aridan .:.ot._ er::.ertmen...an..orma.ion: Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 Attn: Ralph Beeman Location of property: GILES FARM -North side of Senseny Road, 650' east of Beans Pond Lane across from the Burning Knolls subdivision, and adjacent to the Bedford Village and Apple Ridge Subdivisions 142.2 ac RP Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: 12.0 ac B2 Acreage: 152.2 ac Cn..i+ntinn An+hnA*+Tf'nmmnn+c- Sanitation Authority Signature & Date'>, nr��'// .✓�': Notice to Sanitation Authority - Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments 0 0 Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation ?m-ar,,r'%nn ., ..ek <?^�:... _<,......� ..�..x................:...a..:: r...:.,.. aa... n,........¢................:.:...9r.<z.-r.,::;xaw,ux>ux.�;;^x>::�"::_::.,Y,>«:;' >o. .:: {.::...:,�k..::.:...:::..........:....:...<..,;.:,.....,,...:.,.:.,:::.:,..�:,.:.....:..........:.:. o..,.,:.:....,....... .4. :::: ..,,.:.: .,..,,,,.,.v.,w,.....wwk,,,,,,,,.�L...::i...,c:F...w:...cwar.................ca� 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 ................:. ....... .::::::::::::::::::::::: .: licantr:Please:��ll..oux..the information..as accurately. as passible r or.. er to assist e' ............. . ..parinent ofParks&:Recreatioil�vith`their°revteW_ Aifacha°ca .°..:Q..::oura ....icatlan= t....:._:. ::::....:.:.:... .......�.....:::::: '......:........ .......::::::.::::::=::::::::::::::::::::: :::: ............................ .....:....:...... ..... ....:.......:............. .. arm cation :ma roller° statement J 'act _an:aI .a. s a i... - .: ot...:er :.e_..:.... nen..: .........o1�..P:::.... F.:..Y..:.....::;:::::::::.::::::::::..:::::::::::: Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Attn: Rath Beeman Location of property: Sheppard/Futral Rezoning - At the end of Eddy's Lane (Route 820) and adjacent to the Apple Ridge Subdivision Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 132.70 ac llonor+mPnt of Parka Rr RrrrPntinn f amment-v - r --- If the impact model used for this development reflects current information from the Planning Department, it would appear the proposed proffer will meet the Parks and Recreational needs created by this development. Also this department would recommend that the trail system be designed to accommodate bic cles and connect with adjacent developments being considered. re&Date: c �c�' 1/6/99 Pks. & Rec. Signature � ./m.� � �V Notice to Department of Parks '1 Recreation - Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments • LYNNEHAVEN, L.C. • Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation �l<�:n�T:..m,.�_�...wVi�......,.._.%gin:) ♦+nnr^m' >�> 's;3xcza 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 :. .... :.... ,cant:Please'fill nut. tlre.snformation as accurately as possible in order to assist the :> : :.::.:.:..:.::...:..:: .:.:: .. .. :::::.:::::::::: .. o ::::our: hcatlon e artment of Parks:;:&Recreation:. nth.thee review : A ach: a: a 113'::.- Y.:::.....::....ph::.::.:......:::.::::::::::::::: :::.: ............ ....:.:::::::::::::::::.,:.:::,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::............:;:::::::::::::::: orm aocatiod :ma rof%r"statement :iin"act analy..s►s aft: Yan :ot....:er::..e , nen_. p�:.1:.:::.::::::.:..........::...::..:..:....::::p:.::..............:..:::'......:.........::..::::::::::::::':::::::.:::::.:::::::::::..:::::::-:::::::::::::: Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Attn: Ralph Beeman Location of property: On the west side of Beans Pond Lane. 150' from the intersection with Senseny Road and adjacent to the Carlisle Heights subdivision. RP-81.4ac Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B2 - 10.0 ac Acreage: 91.4 ac D.-narfmPnt of Parke & RPerPntinn C".nmments: If the impact model used for this development reflects current information from the Planning Department, it would appear the proposed proffer will meet the Parks and Recreational needs created by this development. Also, this department would recommend that the trail system be designed to accommodate bicycles and connect witn aajacent developments being considered. 14 Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: �/ �G�-a�n�� T1�-� 1 6 99 Notice to Department of Parr& Recreation - Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments L7 Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation v»>»�n»�»>.>,nmr.;>.>.».x>�zm.»>:z>:z:r;::»;.z•:r.»,rn: rnr . »n�.n.:ruin»nv>.<>.rnx>.>.a.,;:<>.»;�»:pn>.>.>.>.vsa. 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 ............. .....::..... :.::.:::::.::::::::::::::::::............:::::;.....:................:::::::::fi.::............::::::::::::: ........................................sib lic nt:Pleasefill::outthevzformationas:aceuratel.::as osor ertoassistt e: ...........................................................................................:..:::....:::::::.:::P::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::.::::......:............... ::.:.::::........... pp ::.:: :::::::........................::.::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..:::::::::::::::::::..::.::.....:...........................................................................................................................:.:::::::::::: e artmeint of Parks &&&Reereatiori v th.their retnew Attach::a .eo ._:.; ;€rf:: ou .....;a . l ..... p:::::::::::.::.::::::.:..::...::...:.:...:::...:.:........:.......................::.:.::...::::: ::::::::::::.::.:: 3'..::::.:::3'.::.:::::::::::.:PP:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::.::::::::::::::. .:.:::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::......:::...............:::::::::::::::::::::: orm° :location ma' coffer:.°statement : im act anal sus° and an .;; oth:er ...:ei ne. r Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Attn: Ralph Beeman Location of property: GILES FARM -North side of Senseny Road, 650' east of Beans Pond Lane across from the Burning Knolls subdivision, and adjacent to the Bedford Village and Apple Ride Subdivisions 142.2 ac RP Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: 12.0 ac B2 Acreage: 152.2 ac Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: If the impact model used for this development reflects current information from the Planning Department, it would appear the proposed proffer will meet the Parks and Recreational needs created by this development. Also, this department would recommend that the trail system be designed to accommodate bicycles and connect with adjacent developments being considered. Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: C ,'�'iU s�-�--� 1 Notice to Department of Parks/I Recreation - Please Return This Form to the Applicant t� 0 a' I1SPACT STATEIIIIENT FOR THE LA NJ) OF PROPERTYID NUMBERS 55-((A))-2091211, 213 and 65-((A))-40 REZONING APPLICATION January 7, 1999 Greenivig Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lorne Mitchester, VA 22602 Greenw ay Engineering January 7, 1999 Slaepp ai-A@ al Impact Statement INTRODUCTION The subject property, tax map nos. 55-((A))-209, 211, 213, and 65-((A))-40, is a contiguous group of parcels located between Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and Senseny Road (Route 657). Eddy's Lane (Route 320) terminates on the subject site, and the Apple Ridge subdivision borders the property. The total acreage for these parcels is 132.70 acres. The current zoning is Rural Areas (RA), and the proposed zoning is Residential Performance (RP). This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by this rezoning. SITE+ SUITABILITY The subject property is located within the "Urban Development Area" as defined within the Frederick County Comprehensive Polite Plan. This designation reflects the intention of Frederick County to allow for more intensive development on the subject site. The purpose of this area designation is to direct the expansion and improvement of public utilities and infrastructure to areas that will be intensively developed. Flood Plains The subject site is located on FEMA NFIP map # 510063-0120-E. The site is located within a "ZONE C" area. No portion of the subject site is in a 100 yr. flood plain. The site does include intermittent streams, as well as a natural impoundment known as Twin Lakes. Wetlands Twin Lakes is listed in the National Wetlands Inventory Map as a wetland. Mature Woodlands Approximately 35%of the subject site is wooded. This estimate is based on aerial mapping, and has not been conclusively verified on the ground. Soil Types Information for soil types on this site has been obtained from the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia, by the USDS Soil Conservation Service. Prime Agricultural Soils Only 10% of the subject property contains soils that are suited to cultivated crops or hay. Approximately 35% of the site could be used for pasture. Greenfvay Engineering • January 7, 1999 Sheppars I -al Impact &atement Steep Slopes Approximately 40% of the subject property includes slopes greater than 15%. These areas are located along the intermittent streams, and along established drainways. The site will be graded to insure its usability for residential housing, while leaving intact the areas of steep slopes nearest the established drainways, and meeting all zoning requirements. Construction Concerns There are several aspects of the soils and the geology of the subject site that will need to be addressed in order to establish a residential community on this property. The depth to shale bedrock ranges from 15 to 30 inches. This will present some grading difficulties, requiring more fill to be placed than cut. Some of the shale can be reused as fill, since it is generally friable. There is a seasonal high water table on roughly 5 acres of the subject site. Between October and April, the water table in these areas is within six inches of the surface. This feature will present only a minor obstacle, which can be surmounted with proper grading and sound geotechnical design. Steep slope is also listed as a limitation to development, but by ordinance only 25% can be developed. In conclusion, proper design and construction techniques will be used so that the soil and geology of the subject property will not interfere with the proposed development. SURROUNDMG PROPERTIES All of the properties adjoining the subject site are either undeveloped or are single-family homes, and are zoned either Rural Areas (RA) or Residential Performance (RP). The homes on the adjoining lots in the Apple Ridge subdivision are within 50' of the subject property. All other homes on adjoining parcels are greater than 100' of the adjoining boundary. BASIS FOR DETERMINING IMPACT The subject property is currently zoned "RA". It is expected that the 132.70 acre site could be developed under an RA zone to include 26 dwelling units. 2 Greempay Engineering January 7, 1999 ShepparW al Impact Statement M The density of parcels 55-((A))-209, 211, & 213, having a total area of 128.76 acres, have been limited by proffer to 2.2 dwelling units per acre. The density of parcel 65-((A))-40, with 3.94 acres has been limited by proffer to 2.5 dwelling units per acre This works out to a maximum potential of 293 units. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic Data The existing traffic data was supplied by VDOT Office Services Specialist, Vega Ziemer (Edinburg office): EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS Date of ADT Road Stud (vehicles/du) Route 655 1993 2,522 between Winchester and 656 Route 656 1995 2,376 between Rte 659S & Rte 7W Route 656 1995 4,237 between Rte 657 & Rte 659S Route 656 1995 3,041 between Rte 655 & Rte 657 Route 657 1993 8,027 between Winchester and 656 Route 657 1995 4,779 between Routes 656 and 736 Route 657 1995 1,231 between Rte 736 and Clarke Co. Route 659 1995 4,524 between 658 and 656N. Route 659 1993 401 between Rte 656N & Rte 7 Route 7 1996 17,000 between Winchester and Clarke Co. U. S. Route 50 1996 18,000 between Rte 522 & Rte 723W VDOT has classified Route 657 (Senseny Road), Route 659 (Valley Mill Road), Route 656 (Greenwood Road), and Route 655 (Sulphur Springs Road) as major collectors. 3 Greenway Engineering 6 Janaary 7, 1999 Sheppart .ral Impact Statement Trip Generation The following table is based on trip data taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6t' Edition: TRIP GENERATION DATA Zone Use Density PEAK. HOUR TRIPS AM PM ADT Entering Exiting Entering Exiting (vehicles/day) Existing RA Single Family Detached 26 5 15 17 10 249 RP Single Family Detached 293 56 169 191 108 2,804 Increase: 2,555 The development of the rezoned site at the maximum density could therefore generate a traffic increase of approximately 2,550 trips per day. Traffic Impact Traffic impacts were determined using the following estimated traffic split: Traffic split 5% will travel through Carlisle Heights and the other minor collector road to Rte 656. 40% of the increased traffic will travel Rte 657 into the City of Winchester. 20% will travel Rte 657 to Rte 656, then south to Route 50. 5% will travel Rte 657 east into Clarke County. 5% will travel Rte 659 east to Route 7. 12% will travel Rte 659 west to Rte 656, and then north on Rte 656. 13% will travel Rte 659 west to Route 7, and & I-81. The following table shows the increase in traffic on the local road network as compared to current traffic counts and expected traffic volumes on these roads in 2010. rd Greenivn_y Engineering 0 .Ianuary 7,1999 Sheppar* rat Impact Matement TRAFFIC IMPACT ON I,®CAI. ROADS Road Traffic Impact from Site Traffic - 1999* Traffic - 2010" (vehicles/day) (vehicles/day) (vehicles/day) Route 655 (Sulpher Spr. Rd) 511 3,100 4,530 between Winchester & Rte 656 Route 656 (Greenwood Rd) 307 2,726 3,980 between Rte 659S & Rte 7W Route 656 (Greenwood Rd) 128 4,862 7,098 between Rte 657 & Rte 659S Route 656 (Greenwood Rd) 511 3,490 5,095 between Rte 655 & Rte 657 Route 657 (Senseny Rd) 1,022 9,870 14,400 Winchester & Rte 656 Route 657 (Senseny Rd) 1,533 5,484 8,006 from site west to Rte 656 Route 657 (Senseny Rd) 128 1,413 2,062 from site east to Clarke County Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) 332 5,190 7,590 between Rte 658 & 656 Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) 639 460 720 from site west to Rte 656 Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) 128 460 720 from site east to Rte 7 Route 7 434 18,850 27,520 between Winchester & Clarke Co. U.S. Route 50 511 19,960 29,140 between Rte 522 & Rte 723W * Projected traffic counts (both year 1999 and year 2010) were calculated using a 3.5% growth rate. Traffic Summary The traffic increases are fairly substantial on Senseny Road. Although there is a fairly significant increase on Valley Mill Road, from the site west to Greenwood Road, the existing and projected traffic counts are quite low. The owner has limited the density of dwelling units on the subject property, resulting in a maximum buildout of 293 units. The unproffered potential of this property is 530 dwelling units, which would create 81% more traffic from the subject site than the proffered density. Additionally, The proffered construction phasing plan will reduce the rate of traffic increases on the local road network. Therefore, while the traffic increases are substantial, the proffers that the owner has made will lessen the impact of this new development on the local road network. Greenwaay Engineering • January 7, 1999 Sheppard eral Impact Statement WATER SUPPLY The impact of this proposed development on water supply systems is based on design volumes supplied by the FCSA, and on maximum dwelling units in the proffered zoning. The total design consumption can be determined by the following formula: UN Consumption per dwelling unit = 275 gpd Number of units = 293 Total Residential Consumption = 293 units x 275 gpd = 80,575 gpd Therefore, the total water consumption for the subject property at maximum buildout is approximately 80,600 gpd. There is currently an 8" water main located along Senseny Road, as well as an available connection to an 8" line near the Apple Ridge subdivision. According to Mr. John Whitacre of the FCSA, a water main will have to be looped through the site. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT Based on our water consumption, the proposed proffered zoning will add 80,600 gpd to the sewage conveyance system at maximum buildout. Mr. John Whitacre of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority was consulted regarding sewer design criteria for a sewer system serving the subject site and the neighboring Giles Farm and Lynnehaven properties. The ultimate sewering of the three project area will be by a regional pump station that is proposed adjacent to Twin Lakes. By this regional concept, gravity sewer lines will follow the roads and ravines to the proposed pump station. As agreed with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, construction of the proposed pump station will be the sole responsibility of the parties involved in the three project development. Once in operation and accepted by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the ownership and maintenance of the pump station will become the responsibility of said agency. With the completion of the proposed pump station, several other projects will have the ability to connect by gravity into this system, allowing some smaller pump stations, such as the Apple Ridge station, to come off-line. Greenway Engineering 0 January 7, 1999 Shepparaotral Impact Statement DRAINAGE There are four intermittent streams on the subject property — three feeding into and one exiting Twin Lakes. Stormwater runoff from the entire site flows into this lake via established swales, drainways, and these intermittent streams. The flow exiting Twin Lakes empties into the Opequon Creek. Twin Lakes will become the backbone of a new, regional stormwater management system. A series of smaller, dry detention basins, along with sediment forebays will be developed upstream of Twin Lakes to reduce peak flows and control water quality. The stormwater management network will be developed in tandem with the nature trail system. The trail crossings of small tributaries will act as embankments for the sediment forebays. In time, wetlands should develop in these areas which will serve dual purposes of sediment removal and adding a natural wetland that can be observed through the trail system. The majority of the three -project area (Giles Farm, Sheppard/Futral, & Lynnehaven properties) naturally drains to the Twin Lakes facility. However, there is a small area adjacent to Senseny Road and the Apple Ridge Subdivision, and also an area near the Carlisle Heights subdivision, that will require a separate peak reduction as it releases through the storm sewer networks of the these subdivisions. With this regional approach, stormwater management for the three -project area will be adequately satisfied. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The following calculations were made to estimate the maximum impact of solid waste generated on the subject site, using design criteria from the Civil Engineering Manual, 41h Edition. The design factors are standard for residential units. generation rate in cu yds = (population size)X(waste in Ibm/cgpita-day)X(loading factor day compacted density in lbm/cu yd population size = (2.75 persons/household) X (293 dwelling units) = 806 persons waste = 5 lbm/capita-day loading factor = 1.25 density = 1000 lbm/cu yd Total residential volume = 5 curds day Annually, the generated solid waste volume will be: Total residential volume = 5 cu yd s X 365 days = 1,825 cu yds day yr yr Therefore, the total solid waste generated by the subject site is estimated to be 1,825 cubic yards annually. 7 Greenway EnVneerdng 0 January 7, 1999 Sheppara&tal Impact .S` atement HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURE'S The Carter-Lee-Damron house is located on the subject property at the end of Route 820. The historic home identified as Tick Hill is located on adjoining parcel 65-((A))-195, approximately 550' from the adjoining boundary. Adams Farm is to the north of the subject property, and is around 400' from the adjoining boundary. The Haggerty house is approximately 600' west of the subject site. There are also some structures on adjoining parcel 65-((A))-39, that are listed in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report simply as "Outbuildings, Rte 657." None of these structures are "potentially significant" as defined by said report. There are no homes nearby that are potentially eligible for the state and national register of historic places. There are also no potential historic districts nearby. COMMUNITY FACILITIES The impact on the utilities and infrastructure near the site will be estimated by the Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model. OTHER IMPACTS No additional impacts are forseen by the development of the subject property at the proffered density. 372 uu M j9I� 400' 200" 0 400' 600' 1 ,c 5 SCALE IN FEET 0pG' G£ORGE W. GILES i BROWN 75 R O- W 1 N29'ZO'02"'E N60.6I' 14 NJO'IO' /6 5 2 47244 N1e. JJ O I n b h � O N A a PAUL CILZS to e Dd. FUTAAL do Dd. SHEPPA,U) Z ~ 121.11 ACRES m Q j O W e e.-109 1 H ZJ AC.t DEED 400X - 10Z h PAGE-151 96 AC. t b O b x 6 f, m OLD RO U6L0 v�DUs,-Ire ,� = AR TRIP \P.-171 P eAg J AC.-+ 9 1 $IJ'IZ'S 7 W 17 15 W IJ10.50'1 11 ^ N h d ESKRIDGE 1 0� O PATTON '6 b N 1 . 2 �JZ95' 9 SZ2 �`a ZJ W 10 HAGGERTY LAND OF PA U L G /L ES 121.11 ACRES LOCATED ABOUT 3 MILES CAST OF WINCHESTER. IN SHAWNEE DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. RICHARD U. GOODE CERTIFIED SURVEYOR BERRYVILLE. VIRGINIA Boundary Survey Appendix 2 1 t 1911 !c,- 372 627 r 400' ZOO' 0 400' goo, SCALE IN rccr GEORGE W. GIL ES 0 '350 NZO *33.15 'T 4 561 -30 0001,14 75'R- 0- W 9.75 37 75.00' MRS. DC HA VEN 00C S1 PAUL GILES O P-Cal- :,. U' L'.D C.F G_- L.-,3 3-9t.3 LLL:5 A C' '.;Ay FA.� '11:; -tAij (AwAi, :A. 057) TO .hi: LA;. , LF PAUL (;il,.j The allove tract, of Lum, loc;it.,mi on th,., i:ortii niut4 or :to;,,) I.e. 657 ,about j milms v::,L of* '.;inchest,r, and situate in Shawnee DioLrictg ':ounty, lirinia, is uounuea a., follows: Beginning at (1) the point. of interz;ectlon oft,h.i North line of toad No. o57 with the '.list line of tn,e lano or Exs. lieriaven; thence with the North line or ao,n No. u57 for the 11611odni. 2 cour4.!s N 64 doe. 3U :!iin. OU sec. '.1 0.75 feet to (/) ;, Concr-!to iiij,,hwny P.arkmr; th-ince 1; 63 d-1r.. C,! in. OC S(-C- 11 125-31! f-L to (3) a point on the North side of itoz,u :.o. t>57; tnence with 2 nrvi division linos through ttx land of Georr,.i 'I. Niles 11 28 net:. 33 min. 25 sec.E 2291.73 feet to (4) thence S of ti-w. 26 nin. 35 sac. S 75.CC feet to (5) a point 75.0 f.!,!t of ;t set -Lone at n fenco corner, said ston%! b!int-. Oic corrur of tro 1;.nd; thence with Paul Giles and th.-n with :rs. DeKav,!n 3 28 d-:!c. 33 min. 2> sec. d 2288.37 feet to the poirit of ib-r invirij,, cont,tininr, 31.943 Acres ;I.ore or less. -ticiaird U. Certified Sw-veyor, Janu-ry 11, 1-)71. V.83[N,A FK-D311C.( CDu.;iY, scr. T. Irka,of w;i1ing was producc-, to no on n t, il and wa c o r I i,;i :_kj - i a.i t 1! 1 L r a b a n n a c a I was Y ad. ,/Pp�d to r�zo.,J, 1'a:*- of J ic. jLJ-j,'.. I of nd 511:4 1-.ava br-cn p,:ii, if a.so.sdble. f/V'h' �'e LL;�.��..✓i-- Cluck. Boundary Survey Appendix 2 2 roar 372 "U 624 /00, so, 0 /00' zoo, SCALE /N reir NAONErICS /D7/ 4 pA J11 6/1 ES seo•ss•�ee' A STREAK 170. 85 , W i PORT -'-,-it CF LAND OF W PATTM k 3SKAMGE n .` 1.633 A:.i. S V 2 3 .ez.0e N 72 I l .i f W. J a � ,SKR/DGE o ,, PA 6 b N M, k .W i '1 The above tract of land, located about 3,000 feet North of the Senseney ilo+,d, about 31 miles cast of Winchester, and situate in Shawnee I•.agister'_al District, FrodericK County, Virginia, is bounded as follows., Beginning at (1) an i ron :e g by a set --tone at a fen ce corne r, &corner between Paul Giles and iiaWerty; thence with 2 new division lines through the land of Patton d. Sskridre S 23 deg. 00 min. 00 sec. W 101.53 feet to (2) an iron pee; thence 11 72 deg. 41 min. 35 sec. W 482.05 feet to (3) an iron peg in the Past line of the land of Paul riles; thence with the land of Paul Giles for the ibllowing 2 courses N 2b deg. 17 nin. 25 sec. E 198.94 feet to (4) a point in the center of a sprint; a snort distance North of a stream; thence S b0 deg. 59 min. 38 sec. 3 470.85 feet to the point of beginnint;, co nt aining 1.63) Acres more or less. Rd4j Lj, . aichara U. Gooae, Certified Surveyor, January 11, 1971. V.43N.A F3EJslIC:S COU.II'Y, SCr. T/;sy ri �rarier,writing was prodr'gd to me on the d y of _ 14%l al / m and wall eorl.,i_ of d7lcj .•dg.ne.rt therah anne cal vas admihed to r:cord. fix ,.,�,,;_1 �f 3_,-. .S.S•.,1.1 of $ a '� and 5. 5l have been p,id, if a.se.sable, Clerk. Boundary Survey Appendix 2 3 DEC-14-98 MON 12:06 FREDERICK COIJNTY 1 5406780682 OUTPUT MODULE . Credit for • Net Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact Capital Not cal& cjgdit i= Impa Fire Department $780 $.5,635 $0 Rescue Department $1,457 Elementary Schools $378,259 Middle Schools $119.070 $130,576 $1,013,579 High Schools $W,826 Parks and Recreation ,$175,825 S7.7§2 4 TOTAL $1,322,017 $0 0143,972 $1,178,044 FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not $12,817.97 Covered by County Contributions NOTES: Model Run Date 12/11/98 EAW P.I.N. 55-A-209; 211; d 213 Rezoning: Assumes 264 SFO nn 128.78 acres of RP. Due to changing conditions associated w;th development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a pericd of 90 days from the model run date. Capital Facilities Model Appendix 3 1 F.02 OUTPUT MODULE • Net Credit fr . Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact Capital Net Costs Credit Costs 1mpa Fire Department $1,095 $7,551 $0 Rescue Department $2,369 Elementary Schools $467,496 Middle Schools $147,160 $375,539 $1,038,540 High Schools $799,422 Parks and Recreation $217,058 $22,323 $194,735 TOTAL $1,634,600 $2,791,290 $405,412 $0 FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not $19,739.28 Covered by County Contributions NOTES: Model Run Date 12/30/98 EAW P.I.N. 65-A-39 Rezoning: Assumes 351 SFD & 120,000 sq.ft. retail on 142.2 acres of RP & 10 acres of B2. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. Capital Facilities Model Appendix 3 � I t �a. a�4' 'Ciy o• k I 100 r I0.1 ✓bd. 0-t I I I The following is a survey of a portion of the George C. Braithwaite farm land fronting on the north side of the Senseney Road about 4 miles I east of Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia and is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a white oak on the north side of the said road running with the north property line of the Senseney road S 68'20' E 2625 ft. to a double white oak a corner to the Holmes Carper land insaid highway boundary line; thence with a line of said Carper N 27'55' E 1535 ft. to a;riple white oak a corner to Braithwaite Is other land in the said Carper',s line; thence by two division lines through the other j lands of Braithwaite N 60'W 1957 £t. to a stake corner to the other land of the said iBraithwaite near the east side of the private road leading from Braithwaite's j mansion house to the Senseney road; thence S 47* W 2000 ft. to the point of beginning containing 88.8 acres. Survey made August 20, 1940. WALKER McC BOI7D. I VIRGINIA FREDERICK COUNTY SCT: i This Instrument of writing was produced to me on the 4th j day of Nov. 1940 at 2:151,and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was iadmitted to record. i i,CLERK. I j I I i I Boundary Survey Appendix 2 IMPA CT STA TEMENT GILES FARM PROPERTY ID NUMBER 65-((A))-39 REZONING APPLICATION January 7, 1999 Greemvay Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Greenway Engineering • January 7, 1999 .leorm Impact Statement INTRODUCTION The subject property, tax map no. 65-((A))-39, is located on the north side of Senseny Road, and is 650' east of Beans Pond Lane. Said property is across from the Burning Knolls and C.M. Lockhart subdivisions, and is adjacent to the Bedford Village and Apple Ridge subdivisions. This site consists of a 152.2 acre parcel and is currently located within a Rural Areas (RA) zoning district. The owners propose to rezone 140.2 acres of this parcel to Residential Performance (RP). The remaining 12.0 acres are proposed to be rezoned to the Business General (B2) zoning district. This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by this rezoning. This impact statement will refer to the proposed residential area as "Parcel A". The area proposed for commercial purposes will be designated "Parcel B". SITE SUITABILITY The subject property is located within the "Urban Development Area" as defined within the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. This designation reflects the intention of Frederick County to allow for more intensive development on the subject site. The purpose of this area designation is to direct the expansion and improvement of public utilities and infrastructure to areas that will be intensively developed. Flood Plains The subject site is located on FEMA NFIP map # 510063-0120-B. The site is located within a "ZONE C" area. No portion of the subject site is in a 100 yr. flood plain. The site does include an intermittent stream, as well as a pond. Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory Map lists two wetland areas on the subject property. These wetlands, cumulatively less than an acre, join the pond on the southwest corner of the property Mature Woodlands Approximately 30% of the 152.2 acre tract is wooded. This estimate is based on aerial mapping, and has not been conclusively verified on the ground. Soil Types Information for soil types on this site has been obtained from the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia, by the USDS Soil Conservation Service. The subject site is located on map sheet no. 37, and contains eight different soil types. These are Berks, Blairton, Clearbrook, and Weikert-Berks soils at various slopes. Greenway Engineering January 7, 1999 1eAWm Impact Statement Prime Agricultural Soils The Weikert-Berks soil type, which covers approximately 50% of the subject property, is listed as "not suited" or "poorly suited" to cultivated crops, hay or pasture. The remainder of the site is composed of soils that are listed as "moderately well suited" to "fairly well suited" to these agricultural purposes. Steep Slopes The terrain over approximately one third of the site includes slopes greater than 15%. These areas are located along the intermittent stream, and along established drainways. The site will be graded to insure its usability for residential housing, while leaving intact the areas of steep slopes nearest the established drainways, and meeting all zoning requirements.. Construction Concerns There are several aspects of the soils and the geology of the subject site that will need to be addressed in order to establish a residential community on this property. The depth to shale bedrock ranges from 12 to 40 inches. This will present some grading difficulties, requiring more fill to be placed than cut. Some of the shale can be reused as fill, since it is generally friable. The Clearbrook and Blairton soils have seasonal high water tables. Between October and April, the water table in these soils is within two feet of the surface. These soils cover about 10-15% of the subject site. This feature will present only a minor obstacle, which can be surmounted with proper grading and sound geotechnical design. The Weikert-Berks soil type is listed as being a severe erosion hazard. This soil type covers approximately one half of the subject site. All construction on this site, however, will conform to the standards within the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. This will include the placement of silt screens and sediment traps. It will also require reseeding of all disturbed areas after grading has been completed. In conclusion, proper design and construction techniques will be used so that the soil and geology of the subject property will not interfere with the proposed development. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES All of the properties adjoining the subject site are either undeveloped or are single-family homes. Homes on these adjoining lots are generally within 100'-200' of the boundary with the subject site. Rezoning the subject site to "RP" will harmonize well with the surrounding properties, all of which are zoned either "RA" or "RP". The proposed rezoning of a portion of the subject site to B-2 will have the desirable result of allowing for retail stores, grocery stores, service stations, offices, or similar uses within close proximity to residential units. Greenway Engineering i January 7, 1999 *m Impact Statement BASIS FOR DETERMINING LNIPACT W The existing "RA" zoning for the 152.2 acre site will allow for a maximum residential density of 30 single family detached units. The density of Parcel A has been limited by proffer to 2.5 dwelling units per acre. This works out to a maximum potential of 350 units. The cumulative total floor area of all primary -use buildings within the proposed B2 zone has been limited by proffer to 120,000 square feet. All impacts created by the proposed B2 zone have been calculated using this proffered maximum area. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic Data The existing traffic data was supplied by VDOT Office Services Specialist, Vega Ziemer (Edinburg office): Greemvay Engineering 0 January 7, I999 14rm Impact Statement EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS Date of ADT Stud(vehicles/day) Road Route 655 1993 2,522 between Winchester and 656 Route 656 1995 2,376 between Rte 659S & Rte 7W Route 656 1995 4,237 between Rte 657 & Rte 659S Route 656 1995 3,041 between Rte 655 & Rte 657 Route 657 1993 8,027 between Winchester and 656 Route 657 1995 4,779 between Routes 656 and 736 Route 657 1995 1,231 between Rte 736 and Clarke Co. Route 659 1995 4,524 between 658 and 656N. Route 659 1993 401 between Rte 656N & Rte 7 Route 7 1996 17,000 between Winchester and Clarke Co. U. S. Route 50 1996 18,000 between Rte 522 & Rte 723W VDOT has classified Route 657 (Senseny Road), Route 659 (Valley Mill Road), Route 656 (Greenwood Road), and Route 655 (Sulpher Springs Road) as major collectors. Trip Generation The following table is based on trip data taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, e Edition: TRIP GENERATION DATA Zone Use Density PEAK HOUR TRIPS ADT (vehicles/day) AM PM Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Existing RA Single Family Detached 30 6 17 20 11 287 RP Single Family Detached 350 67 202 228 129 3,350 B2 T777 Retail 1 120,0001 751 481 2151 2331 5,150 Total Increase: 8,213 4 Greenway Engineering 0 January 7, 1999 !#rm Impact Statement The development of the rezoned site at the maximum density could therefore generate a traffic increase of approximately 8,200 trips per day. Traffic Impact Traffic impacts were determined using the following estimated traffic split: Tra c Mlit 5% will travel through Carlisle Heights and the other minor collector road to Rte 656. 40% of the increased traffic will travel Rte 657 into the City of Winchester. 20% will travel Rte 657 to Rte 656, then south to Route 50. 5% will travel Rte 657 east into Clarke County. 5% will travel Rte 659 east to Route 7. 12% will travel Rte 659 west to Rte 656, and then north on Rte 656. 13% will travel Rte 659 west to Route 7, and & I-81. The following table shows the increase in traffic on the local road network as compared to current traffic counts and expected traffic volumes on these roads in 2010. 5 Greenway Engineering January 7,1999 eA&tn Impact Statement TRAFFIC IMPACT ON LOCAL ROADS Road Traffic Impact from Site Traffic - 1999* Traffic - 2010* (vehicles/day) (vehicles/day) (vehicles/day) Route 655 (Sulpher Springs Rd) 1,643 3,100 4,530 between Winchester & Rte 656 Route 656 (Greenwood Rd) 986 2,726 3,980 between Rte 6595 & Rte 7W Route 656 (Greenwood Rd) 411 4,862 7,098 between Rte 657 & Rte 659S Route 656 (Greenwood Rd) 1,643 3,490 5,095 between Rte 655 & Rte 657 Route 657 (Senseny Rd) 3,285 9,870 14,400 Winchester & Rte 656 Route 657 (Senseny Rd) 4,928 5,484 8,006 from site west to Rte 656 Route 657 (Senseny Rd) 411 1,413 2,062 from site east to Clarke County Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) 1,068 5,190 7,580 between Rte 658 & 656 Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) 2,053 460 720 from site west to Rte 656 Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) 411 460 720 from site east to Rte 7 Route 7 1,396 18,850 27,520 between Winchester & Clarke Co. U.S. Route 50 1,643 19,960 29,140 between Rte 522 & Rte 723W * Projected traffic counts (both year 1999 and year 2010) were calculated using a 3.5% growth rate. The increases are substantial on Senseny, Greenwood, and Valley Mill, and Sulpher Springs Roads. It is worthy to note, however, that the current traffic count is fairly sparse on Valley Mill Road between Greenwood Road and Route 7. Transportation Improvements The owners of the subject property have made several proffers that will improve traffic flow in the subject area: Channing Drive, a new major collector that will travel along the western border of the subject property, will be built by the owner of the subject property and the adjacent property owner. A Traffic Signal will be installed at the intersection of Channing Drive and Senseny Road. 6 Greemvay Engineering eirm Impact Statement $25,000 will be contributed by the owner toward a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road. Right And Left Turn Lanes will be constructed on Senseny Road and on Channing Drive. The Main Entrance into the Giles Farm subdivision will be a four -lane boulevard. In addition to these proffers, which have a direct impact on improving traffic flow, the owners of the subject property have proffered a 2.5 unit per acre density for the residential area and a 120,000 sf maximum buildout for the commercial area. These proffered reductions substantially reduce the the maximum amount of traffic that could be generated by the subject site. Another bonus for traffic flow is the proffered construction phasing plan. In this proffer, the owners have agreed to limit the number of building permits that will be issued in any one year, which will reduce the rate of traffic increases on the affected roads. Traffic Summary While the increases in traffic are substantial, the concessions that the owners have made to aid traffic flow have been generous, and these concessions are more than is normally proffered, and more than the Virginia Department of Transportation expected. WATER SUPPLY The impact of this proposed development on water supply systems is based on design volumes supplied by the FCSA. The total design consumption can be determined by the following formula: Consumption per Dwelling Unit Number of Units Total Residential Consumption = 350 units x 275 gpd Design Consumption Proffered Maximum Buildout Total Commercial Consumption = 120,000 sf x 250gpd 1000 sf Greemmy Engineering • January 7, 1999 e0m Impact Statement Total Commercial Consumption = 30,000 gpd Entire Parcel Total Consumption = 96,250 gpd + 30,000 gpd = 126,250 gpd Therefore, the total water consumption for the subject property at maximum buildout is 126,250 gpd. There is currently an 8" water main located along Senseny Road, as well as an available connection to an 8" line near the Apple Ridge subdivision. According to Mr. John Whitacre of the FCSA, a water main will have to be looped through the site. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT Based on our water consumption, the proposed proffered zoning will add 126,250 gpd to the sewage conveyance system at maximum buildout. Mr. John Whitacre of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority was consulted regarding the sewer design criteria and capacities for the existing sewer system serving this subject site and the neighboring Lynnehaven and Sheppard/Futral properties. The Giles Farm and Lynnehaven properties will be served in two phases. The first phase will be utilization of the existing pump station on Beans Pond Lane. Areas that will naturally flow to this pump station can be developed as long as capacity exists in the pump station. The ultimate phase two sewering of the three project area will be by a regional pump station that is proposed adjacent to Twin Lakes. By this regional concept, gravity sewer lines will drain along the roads and ravines to the proposed pump station. As agreed with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, construction of the proposed pump station will be the sole responsibility of the parties involved in the three project development. Once in operation and accepted by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the ownership and maintenance of the pump station will become the responsibility of said agency. With the completion of the proposed pump station, several other projects will have the ability to connect by gravity into this system, allowing some smaller pump stations, such as the Apple Ridge station, to come off-line. DRAINAGE An unnamed intermittent stream flows along the Northwestern and the Northern portions of the subject property and feeds into Twin Lakes. The overflow from this lake drains into the Opequon Creek. Approximately 87 acres of the subject site flows directly into this stream via established swales and drainways. Stormwater on the remaining portion of the site (approximately 65 acres) flows into one of three drainways that continue into the neighboring Apple Ridge and Bedford Village subdivisions, and empties into another tributary of the Opequon. Greenway Engineering • January 7,1999 z#m Impact Statement Regional stormwater management will be provided by a stormwater management network. This network will in the existing wet pond known as Twin Lakes. By utilizing this wet pond as the backbone of the stormwater management system, we will then move upstream and develop a series of smaller, dry detention basins, along with sediment forebays to control water quality. The stormwater management network will be developed in tandem with our natural walking trail system. The trail crossings of small tributaries will act as embankments for the sediment forebays. In time, wetlands should develop in these areas which will serve dual purposes of sediment removal and adding a natural wetland that can be observed through the trail system. The majority of the three -project area (Giles Farm, Sheppard/Futral, & Lynnehaven properties) naturally drains to the Twin Lakes facility. However, there is a small area adjacent to Senseny Road and Apple Ridge Subdivision that will require a separate peak reduction as it releases through the storm sewer network of the Apple Ridge Subdivision. With this regional approach, stormwater management for the three -project area will be adequately satisfied. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The following calculations were made to estimate the maximum impact of solid waste generated on the subject site: The impact created by the residential units on Parcel A has been estimated using design criteria in the Civil Engineering Manual, 4th Edition. The design factors are standard for residential units. generation rate in cu yds = (population size)X(waste in lbm/capita-dgy)X(loadin f� actor) day compacted density in lbm/cu yd population size = (2.75 persons/household) X (350 dwelling units) = 962 persons waste = 5 lbm/capita-day loading factor = 1.25 density = 10001bm/cu yd Total residential volume = 6.0 cu yds day Annually, the generated solid waste volume will be: Total residential volume = 6.0 cu yds X 365 days = 2,200 gu yds day yr yr Therefore the maximum waste generated by Parcel A will be 2,200 cu yds per year. IN The solid waste impact for Parcel B has been estimated using the following Fairfax County design requirements. Green►vay Engineering • January 7, 1999 Impart Statement Waste generation rate = 11,440 lbs 1000 sf/yr total solid waste = 120,000 sf x 11,4401bs 1000 sf/yr = 1,372,800lbs/yr compaction = 400 lbs/cy total volume = 1,372,800 lbs/vr 400 lbs/cy = 3,430 cy/yr Entire Parcel Total waste = 2,200 gpd + 3,430 gpd = 5,630 gpd Therefore, the total solid waste generated by the subject site is estimated to be 5,630 cubic yards annually. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia reveals the presence of some historic structures on the subject property. These structures are listed in said survey simply as "Outbuildings, Rte 657." The Braithwaite house is located at the end of Beans Pond Lane on adjoining parcel 55-((A))- 208, and is within 100' of the adjoining boundary. Also, the Carter-Lee- Damron house is on adjoining parcel 55-((A))-209, but is approximately 2,200' from the adjoining boundary. None of these buildings are "potentially significant" as defined by said report. There are no homes nearby that are potentially eligible for the state and national register of historic places. There are also no potential historic districts nearby. COMMUNITY FACILITIES The impact on the utilities and infrastructure near the site will be estimated by the Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model. 10 Greenway Engineering . January 7, 1999 e4m Impact Statement OTHER IMPACTS No additional impacts are forseen by the development of the subject property at the proffered density. 11 • Given under my hand this 22 day of Novemb•ISi•13. My commission expires karch 28, I9.14. VIWIP I. RITTLR Notary uo is H ~�� Efr•y�d7 711A-2R-1.7 StA. r~ D iV y9 i 6� L The folloivinF is a survey of a portion of the Mary L. i Braithwaite lands, situate and lyinr in Shawnee Varisterial District, Frederick County,) I State of Virfinia, about four miles south e%st of the City of 'hinchester bounded on they north by a line of the Tom^y Brown Estate lands, on the east by a line of the Carter estate lands, on the south by a line. of George l7. Giles former rurchase of a portion of the Mary E. Braithraite lands, on the crest b;, lines of the said 3raithraite's other ixx lands and is pore rarticularly described by a survey viz.- BeCinninr at a post corner to the Giles former purchase running throul-ii the Braithwaites lands by the two follorine courses and distances D i G5 I/2 E 2.1.24 rods to a post corner; thence N 58 E I00.21 rods to a walnut tree a i corner to the said Driithwaitc's other lands in the Brorm Estate line;nthence with the last mentioned line S. 67 E 82.0 rods to a set stone a corner to the Brown estate lands and also a corner to the Carter estate lands; thence rith a line of the latter 6 25 I/2•Wx122A2xro W I30.03 rods to tripple oaks a corner to the Uilec former rurchase in Holmes Carper's line, thence with a line of the Giles former purchase N 59 I/2 'N I20 rods to the point of beginning- containing 74 acres - 2 Roods - I2 Sq. Fo. � Surveyed II-2-13 By j'ALF.ER MCC. 9OND t I VIMINI4 I FREDCRICK COC1:'fi", tSCT. This instrument of writin;- was iroduc,d to me on the 8th day of Dec. I04.1 at I:00 P. M. and -:ith certificate of acknowledCment thereto I annexed was admitted to retard. � -ill r I � Boundary Survey Appendix 2 0 IMPACT STATEMENT L YNNEHA YEN, L.C. PROPERTY ID NUMBERS 55-((A))-206 & 65-((A))-30, 31 REZONING APPLICATION January 7,1999 Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Greenway Engineering r January 7, 1999 _, Yloven Impact Statement INTRODUCTION The subject property, tax map nos. 55-((A))-206 and 65-((A))-30, 31 is a contiguous group of parcels located on the west side of Beans Pond Lane, 150' from the intersection with Senseny Road. Said property is adjacent to the Carlisle Heights subdivision. This 91.4 acre site is currently located within a Rural Areas (RA) zoning district. The owners propose to rezone 81.4 acres of this parcel to Residential Performance (RP), and the remaining 10.0 acres to Business General (B2). This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by this rezoning. This impact statement will refer to the proposed residential area as "Parcel A'. The area proposed for commercial purposes will be designated "Parcel B". SITE SUITABILITY The subject property is located within the "Urban Development Area" as defined within the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. This designation reflects the intention of Frederick County to allow for more intensive development on the subject site. The purpose of this area designation is to direct the expansion and improvement of public utilities and infrastructure to areas that will be intensively developed. Flood Plains The subject site is located on FEMA NFIP map nos. 510063-0115-B and 510063-0120-B. The site is located within a "ZONE C" area. No portion of the subject site is in a 100 yr. flood plain. The site does include four drainage ways with intermittent flow, and also a pond. Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory Map lists the small pond on the western edge of the subject property as a wetland. This pond covers approximately 1 acre. Mature Woodlands Approximately 70% of the 91.4 acre tract is wooded. This estimate is based on aerial mapping, and has not been conclusively verified on the ground. Soil Types Information for soil types on this site has been obtained from the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia, by the USDS Soil Conservation Service. The subject site is located on map sheet nos. 36, and 37 Greenway Engineering • January 7, 1999 A.yn*aven Impact Statement Prime Agricultural Soils The soils over approximately one-third of the subject property range from being "fairly well suited" to "well suited" to cultivated crops, hay and pasture. The remaining two-thirds of the site is classified as "poorly suited" or "not suited" for these agricultural purposes. Steep Slopes Approximately 30 acres of the subject property includes slopes greater than 15%. These areas are located along the intermittent streams. The site will be graded to insure its usability for residential housing, while leaving intact the areas of steep slopes nearest the established drainways, and meeting all zoning requirements. Construction Concerns There are several aspects of the soils and the geology of the subject site that will need to be addressed in order to establish a residential community on this property. The depth to shale bedrock ranges from 12 to 40 inches. This will present some grading difficulties, requiring more fill to be placed than cut. Some of the shale can be reused as fill, since it is generally friable. There is a seasonal high water table on roughly 2 acres of the subject site. Between October and April, the water table in these areas is within six inches of the surface. This area of seasonal high water is relatively small, however, compared to the overall site, and proper grading and sound geotechnical design will make this area suitable for construction. In conclusion, proper design and construction techniques will be used so that the soil and geology of the subject property will not interfere with the proposed development. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES All of the properties adjoining the subject site are either undeveloped or are single-family homes, and are zoned either Rural Areas (RA) or Residential Performance (RP). The adjoining lots in the Carlisle Heights subdivision have homes that are within 50' of the subject property. Additionally, the homes on 55-((A))-208, and on 65-((A))-30 are within 50-100' feet of the adjoining boundary with the subject property. All other homes on adjoining properties are greater than 150' of the adjoining boundary. Rezoning the subject site to "RP" will harmonize well with the surrounding properties, which are all either zoned "RA", or "RP". The proposed rezoning of a portion of the subject site to B-2 will have the desirable result of allowing for retail stores, grocery stores, service stations, offices, or similar uses within close proximity to residential units. 2 Greenway Engineering 0 January 7, 1999 .,rat- aven Impact Statement BASIS FOR DETERMINING IMPACT The subject property is currently zoned "RA". It is expected that Parcel A, with 81.4 acres, could be developed under an RA zone to include 16 dwelling units. The density of Parcel A has been limited by proffer to 2.5 dwelling units per acre. This works out to a maximum potential of 203 units. The cumulative total floor area of all primary -use buildings within the proposed B2 zone has been limited by proffer to 100,000 square feet. All impacts created by the proposed B2 zone have been calculated using this proffered maximum area. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic Data The existing traffic data was supplied by VDOT Office Services Specialist, Vega Ziemer (Edinburg office): 3 Greenway Engineering 0 January 7, 1999 —, .a1&en Impact Statement EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS Date of ADT Road Stud(vehicles/day) Route 655 1993 2,522 between Winchester and 656 Route 656 1995 2,376 between Rte 659S & Rte 7W Route 656 1995 4,237 between Rte 657 & Rte 659S Route 656 1995 3,041 between Rte 655 & Rte 657 Route 657 - 1993 8,027 between Winchester and 656 Route 657 1995 4,779 between Routes 656 and 736 Route 657 1995 1,231 between Rte 736 and Clarke Co. Route 659 1995 4,524 between 658 and 656N. Route 659 1993 401 between Rte 656N & Rte 7 Route 7 1996 17,000 between Winchester and Clarke Co. U. S. Route 50 1996 18,000 between Rte 522 & Rte 723W VDOT has classified Route 657 (Senseny Road), Route 659 (Valley Mill Road), Route 656 (Greenwood Road), and Route 655 (Sulpher Springs Road) as major collectors. Trip Generation The following table is based on trip data taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition: 0 Greenway Engineering 0 January 7, 1999 , ,Aen Impact Statement TRIP GENERATION DATA Zone Use Density PEAK HOUR TRIPS AM PM ADT Entering Exiting Entering Exiting (vehicles/day) Existing RA Single Family Detached 18 3 10 12 7 172 RP Single Family Detached 203 39 117 133 75 1,943 B2 Retail 1 100,000 631 401 1801 194 4,292 Total Increase: 6,062 The development of the rezoned site at the maximum density could therefore generate a traffic increase of approximately 6,060 trips per day. Traffic Impact Traffic impacts were determined using the following estimated traffic split: Traffic split 5% will travel through Carlisle Heights and the other minor collector road to Rte 656. 40% of the increased traffic will travel Rte 657 into the City of Winchester. 20% will travel Rte 657 to Rte 656, then south to Route 50. 5% will travel Rte 657 east into Clarke County. 5% will travel Rte 659 east to Route 7. 12% will travel Rte 659 west to Rte 656, and then north on Rte 656. 13% will travel Rte 659 west to Route 7, and & I-81. The following table shows the increase in traffic on the local road network as compared to current traffic counts and expected traffic volumes on these roads in 2010. Greemvay Engineering 0 January 7, 1999 _ .riven Impact Statement TRAFFIC IMPACT ON LOCAL ROADS Road Traffic Impact from Site Traffic - 1999* Traffic - 2010* (vehicles/day) (vehicles/day) (vehicles/day) Route 655 (Sulpher Spr. Rd) 1,212 3,100 4,530 between Winchester & Rte 656 Route 656 (Greenwood Rd) 727 2,726 3,980 between Rte 659S & Rte 7W Route 656 (Greenwood Rd) 303 4,862 7,098 between Rte 657 & Rte 659S Route 656 (Greenwood Rd) 1,212 3,490 5,095 between Rte 655 & Rte 657 Route 657 (Senseny Rd) 2,425 9,870 14,400 Winchester & Rte 656 Route 657 (Senseny Rd) 3,637 5,484 8,006 from site west to Rte 656 Route 657 (Senseny Rd) 303 1,413 2,062 from site east to Clarke County Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) 788 5,190 7,580 between Rte 658 & 656 Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) 1,516 460 720 from site west to Rte 656 Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) 303 460 720 from site east to Rte 7 Route 7 1,031 18,850 27,520 between Winchester & Clarke Co. U.S. Route 50 1,212 19,960 29,140 between Rte 522 & Rte 723W * Projected traffic counts (both year 1999 and year 2010) were calculated using a 3.5% growth rate. Transportation Improvements Chanring Drive, a new major collector that will travel along the eastern border of the subject property, will be built by the owner of the subject property and the adjacent property owner. This road will improve traffic flow in the region, making it easier to travel between Senseny Road and Valley Mill Road. The owners of the subject property have proffered a 2.5 unit per acre density for the residential area and a 100,000 sf maximum buildout for the commercial area. These proffered reductions substantially reduce the the maximum amount of traffic that could be generated by the subject site. Another bonus for traffic flow is the proffered construction phasing plan. In this proffer, the owners have agreed to limit the number of building permits that will be issued in any one year, which will reduce the rate of traffic increases on the affected roads. 0 Greenway Engineering • January 7, 1999 riven Impact Statement Traffic Summary Although the increases are substantial on Senseny, Greenwood, Valley Mill, and Sulpher Springs Roads, the proffers that the owner has made will lessen the impact of this new development on the local road network. WATER SUPPLY The impact of this proposed development on water supply systems is based on design volumes supplied by the FCSA, and on maximum dwelling units in the proffered zoning. The total design consumption can be determined by the following calculations: Consumption per dwelling unit = 275 gpd Number of units = 203 Total Residential Consumption = 203 units x 275 gpd = 55,825 gpd Design consumption = 250gpd 1000 sf Maximum possible buildout = 100,000 sf Total Commercial Consumption = 25,000 gpd Entire Parcel Total Consumption = 55,825 gpd + 25,000 gpd = 80,825 gpd Therefore, the total water consumption for the subject property at maximum buildout is approximately 80,825 gpd. There is currently an 8" water main located along Senseny Road. According to Mr. John Whitacre of the FCSA, a water main will have to be looped through the site. 7 Greenway Engineering 0 January 7, 1999 ��.r iven Impact Statement SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT Based on our water consumption, the proposed rezoning will add 80,825 gpd to the sewage conveyance system at maximum buildout. Mr. John Whitacre of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority was consulted regarding the sewer design criteria and capacities for the existing sewer system serving this subject site and the neighboring Giles Farm property. The Giles Farm and Lynnehaven properties will be served in two phases. The first phase will be utilization of the existing pump station on Beans Pond Lane. Areas that will naturally flow to this pump station can be developed as long as capacity exists in the pump station. The ultimate phase two sewering of the three project area (Giles Farm, Sheppard/Futral, and Lynnehaven properties) will be by a regional pump station that is proposed adjacent to Twin Lakes. By this regional concept, gravity sewer lines will follow the roads and ravines to the proposed pump station. As agreed with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, construction of the proposed pump station will be the sole responsibility of the parties involved in the three project development. Once in operation and accepted by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the ownership and maintenance of the pump station will become the responsibility of said agency. With the completion of the proposed pump station, several other projects will have the ability to connect by gravity into this system, allowing some smaller pump stations, such as the Apple Ridge station, to come off-line. DRAINAGE The are four drainage ways with intermittent flow on the subject property, and there is also a pond. The runoff from approximately 86 acres of the subject site flows through these drainage ways and into nearby Twin Lakes. The overflow from this lake drains into the Opequon Creek. Stormwater on the remaining 5 acres, at the northwest corner of the property, drains through the Carlisle Heights subdivision, and empties into a tributary of Abrams Creek. Regional stormwater management will be provided by a stormwater management network. This network will include the existing wet pond known as Twin Lakes. By utilizing this wet pond as the backbone of the stormwater management system, we will then move upstream and develop a series of smaller, dry detention basins, along with sediment forebays to control water quality. The stormwater management network, will be developed in tandem with our natural walking trail system. The trail crossings of small tributaries will act as embankments for the sediment forebays. In time, wetlands should develop in these areas which will serve dual purposes of sediment removal and adding a natural wetland that can be observed through the trail system. The majority of the three -project area (Giles Farm, Sheppard/Futral, & Lynnehaven properties) naturally drains to the Twin Lakes facility. However, there is a small area adjacent to Senseny Road and Apple Ridge Subdivision, and also an area near the Carlisle Heights subdivision, that will require a separate peak reduction as it releases through the storm sewer network of subdivisions. With this regional approach, stormwater management for the three -project area will be adequately satisfied. : Greenway Engineering January 7, 1999 A.,.*en Impact Statement SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The following calculations were made to estimate the maximum impact of solid waste generated on the subject site. W The impact created by the residential units on Parcel A has been estimated using design criteria in the Civil Engineering Manual, 4th Edition. The design factors are standard for residential units. generation rate in cu yd = (population size)X(waste - lbm/capita-dgy)X(loading factor day compacted density - lbm/cu yd population size = (2.75 persons/household) X (203 dwelling units) = 558 persons waste = 51bm/capita-day loading factor = 1.25 density = 1000 lbm/cu yd Total residential volume = 3.5 cu yds day Annually, the generated solid waste volume will be: Total residential volume = 3.5 cu yds X 365 days = 1,270 cuyds day yr yr Therefore the maximum waste generated by Parcel A will be 1,270 cu yds per year. IN The impact created by all businesses on Parcel B, within the proposed B-2 zone, has been estimated using using Fairfax County design requirements. Waste generation rate = 11,4401bs 1000 sf/yr total solid waste = 100,000 sf x 11,440 lbs 1000 sf/yr = 1,144,000 lbs/yr compaction = 400 lbs/cy 7 Greenway Engineering • January 7, 1999 .,W" en Impact Statement total volume Entire Parcel Total waste = 1,270 gpd + 2,860 gpd = 4,130 gpd = 1.144,000 lbs/yr 4001bs/cy = 2,860 cy/yr Therefore, the total solid waste generated by the subject site is estimated to be 4,130 cubic yards annually. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia reveals the presence of two historic structures near the subject property. The Braithwaite house is located at the end of Beans Pond Lane on adjoining parcel 55-((A))-208, and is within 100' of the adjoining boundary. There are also some structures on adjoining parcel 65-((A))-39, that are listed in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report simply as "Outbuildings, Rte 657." Neither these buildings nor the Braithwaite house are "potentially significant" as defined by said report. There are no homes nearby that are potentially eligible for the state and national register of historic places. There are also no potential historic districts nearby. COMMUNITY FACILITIES The impact on the utilities and infrastructure near the site will be estimated by the Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model. OTHER IMPACTS No additional impacts are forseen by the development of the subject property at the proffered density. 10 BK8 (0423 ELLIOTT DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. S66'44'42"E - 131.20' t� O /v /Q fb'/ 0.902 ACRES 0 �a DB 339 - P 849 �0 O f� O / b� U• � o 10 Ij h" A h N/F KFnNS .hy 4i , 0 / 00OGLA5 C. LEGGE��, TIFICA7EE N0. e f.ANo NOTES: 1. No Title Report furnished. 2. The property shown hereon Is dellnealed qn Frederick County Tax Map 85 ® as Parcel 30. 3, The property Is subject to easements of record. / BOUNDARY SURVEY AND COAAPOSITE PLAT OF / 0.902 ACRES / STANDING W THE NAME OF :. cLi3Citr ^d i=RA1vCE5 FLLiOTT SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA MAY 18, 1990 SCALE:1' - SO' --NO f •5 V20'W 4.26' Allbert r, cliff_ 4t associates, Inc. SFNSENy ROAD (VARIABLE WIDTII rVW1 t..s • STATE ROUTE 657 s,.....,. v� rmc mmm. wT Boundary Survey Appendix 2 1 • • LELi U 111S - Iron flod SDI lllr .. lion find roauld 111E , hnn film) round 3 l U 4 17 V I1EI fJ F9D6f11CK DBVG US HT CO. �y R� Jz'a� ar'7ovE 4964)0 1'l)Q3 BI�114- OAK TfWI WAiNtfTTHE e�•1920• 664*30'Al1q•E 80.11 a Ins /F: l 90,2190 ACRES 14/ 4 10 &WITARY SEWER EMEF.IENT c�7EEN'V0 D PD. rM �ERSNIp -Z k;J 57p so>«— 1.IFTeTATICN 8I T E EA UM ENT oflrllcK i Co. CNC. I CO. NC. 5i� T 1 \�7-179 CA IOSAtATARY— ) r/ \ 6EWEn EASEMW7 I Ild I VC1l IA(IE -' j[F?' OVEN rEA1) '\ 1 \ 3J 16 t, ii 11 {r, rOWEn LNJE \ 2�+� r7 "►/ /1J _ 818.72' If FF 1 � rest t188°27'49'W / 0 i / �/ ®/� vosT T�F a/ �1,\ Y oM / t -- I LT - Ire GILES 190.629 ms s�F J�� 01 / `S See•Is'28'W �05.25' / SET BTOffE N m n' q 11�F 01LES 181J6) 68•FLW 598.16' SF.NSENY \ `nD (n TE 657) Ins 14'W111TEOAK TnEE \ �g N61.51'20'W Y 69.86, k i I ELLIOIT Atli) 6A1111 j 2 I DcIlALO KEFINS COMPOSITE BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE LAND OF ELLIOTT DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. DEED BOOK 487•PAOE 431 SIIAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FnEDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1".500' SURVEYED: APR;L 25, 1991 glibeTl W. clllfoT 9830clalef. Inc. �y1M•r• � L••1 M.e. •., 1w°•�r• Boundary Survey Appendix 2 2 �e;0t,Nut1r opt,. DOU�LAS 0. LEOGE% CF ,TVI]C�AgTEE No, 'aW 4' L ; UND VuK1rWk IREUEPKJI COUNTY. SCT. TM hW --1 d -AM pod.Rd to w an 1M r4 (t aN•cal• d W,.�i.,rq ww.l toes Me w••°•w1 .m wYar le resod. T•° *•Ve•ed by Sec 50 N.l O .'d 5654 Irw b— i W . I °vnaMl CtCW �nr ur rm ' BK84430 N/ F ELLIOTT ¢ Lo f 4 LOT 3 S41 *06'42"E o6 c 0.276 ACRES 1 t UB 384 . P 461 %n+ UJ c N/F KERNS 141E 1 KERNS NOl ES: 1. No Title Report furnished. 2. The property shown hereon Is delineated on Frederick County Tax Mrp 85 t� as Parcel 31. 3. The property Is subject to ensernnnis of record. i m y 01.AZ. 0 Z W U ¢ w N Y w Lmua%sl �4�Arvi n p>y C. LEGGE�CATE NO. I� / BOUNDARY SURVEY AND PLAT OF / 0.276 ACRES STANDING IN THE NAME OF / LESTER A. ELLIOTr and CARLIN L. SMITII vatCtXLk FREDE "COUr4TY, ice• T^'skes�a-Ak%r.nproduwdtomwonthe SI IAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT C , —3— day&Ast ,e 1� 35,^ FfTEDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ai, dw0cwixkat.a.cw t tw.to., @v*d w89 & Ied to rom Tax kopoled by 5« 5&54.1 0l MAY 18, 1990 SCALE:140' vM 5&51 have been paid. M asahsabie. glibeit .. cllffot utociate+, Inc. CURK �� ivr.... L"4 ru— Boundary Survey Appendix 2 3 uNu OUTPUT MODULE Net Credit fo. Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact Capital Net Costs Credit Csts Impa Fire Department $670 $4,536 $0 Rescue Department $1,519 Elementary Schools $271,707 Middle Schools $85,529 $272,259 $549,599 High Schools $464,621 Parks and Recreation $126,153 $16,184 $149,970 TOTAL $950,200 $2,431,521 $292,979 $0 FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not $12,452.40 Covered by County Contributions NOTES: Model Run Date 12/30/98 EAW P.I.N. 55-A-206 Rezoning: Assumes 204 SFD & 100,000 sq.ft. retail on- g t.4 acres of RP & 10 acres of B2. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. Capital Facilities Model Appendix 3 DEL'-14-98 MON 12:05 FREDEPICK COUNTY 1 5406780682 P.01 OUTPUT MODULE • Net Credit for Fiscal Taxes to ` Capital Impact Capital Net cmg Q2215 !mod Fire Department $27 $198 $0 Rescue Department $51 E!ementary Schools $13,319 k-Iddle Schools $4,193 $4.598 $35,889 High Schools $22,776 Parks and Recreation $8J84 V21 $5.911 TOTAL. $46,550 $0 $5,0e9 $41,480 FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not $449.48 Covered by County Contributions NOTES: Model Run Date 12/11/98 EAW P.I.N. 85-A-40 Rezonirg: Assumes 10 SFD on 3.94 acres of RP. Due to changing conditions associated with dove+oprnent in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. Capital Facilities Model Appendix 3 2 01/29/1994 11:13 15407229528 • GREENI)JA"," ENGIINEERINO PA-i3E A2 CALLOW TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING 7633 Riverside Farris Road Marshall, Virginia 20115 (703) 4813812 Fax (703) 4813726 October 5, 1,999 Howermdum To: Mwk Smith, Greenway Engineering By: John F. Callow Su": Charming Drive Rezoning Road Requirements Summmarq of Recommendations VDOT is currently planning to install a traffic signal at Senseny Road and Route 657. Also, VDOT is going to reconstruct the intersection of Route 656 and Route 657 along with associated approach roadway sections. One additional lane will be added to each of the four (4) approaches to the new intersection. These road and traffic signal improvements will support the proposed development in the Channing Drive rezoning through the build -out of the residential phase. These traffic improvements will also support the other known but not built residential developments that will use the same road system as the proposed Channing Drive development. As the retail development on the Channing Drive development approaches completion, Route 657 from Route 656 to Channing Drive will need to be improved to a four -lane section. CALLOW TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING 7633 Riverside Farm Road Marshall, Virginia 20115 (703) 4813812 Fax (703) 4813726 August 6, 1999 Memorandum To: Mark Smith, Greenway Engineering By: John F. Callow Subject: Channing Drive Rezoning OVERVIEW Report Summary Per your request Callow Transportation Consulting (CTC) has revised the traffic implications of the build -out of the Channing Drive rezoning located in the east part of Frederick County, Virginia. The property is located north of Senseny Road (Route 657) and west of the Frederick County/Clark County boundary line. The Channing Drive rezoning is proposed as a residential/retail development with 846 single family detached homes and a proposed retail center with 120,000 square feet. This report addresses the proposed land uses with any coinciding transportation improvements. This report was prepared following discussions with VDOT and you. VDOT supplied the traffic counts used in this study and Frederick County gave CTC the approved but not yet built homes within the study area. EXISTING CONDITIONS The VDOT supplied traffic counts were summarized at all key intersections and road links including the intersections of Routes 657 and Route 656, Route 659 and Route 656 as well as the road links Route 659 south of Route 7 and Route 655 east of Route 50. Figure 1 shows existing (1999) ADT (Average Daily Trips) and A.M. and P.M peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections and links that VDOT wished to be analyzed This represents the road network that the Channing Drive property proposed development will impact. Figure 2 illustrates all respective existing lane geometry and A.M. and P.M peak hour levels of service. A detailed description of level of service is found in the Appendix section of this report. Figure 1 Giles - Existing Conditions 8/6/99 "denotes critical movement TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the Channing Drive rezoning site. Figure 3 represents the trip distribution percentages into and out of the Channing Drive rezoning development. These distribution percentages were also used for the other development assignments. 2005 TRAFFIC IMPACTS -RESIDENTIAL BUILD -OUT The Channing Drive rezoning assigned residential trips were added to the 2005 background traffic. Figure 4 shows 2005 residential build -out A.M. and P.M peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections and links within the road network surrounding the Channing Drive rezoning. Figure 5 shows the respective 2005 build -out lane geometry and A.M. and P.M peak hour levels of service. Additional turn lanes would need to be constructed with the implementation of the full residential component, as shown on Figure 5, in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. A detailed description of level of service is found in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Channing Drive rezoning development are acceptable and manageable. All intersections maintain acceptable overall levels of service `C' or better for 2005 build -out conditions. The intersections of the Route 657/Route 656 and Route 656/oute 659 would need to be signalized. 2005 TRAFFIC IMPACTS -FULL BUILD -OUT The Channing Drive rezoning full build -out assigned trips were then added to the 2005 background traffic volumes. Figure 6 shows build -out A.M. and P.M peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections and links within the road network surrounding Channing Drive rezoning. Figure 7 shows the respective lane geometry and A.M. and P.M peak hour levels of service. The Route 657 link east of the Route 657/656 intersection will need to become a 4-lane section to the first project entrance with the retail component. A detailed description of level of service is found in the Appendix section of this report. 5 Figure 4 Giles - 2005 Residential Build -Out Conditions 8/6/99 "denotes critical movement Figure 6 Giles - 2005 Full Build -Out Conditions 8/6/99 *denotes exitical movement Appendix SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. In this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optional" signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the full range of level of service: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service A B C D E F Stopped Delay per Vehicle (sec) <_5.0 >5.0 and <_ 15.0 >15.0 and <_25.0 >25.0 and <_40.0 >40.0 and <_60.0 >60.0 0 0 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g E656-7A.HC0 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) Route 656 (E-W) Route 657 Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... CTC Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99 Other Information ......... Existing Conditions AM PEAK Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MCI (o) SU/RV's (o) CV's (o) PCE's ------------ 1 1 < 0 N 82 75 52' .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1 1 < 0 N 7 180 56 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 --------------- 0 > 1 1 53 30 10 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Adjustment Factors 0 > 1 1 26 54 119 .95 .95 .95 0 11.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 0 • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g E656-7P.HC0 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) Route 656 (E-W) Route 657 Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... CTC Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99 Other Information ......... Existing Conditions PM PEAK Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ------------------------ Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R __J No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (a) SU/RV'S (o) CV's (o) PCE's 1 1 < 0 N 158 220 76 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 --------------- 1 1 < 0 N 14 132 54 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 --------------- 0 > 1 1 65 69 16 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Adjustment Factors 0 > 1 1 47 55 182 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf ) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized IntersectOns Release 2.1g ESTH606P.HC0 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets (N-S) Route 656 SOUTH (E-W) Route 659 Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... CTC Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99 Other Information ......... Existing Conditions AM PEAK Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ------------------------------------ Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield volumes PHF Grade MCI (o) SU/RV's (o) Cv's (o) PCE's 0 1 < 0 N 51 99 .95 .95 0 0 > 1 0 N 94 51 .95 .95 0 1.10 --------------- 0 > 0 < 0 99 106 .9 .95 0 1.10 1.10 --------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g ESTH0516-.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets (N-S) Route 656 SOUTH (E-W) Route 659 Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... CTC Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99 Other Information ......... Existing Conditions PM PEAK Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ---------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (o) SU/RV'S M CV'S (o) PCE's 0 1 < 0 N 51 99 .95 .95 0 0 > 1 0 N 106 42 .95 .95 0 1.10 ---------------- 0 > 0 < 0 78 94 .9 .95 0 1.10 1.10 --------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 0 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g E656-9A.HC0 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Route 656 North (E-W) Route 659 Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... CTC Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99 Other Information ......... Existing Conditions AM PEAK Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MCI (a) SU/RV's (%) 0 CV's (o) PCE's 0 1 < 0 N 96 52 .95 .95 0 --------------- 0 > 1 0 N 3 71 .95 .95 0 1.10 Adjustment Factors 0 > 0 < 0 74 2 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 --------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 • • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g E656-9P.HC0 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Route 656 North (E-W) Route 659 Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... CTC Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99 Other Information ......... Existing Conditions PM PEAK Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MCI (%) SU/RV's (o) CV's (.) PCE's 0 1 < 0 N 71 74 .95 .95 0 0 > 1 0 N 2 96 .95 .95 0 1.10 Adjustment Factors 0 > 0 < 0 52 3 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 -------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 659 south of Route 7 ANALYST .............. CTC TIME OF ANALYSIS..... AM PEAK DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999 OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Conditions A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES......... 0 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................ .95 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN).......... 41 / 59 LANE WIDTH(FT)............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 6 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 100 B) CORRECTION FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV --- ----- ----- ----- A 2 1.8 2.2 ----- 1 ----- ----- .9 .98 B 2.2 2 2.5 1 .9 .98 C 2.2 2 2.5 1 .9 .98 D 2 1.6 1.6 1 .9 .98 E 2 1.6 1.6 1 .9 .98 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ------------------------------------------------------------- INPUT VOLUME (vph) : 147 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 155 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C ------------ ----- A 99 .04 B 394 .16 C 788 .32 D 1408 .57 E 2471 1 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 659 south of Route 7 ANALYST..............n CTC TIME OF ANALYSIS .... 4,AM PEAK DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999 OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Conditions A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES......... 0 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................ .95 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN).......... 41 / 59 LANE WIDTH(FT)............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 6 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 100 B) CORRECTION FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV --- ----- ----- ----- A 2 1.8 2.2 ----- .84 ----- ----- .95 .98 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .95 .98 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .95 .98 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .95 .98 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .95 .98 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ------------------------------------------------------------- INPUT VOLUME(vph): 171 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 180 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C ------------ ----- A 87 .04 B 348 .16 C 695 .32 D 1243 .57 E 2259 1 • 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 655 west of Route 656 ANALYST .............. CTC TIME OF ANALYSIS..... AM PEAK DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999 OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES......... 0 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................ .95 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN).......... 32 / 68 LANE WIDTH(FT)............................. 12 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 6 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 100 B) CORRECTION FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV --- ----- ----- ----- ----- A 2 1.8 2.2 1 ----- ----- .9 .98 B 2.2 2 2.5 1 .9 .98 C 2.2 2 2.5 1 .9 .98 D 2 1.6 1.6 1 .9 .98 E 2 1.6 1.6 1 .9 .98 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ------------------------------------------------------------- INPUT VOLUME (vph) : 326 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 343 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C ------------ ----- A 99 .04 B 394 .16 C 788 .32 D 1408 .57 E 2471 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: B HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTI• SUMMARY Version 2.4g • 08-05-1999 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation --------------------------- Streets: (E-W) Route 657 (N-S) Route 656 Analyst: CTC File Name: RB656-7A.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-5-99 AM PEAK Comment: 2005 Residential Build -out No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane W (ft) Grade Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Lost Time Prop. Share Prop. Prot. ------------ Phase Combi Eastbound L T R ---- ---- ---- 1 1 1 158 163 64 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 N N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 13 3.00 3.00 3.00 --------------- nation 1 2 -------------------------------- Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L T R L T R L T R 1 1 1 118 398 33 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 N N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 6 3.00 3.00 3.00 ---------------- Signal Operatic 3 4 0 > 1 1 65 44 21 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 N N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 4 3.00 3.00 3.00 ------------ )ns 5 5 0 > 1 1 48 88 215 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 N N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 43 3.00 3.00 3.00 --------------- 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 74.OA Green 38.OP Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 ------------------------------------------------------ Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB ----- L ---- 357 ------- 571 ----- 0.465 ----- 0.625 ----- 8.4 --- B ----- 7.0 --- B T 1164 1863 0.148 0.625 6.0 B R 990 1583 0.054 0.625 5.6 B WB L 707 1131 0.175 0.625 6.1 B 6.8 B T 1164 1863 0.360 0.625 7.1 B R 990 1583 0.029 0.625 5.6 B NB LT 444 1365 0.257 0.325 19.3 C 19.1 C R 515 1583 0.035 0.325 17.9 C SB LT 521 1602 0.277 0.325 19.5 C 19.8 C R 515 1583 0.352 0.325 20.1 C Intersection Delay = 11.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.426 0 0 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08-05-1999 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (E-W) Route 659 (N-S) Route 656 Analyst: CTC File Name: RB656-9A.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-5-99 AM PEAK Comment: 2005 Residential Build -Out ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes ---- ---- ---- 1 1 < 0 ---- ---- 1 1 < ---- 0 ---- ---- ---- 1 1 < 0 ---- ---- 1 1 < ---- 0 Volumes 26 38 109 73 76 101 161 172 70 31 106 14 PHF or PK15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Grade 0 0 0 0 o Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 12 22 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * * NB Left Thru * * Thru Right * * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 10.OA 50.OA Green 4.OA 47.OA Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 4.0 Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay ----- LOS Delay --- ----- LOS --- ----- EB L ----------- 554 1770 ----- 0.049 ----- 0.517 9.3 B 9.8 B TR 859 1662 0.165 0.517 9.9 B WB L 510 1177 0.151 0.433 13.3 B 13.6 B TR 745 1720 0.219 0.433 13.8 B NB L 488 1220 0.346 0.400 16.4 C 16.4 C TR 713 1782 0.358 0.400 16.4 C SB L 289 1770 0.114 0.433 14.1 B 13.5 B TR 793 1830 0.160 0.433 13.4 B Intersection Delay = 14.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.291 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 655 west of Route 656 ANALYST .............. CTC TIME OF ANALYSIS..... PM PEAK DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999 OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES......... 0 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................ .95 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN).......... 65 / 35 LANE WIDTH(FT)............................. 12 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 6 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 100 B) CORRECTION FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV --- ----- ----- ----- A 2 1.8 2.2 ----- 1 ----- ----- .9 .98 B 2.2 2 2.5 1 .9 .98 C 2.2 2 2.5 1 .9 .98 D 2 1.6 1.6 1 .9 .98 E 2 1.6 1.6 1 .9 .98 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ------------------------------------------------------------- INPUT VOLUME(vph): 375 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 395 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C ------------ ----- A 99 .04 B 394 .16 C 788 .32 D 1408 .57 E 2471 1 0 0 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g RB656-9A.HC0 Page 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 218 120 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1074 1204 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1074 1204 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.89 0.89 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 255 127 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1296 1491 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1296 1491 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.97 0.87 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street -------------------------------------------------------- WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 557 586 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 557 537 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.84 0.84 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 470 453 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.81 0.90 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 627 642 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 459 450 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.76 0.69 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.82 0.76 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.73 0.67 Movement Capacity: (pcph) -------------------------------------------------------- 335 303 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95a Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- EB L ------ 32 ------ 303 ------ ------- 13.3 ------- 0.3 ----- C --------- EB T 44 453 > 6.5 EB R 127 1204 > 844 5.3 0.9 B WB L 85 335 14.4 1.1 C WB T 88 470 > 9.4 WB R 117 1074 > 692 7.4 1.4 B NB L 197 1491 2.8 0.5 A 1.1 SB L 36 1296 2.9 0.0 A 0.6 Intersection Delay = 4.1 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g RB656-9P.HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 166 260 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1141 1022 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1141 1022 Prob. of Queue -Free -------------------------------------------------------- State: 0.94 0.81 Step 2: LT from Major -------------------------------------------------------- Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 210 280 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1361 1261 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1361 1261 Prob. of Queue -Free -------------------------------------------------------- State: 0.96 0.88 Step 3: TH from Minor -------------------------------------------------------- Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 631 655 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 509 494 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.85 0.85 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 431 419 Prob. of Queue -Free -------------------------------------------------------- State: 0.87 0.78 Step 4: LT from Minor -------------------------------------------------------- Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 739 670 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 395 433 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.66 0.74 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.74 0.80 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.60 0.75 Movement Capacity: -------------------------------------------------------- (pcph) 238 323 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) -------- ------ ------ (pcph)(sec/veh) ------ (veh) (sec/veh) EB L 29 323 ------- 12.2 ------- 0.2 ----- C --------- EB T 91 419 > 9.0 EB R 190 1022 > 697 8.6 2.2 B WB L 89 238 24.1 1.9 D WB T 56 431 > 13.8 WB R 73 1141 > 665 6.7 0.8 B NB L 146 1261 3.2 0.4 A 1.2 SB L 57 1361 2.8 0.0 A 0.4 Intersection Delay = 5.1 sec/veh 0 0 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 659 south of Route 7 ANALYST .............. CTC TIME OF ANALYSIS..... PM PEAK DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 7-3-1999 OTHER INFORMATION.... 2005 Residential Build A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES......... 0 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................ .95 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN).......... 49 / 51 LANE WIDTH(FT)............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 6 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 100 B) CORRECTION FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV --- ----- ----- ----- A 2 1.8 2.2 ----- 1 ----- ----- .9 .98 B 2.2 2 2.5 1 .9 .98 C 2.2 2 2.5 1 .9 .98 D 2 1.6 1.6 1 .9 .98 E 2 1.6 1.6 1 .9 .98 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ------------------------------------------------------------- INPUT VOLUME(vph): 363 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 382 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C ------------ ----- A 99 .04 B 394 .16 C 788 .32 D 1408 .57 E 2471 1 0 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 655 west of Route 656 ANALYST .............. CTC TIME OF ANALYSIS..... AM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 07-05-99 OTHER INFORMATION.... 2005 Residential Build A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES......... 0 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................ .95 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN).......... 68 / 32 LANE WIDTH(FT)............................. 12 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 6 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 100 B) CORRECTION FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV --- ----- ----- ----- A 2 1.8 2.2 ----- 1 ----- ----- .9 .98 B 2.2 2 2.5 1 .9 .98 C 2.2 2 2.5 1 .9 .98 D 2 1.6 1.6 1 .9 .98 E 2 1.6 1.6 1 .9 .98 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ------------------------------------------------------------- INPUT VOLUME(vph): 326 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 343 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C ------------ ----- A 99 .04 B 394 .16 C 788 .32 D 1408 .57 E 2471 1 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 655 west of Route 656 ANALYST .............. CTC TIME OF ANALYSIS..... PM PEAK DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999 OTHER INFORMATION.... 2005 Residential Build A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES......... 0 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................ .95 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN).......... 65 / 35 LANE WIDTH(FT)............................. 12 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 6 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 100 B) CORRECTION FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV --- ----- ----- ----- A 2 1.8 2.2 ----- 1 ----- ----- .9 .98 B 2.2 2 2.5 1 .9 .98 C 2.2 2 2.5 1 .9 .98 D 2 1.6 1.6 1 .9 .98 E 2 1.6 1.6 1 .9 .98 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ------------------------------------------------------------- INPUT VOLUME(vph): 655 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 689 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C ------------ ----- A 99 .04 B 394 .16 C 788 .32 D 1408 .57 E 2471 1 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08-05-1999 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets (E-W) Route 657 (N-S) Route 656 Analyst: CTC File Name: FB656-7A.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-5-99 AM PEAK Comment: 2005 Residential + Retail Build -Out Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane W (ft) Grade Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Lost Time Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Phase Combi 1 1 1 158 190 64 0.95 0.95 0.95' 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 N N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 13 3.00 3.00 3.00 --------------- nation 1 2 1 1 1 36 416 124 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 N N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 25 3.00 3.00 3.00 --------------- Signal Operati, 3 4 0 > 1 1 65 44 25 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 N N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 5 3.00 3.00 3.00 --------------- Dn s 5 0 > 1 1 58 88 215 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 N N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 43 3.00 3.00 3.00 --------------- 6 7 8 EB Left * * NB Left Thru * * Thru Right * * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 10.OA 53.OA Green 4.OA 44.OA Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 4.0 Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay ----- LOS --- Delay LOS ----- ----- EB L ---- 240 ------- 1770 ----- 0.692 ----- 0.542 16.5 C 11.9 B T 1009 1863 0.198 0.542 9.1 B R 857 1583 0.062 0.542 8.4 B WB L 474 1035 0.080 0.458 11.8 B 14.5 B T 854 1863 0.513 0.458 15.3 C R 726 1583 0.145 0.458 12.2 B NB LT 482 1285 0.237 0.375 16.7 C 16.5 C R 594 1583 0.035 0.375 15.3 C SB LT 697 1706 0.221 0.408 14.9 B 15.2 C R 646 1583 0.280 0.408 15.4 C Intersection Delay = 14.1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.441 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08-05-1999 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ------------------------------ Streets: (E-W) Route 659 (N-S) Route 656 Analyst: CTC File Name: FB656-9P.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-5-99 PM PEAK Comment: 2005 Residential + Retail Build -Out No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane W (ft) Grade °s Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Lost Time Prop. Share Prop. Prot. ------------ Phase Combi n Eastbound L T R 1 1 < 0 23 94 179 0.95 0.95 0.95' 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 N N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 12 3.00 3.00 3.00 ation 1 2 Westbound L T R 1 1 < 0 77 64 110'. 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 N N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 22 3.00 3.00 3.00 --------------- Signal Operati( 3 4 Northbound I Southbound L T R L T R ---- 1 ---- 1 < ---- 0 135 131 84 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 N N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 )ns 5 1 1 < 0 64 271 38 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 N N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 6 7 8 EB Left EB Left * * NB Left Thru * * Thru Right * * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 10.OA 50.OA Green 4.OA 47.OA Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 4.0 Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts ----- Cap Flow ----------- Ratio Ratio Delay ----- ----- ----- LOS Delay LOS --- ----- --- EB L TR WB L TR NB L TR SB L TR 558 1770 870 1684 343 791 737 1700 227 567 702 1754 331 1770 792 1828 Intersection Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.456 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.4 Delay 43 0.517 9.3 B 10 15 0.517 10.9 B 36 0.433 13.9 B 13 17 0.433 13.8 B 26 0.400 22.3 C 18 22 0.400 16.1 C 02 0.433 16.0 C 15 10 0.433 15.3 C 14.9 sec/veh Intersection 8 B W .5 I 5 C LOS = B • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g FB656-9A.HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 221 132 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1070 1187 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1070 1187 Prob. of Queue -Free -------------------------------------------------------- State: 0.88 0.89 Step 2: LT from Major -------------------------------------------------------- Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 258 140 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1292 1470 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1292 1470 Prob. of Queue -Free -------------------------------------------------------- State: 0.97 0.86 Step 3: TH from Minor -------------------------------------------------------- Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 580 610 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 541 522 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.84 0.84 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 453 437 Prob. of Queue -Free -------------------------------------------------------- State: 0.81 0.89 Step 4: LT from Minor -------------------------------------------------------- Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 655 670 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 442 433 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.74 0.67 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.80 0.75 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.71 0.66 Movement Capacity: -------------------------------------------------------- (pcph) 314 285 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement -------- (pcph) ------ (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) EB L 30 ------ 285 ------ ------- 14.1 ------- 0.3 ----- C --------- EB T 50 437 > 6.9 EB R 132 1187 > 807 5.8 1.0 B WB L 85 314 15.7 1.2 C WB T 88 453 > 9.9 WB R 128 1070 > 688 7.6 1.6 B NB L 200 1470 2.8 0.5 A 1.1 SB L 41 1292 2.9 0.0 A 0.6 Intersection Delay = 4.3 sec/veh 6 • HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g FB656-9P.HC0 Page 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 182 305 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1120 970 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1120 970 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.89 0.79 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 226 325 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1338 1200 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1338 1200 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.94 0.86 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 724 748 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 455 442 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.81 0.81 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 371 360 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.80 0.70 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 848 796 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 342 366 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.57 0.65 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.66 0.73 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.52 0.65 Movement Capacity: -------------------------------------------------------- (pcph) 178 237 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95 0 Y Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- EB L ------ 26 ------ 237 ------ ------- 17.1 ------- 0.3 ----- C --------- EB T 109 360 > 12.5 EB R 207 970 > 612 12.1 3.4 C WB L 89 178 40.0 2.9 E WB T 74 371 > 17.9 WB R 128 1120 > 644 8.1 1.5 B NB L 165 1200 3.5 0.5 A 1.3 SB L 74 1338 2.8 0.0 A 0.5 Intersection Delay = 7.0 sec/veh 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 655 west of Route 656 ANALYST .............. CTC TIME OF ANALYSIS..... PM PEAK DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999 OTHER INFORMATION.... 2005 Residential + Retail Build A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES......... 0 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................ .95 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN).......... 63 / 37 LANE WIDTH(FT)............................. 12 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 6 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 100 B) CORRECTION FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d ----- ----- HV --- ----- ----- ----- A 2 1.8 2.2 ----- .84 .95 .98 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .95 .98 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .95 .98 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .95 .98 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .95 .98 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ------------------------------------------------------------- INPUT VOLUME (vph) : 745 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 784 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C ------------ ----- A 88 .04 B 349 .16 C 698 .32 D 1249 .57 E 2269 1 6 • LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D 6 0 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: B GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Fmended in 19,'1 T R A N S M I T T A L Project Name: CHANNING DRIVE REZONING File No.: 2185 Date: October 8, 1999 To: Frederick Co. Planning Dept Attn: Evan Wyatt From: Ralph Beeman GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Copied: Remarks: r- Urgent W For Your Review r- As You Requested r Please Comment Message: Please find enclosed: 1. 40 copies of the CHANNING DRIVE REZONING 2'X3' exhibit RECEIVED OCT 0 8 1999 DEPT. OF PLANNINGIDEVELOPMEW Engineers Surveyors Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 greenway@visuallink.com • o mil CO waYRICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 August 9, 2004 Manning and Ross Developers, LLC P.O. Box 27 Winchester, Virginia 22604 RE: Channing Drive Rezoning, REZ #15-99 Contributions Towards Traffic Signal Property Identification Numbers (PIN) 65-A-39, 39A Dear Greg and David: When Rezoning # 15-99 for Channing Drive was approved by the County in 1999, the applicant had proffered a monetary contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal. In reviewing both County and VDOT records, it appears that the contribution has not yet been paid for your project. VDOT has determined that a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood and Valley Mill Roads is now warranted; therefore, receipt of your proffered contribution is now requested. More specifically, the proffered conditions associated with the Channing Drive rezoning, in terms of the cash contribution identified in Article III, Section C3(b), states : "The owners shall make a $25,000 cash contribution toward the installation of a traffic signal....". The County and VDOT request that this $25,000 contribution be made payable to the "Frederick County Treasurer", and be submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me should you have additional questions. Sin7R. , Eriawrence, AICP Planning Director cc: nY Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • CaU� OURCK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 August 9, 2004 Lynnhaven, LLC 112 N Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Channing Drive Rezoning, REZ #15-99 Contributions Towards Traffic Signal Property Identification Numbers (PIN) 55-A-206, and 65-A-30, 31 Dear Gentlemen: When Rezoning # 15-99 for Channing Drive was approved by the County in 1999, the applicant had proffered a monetary contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal. In reviewing both County and VDOT records, it appears that the contribution has not yet been paid for your project. VDOT has determined that a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood and Valley Mill Roads is now warranted; therefore, receipt of your proffered contribution is now requested. More specifically, the proffered conditions associated with the Channing Drive rezoning, in terms of the cash contribution identified in Article III, Section C3(b), states : "The owners shall make a $25,000 cash contribution toward the installation of a traffic signal....". The County and VDOT request that this $25,000 contribution be made payable to the "Frederick County Treasurer", and be submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department. Thank yq u for your attention to this matter. Please contact me should you have additional questions. Si Eric R.'Lawrence, AICP Planning Director cc: --16fry Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation ERL/bad 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 60 6K948PG I � 6 0 THIS DEED made and dated this 1st day of October, 1999, by and between ROBERT A. GILES, JAINITA GILES, RICHARD F. GILES, and W AINDA G. HIGH, parties of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and MAINNLNG & ROSS, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten (S 10.00) Dollars, cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey with general warranty of title unto the Grantee, in fee simple, absolute, all of that certain lot or parcel of land. together with the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 1 acres, and more particularly described by survey drawn by Greenway Engineering, dated September 29, 1999, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full; and being a portion of the same land conveyed to George W. Giles and Maude Giles, his wife, by Deed dated November 2, 1940 from George C. Braithwaite, et uY, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 181 at Page 35 1; said Maude Giles, also known as Gladys Maude Giles, died testate on August 26 1974 and pursuant to the terms of her Last Will and Testament, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Will Book 77 at Page 388, devised the rest and residue and remainder of her property to her husband, George Washington Giles (being one and the same as Geor 7e W. Giles); the said George W. Giles died testate on August 27, 1979, and pursuant to the terms of his Last Will and Testament, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Will Book 79 at Page 317, devised his property to his descendants, per stirpes; the heirs of George Washington Giles at the time of his death were George E. Giles, Wanda G. High, Paul K. BK948PG1761 Giles, Robert A. Giles, and Richard F. Giles, each therefore, had a one -fifth (115) interest in the subject realty. George E. Giles died testate on August 20, 1995 and by his Last Will and Testament recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office on October 1, 1997 in Will Book 111 at Page 847 devised his one -fifth (115) interest in the subject property to his wife,'Margaret C. Giles. 'Margaret C. Giles, by Deed dated October 9, 1997, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 889 at Page 741, conveyed her one -fifth (115) interest in the subject property to the Grantors herein; Paul K. Giles died testate on January 17, 1996 owning a one -fifth (115) interest in the subject property and devised his interest in the real estate to his wife Janita Giles, thereby vesting his one -fifth (115) interest in Janita Giles. Reference is made to the aforesaid plats, Deeds, and Wills for a more particular description of the property herein conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to all rights of way and restrictions of record affecting the subject property. The Grantors hereby covenant that they have the right to convey to the Grantee; that the Grantee shall have quiet and peaceable possession of the said property, free from all liens and encumbrances; and they will grant such further assurances of title as may be requisite. The Grantors reserve a fifty foot (50') right of way as shown on the attached plat and it is agreed by the Grantors and the Grantee that as such time as the Grantee dedicates 2 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINI.1 a, ti� o OFFICIAL RECEIPT FREDERICK CIRCUIT COURT DEED RECEIPT DATE: 101011109 TT ME: 13:56:26 ACCOUNT: 069CLR990011587 RECEIPT: 99000017023 CASHIER: SSM REG: NN17 TYPE: DUBS PAYMENT: FULL PAYMENT INSTRUMENT : 990011587 BOOK: 948 PAGE: 1760 RECORDED: 10/01/99 AT 13:54 GRANTOR: GILES ROBERT A EX: N LOC: CO SRANTEE: UNHI�6 'aROSS LLC EX: N PCT: 100X AND ADDRESS : 133 PARKINS LANE WINCHESTER, VA 22602 RECEIVED OF : BENJAMIN BUTLER DATE OF DEED: 10/01199 CHECK 51,241.00 DESCRIPTION 1: SH DIST 2: PARCEL OF LAND CONSIDERATION: 408,000.00 ASSUMEIVAL: .00 MAP: CODE DESCR'PTION PAID CODE DESCRIPTION PAID 301 DEEDS 12.00 145 VSLF 1.00 039 DEEDS AND CONTRACTS 612.00 03B DEEDS OF "ONVEYANCE 204,00 213 COUNTY ERANTEE TAX 204.00 212 TRANSFER FEES 1.00 HO GRANTOR TAX 204.00 106 TECHNO,n6Y FUND FEE 3.00 TENDERED 1,241.00 AMOUNT PAID: 1,241.00 CHANGE AMT .00 CLERK OF COURT: REBECCA P. HO6AN oo,e iv99i BK948PG1-762 a public roadway across the fifty one (51) acre tract the Grantors agree to relinquish the fifty foot (50') right of way in lieu of the same. WITNESS the following signatures and seals. ` (SEAL) Robert A. Giles (SEAL) J ita Giles SEAL) Richard F. Giles a%d � )- (SEAL) Wanda G. High STATE OF VIRGINIA, CITY OF WINCHESTER, TO -WIT: La Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that Robert A. Giles, Janita Giles, Richard F. Giles, and Wanda G. High, whose names are signed to the foregoing Deed, dated October 1, 1999, have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this is day of October, 1999. My Commission expires NOTARY PUBLI I0521-BN1anninq&RoWGBa ``\\\\\\\111111111111111////1 BUS 3 O OF S Ry ,,,," ,1111111111111,i"'". I-INAI_ PLAT F-OR MINOR RURAL N SUB IvI�� OF THE LAND OF BK 9 4 8 l WANDA G. HIGH, ET ALS STONEWALL_ MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SEPTEMBER 29, 1999 CI ARKL COUNTY � f Sensen Rood Sensen Road t. 65 o ry rt,�� c Rt. 657 VICINITY MAP � I " = 2000' OWNER'S CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING SUBDIVISION OF THE LANDS OF WANDA G. HIGFI, JANITA GILES, ROBERT A. GILES, AND RICHARD F. GILES, AS APPEARS ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLATS, IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, AND TRUSTEES, IF ANY. C' C � G•7 COMMONWEALTH F VI ,INIA• CITY / COUNTY OF vi j. TO WIT: THE FOREGOING OWNER'S CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS /sY DAY OF ( h 19U BY �✓ f Q �-- -- a- - -- MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOTARY PUBLIC SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT- THE LAND CONTAINED IN THIS SUBDIVISION IS A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO WANDA G. HIGH, ET ALS BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 9, 1997 OF RECORD IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CL K'S FFI E IN DEED BOOK 889 AT PAGE 741 AND BY PREVIOUS WILLS AND IN E TAT Tf EFERENCED IN SAID DEED. -- MARK D. SMITH, L.S. NOTE: P1�Ii�l�LIA�P�Q�L_iLF.L�IIF1�AIlQt! 65—((A))-39 152.1737 ACRES ZONE: RA USE: AGRICULTURAL APPROVALS: FRFDERICI COU fY- tUBD V ON A )MINISTRATOR D TE o MAW D. SMITH No.002009 GREENWAY ENGINEERING c , �: < e 151 {truly hill Lane l �' `��' Engineers{{ tnchester, ►�irginia 12e502 9�1'jj Sane{v►rs '1'!Ielihune: (540) 662-4185 SUKv FAX: (540) 722-9528 ---- ----- Fnu►ukit in 1971 1i-rruiil F2105 SEwrr 1 OF 3 ----------------- QK94B f IDiy�R668 PC BUMS/OA, MER��A 3 PG — I E. ,Qp I4g DP g4 RES/D. � BEDFO `r / p R BB [[A(CE Sl/90 ZOArE-. RP F,?3j IRS o _ _ S 28;j0 4 l/S£. RES/D r _ _ /222 22 f SD R/CyT - _ IRS (IRF ON LINE- 0..34' HEREH)' OF WAY -_- ^ - ° N. E Of CORNER) I TO fSERP�U 601 HR 0 L 1 BENEFIT [ IRS Q � I RED/RDER 20' DRAINAGE 4� CA SEW NI ' 1 c� Oc DB .565 PC II -= G c� \'`, I NE_ W TAX PARCEL c� h 65—((A))-39A `°IRs o a a 51.0000 ACRES 1 L2 h- _� ° IRS i' IRS 4 fu IRSN 61*07'16"cxo L4 ° 250.87' IRS N 48'50'2.5 " E° Z 4,, 4 IRS _ 4 IRS 3. �i� �' qj q �� 2..50 u c� I �-- LS (40 Cj IRS au',-'FSC2 I �, _ � POND.. � % � �i - - - _ - � �, pEF �" BARN IRS L 7 i 96j?f� — IRF B I ° lRS L8 W "co", I~I'to `--L9 v `I\erg IRS BEAN'S POND LANE 56' R/W (PRIVATE) \ \ \ 0IRS �� • IRS C3 08 270 PG 130 T� �,�,� 0 mo�e ��y/J \ � ,� o. `° lirF i s C% I S48'50'25 "W 1 No S 346.73' TO J E 1. IRF = 1/2" IRON RE -BAR FOUND 24" 1 iff CAW IRS = 5/8 " IRON REBAR & CAP SE-T BRI. = BUILDING RESTRICTION I INE- PER ZONING ORDINANCE 2. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. 400 _ 0 400 J. THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED _ ON A CURRENT fIELO SURVEY BY l/l/S FIRM. GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) 4. SEE SHEET 3 FOR LINE DATA, CURVE DATA, AND ADJACENT OWNER DATA. FINAL PLAT FOR MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF WANDA G. I-IIGI-1) [-T ALS f � •1 STONEWALL MAGISIERIAI. UISIRICT, I [M)I-RICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA- c� MARK Q. MI IIi SCALE: 1 " 400 I - UA'[ E: SEP`[ E MBER 20 1009 NU.002009 ow GREENWAY ENGINEERING CV,� `l`l 151 Iflituly Hill I.arie f_ngineer ){ rnchester; Firginia 22602 S'un eyur:�' 7 rlelrlwne: (540) 662 - 41115 Foli I&I in 1971 L' ►nnil: greerntiv ycru� isuallink-r'r�rn E'21 li;i S111�;1;7' 2 Ole' :1 QK91+61'G 1 � 65 CL/RVF I)A TA CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD _ C1 03'26'15" 7674.34' 460.43' 230.28' N 64'47'03" W 460.36' C2 00'2531 " 5774.58' 42.86' 21.43' N 66'4257" W 42.86' C3 1 00'16'15' 5694.58' 26.93' 13.46' N 70'05'40" W 26.93' l INF nA IA LINE BEARING DISTANCE L 1 N 63'0356 0 W 82. 00' L2 N 64'50'050 W 171.74' L3 N 69'21 '55 " W 1 N 66'30'11 " W _00.12' __1.4_ L5 _ N 64'02'23" W _400.00'_ 232.69' L 6 N 74'50'45 " W 76.18' _ L 7 _ N 62'30'26 " W _ 101. 19' L8 N 73'06'58" W 156.56' L9 N 70'13'48" W 152.13' 00 N 34'50'09 " E 1.11 N 66'31 '52 " W _301.36' 212.80' L 12 N 66'31 '39 " W 125.00' L 13 N 65' 18'42 " W 129.33' L 14 N 48'50725 " E 511.42' ADJACENT PROPERLY OWNER DATA E, O T. M. 65 - ((A)) -38 WANDA G. f IlGI 1, ET OR DB 378 PG 577 ZONE: RA USE.- RESID. © I.M. 65 -- ((A)) --.18 RICHARD F. GIL £S, ET OX DB 301 PG 217 ZONE.- RA USE: RESID. © T.M. 65 - ((A)) -J6 MARCARE I L. GILES DB 246 PG 73 ZONE.- RA USE- RESID. T.M. 65 - ((A)) -,34 LOUEL LA M. PARSONS DB 489 PG 105 ZONE: RA USE' RESID. (E T.M. 55 - ((A)) -206 L YNNEI MVEN, L. C. DB 843 PG 415 ZONE. RA USE: AGRI. FQ T. M. 65- ((A))- 40 FU-SI IFP FARM PARTNERSHIP DB 789 PG 1022 ZONE: RA USE.- VACANT FINAL PLAT FOR MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION OF TI-IE LAND OF WANDA G. HIGH, f- t ALS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINI< SCALE: N A DATE: SEPTEM©ER 20, 1000 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 l Vruly hill Lane Er►gineers 1{ inchester, Vugirnia 22602 Surveyors 7elelrhone: (540) 662-4185 FAX. (540) 722-9528 F'owukil in 1971 E-mail: gneenway@visuallink-co►n IV vv 11 \_�/ � MARK D. SMITH N0.002009 st F'2185 SHEET 3 OF' 3 DATE: 9/09 1999 \ MAP NUMBER: 55 A 206 TICKET NO TAX PAYER 19363 002 LYNNEHAVEN, L C 19491 001 LYNNEHAVEN, L C ** REAL ESTATE TOTAL ** ** SANITARY TOTAL ** ** ST. LIGHT TOTAL ** ** NEWSPAPER TOTAL ** ***** GRAND TOTAL ***** COUNTY OF FREDERICK VIRGI:* REAL ESTATE TAX SEARCH PAYMENT HISTORY DEPT BASE TAX RE1998 931.61 RE1999 931.61 1.863.22 1,863.22 PENALTY INTEREST PAGE: 1 PAYMENTS 931.61 931.61 1,863.22 1,863.22 E DATE: 9/09/1999 MAP NUMBER: 55 A 209 TICKET NO TAX PAYER 10127 001 FU-SHEP FARM PARTNERSHIP 10127 002 FU-SHEP FARM PARTNERSHIP 10190 001 FU-SHEP FARM PARTNERSHIP ** REAL ESTATE TOTAL ** ** SANITARY TOTAL ** ** ST. LIGHT TOTAL ** ** NEWSPAPER TOTAL ** ***** GRAND TOTAL ***** 0 COUNTY OF FREDERICK VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE TAX SEARCH PAYMENT HISTORY DEPT BASE TAX RE1998 1,307.30 RE1998 1,307.29 RE1999 1,307.30 3.921.89 3,921.89 PENALTY INTEREST PAGE: 2 PAYMENTS 1,307.30 1,307.29 1,307.30 3.921.89 3,921.89 • DATE: 9/09/1999 MAP NUMBER: 55 A 211 TICKET NO TAX PAYER 10128 002 FU-SHEP FARM PARTNERSHIP 10191 001 FU-SHEP FARM PARTNERSHIP ** REAL ESTATE TOTAL ** ** SANITARY TOTAL ** ** ST. LIGHT TOTAL ** ** NEWSPAPER TOTAL ** ***** GRAND TOTAL ***** 0 COUNTY OF FREDERICK VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE TAX SEARCH PAYMENT HISTORY DEPT BASE TAX RE1998 89.09 RE1999 89.09 178.18 178.18 PENALTY INTEREST PAGE: 3 PAYMENTS 89.09 89.09 178.18 178.18 0 DATE: 9/09/1999 MAP NUMBER: 55 A 213 TICKET NO TAX PAYER 10129 002 FU-SHEP FARM PARTNERSHIP 10192 001 FU-SHEP FARM PARTNERSHIP ** REAL ESTATE TOTAL ** ** SANITARY TOTAL ** ** ST. LIGHT TOTAL ** ** NEWSPAPER TOTAL ** ***** GRAND TOTAL ***** 0 COUNTY OF FREDERICK VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE TAX SEARCH PAYMENT HISTORY DEPT BASE TAX RE1998 24.19 RE1999 24.19 48.38 48.38 PENALTY INTEREST PAGE: 4 PAYMENTS 24.19 24.19 48.38 48.38 DATE: 9/09/1999 MAP NUMBER: 65 A 30 TICKET NO TAX PAYER 19364 002 LYNNEHAVEN, L C 19492 001 LYNNEHAVEN, L C ** REAL ESTATE TOTAL ** ** SANITARY TOTAL ** ** ST. LIGHT TOTAL ** ** NEWSPAPER TOTAL ** ***** GRAND TOTAL ***** COUNTY OF FRE REAL ESTAT DEPT BASE T RE1998 4 RE1999 4 E R • DATE: 9/09/1999 MAP NUMBER: 65 A 31 TICKET NO TAX PAYER 19365 002 LYNNHAVEN, L C 19493 001 LYNNHAVEN, L C ** REAL ESTATE TOTAL ** ** SANITARY TOTAL ** ** ST. LIGHT TOTAL ** ** NEWSPAPER TOTAL ** ***** GRAND TOTAL ***** • COUNTY OF FREDERICK VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE TAX SEARCH PAYMENT HISTORY DEPT BASE TAX RE1998 4.13 RE1999 4.13 8.26 8.26 PENALTY INTEREST PAGE: 6 PAYMENTS 4.13 4.13 8.26 8.26 • DATE: 9/09/1999 MAP NUMBER: 65 A 39 TICKET NO TAX PAYER 13195 002 HIGH, WANDA G & ETALS 13254 001 HIGH, WANDA G & ETALS ** REAL ESTATE TOTAL ** ** SANITARY TOTAL ** ** ST. LIGHT TOTAL ** ** NEWSPAPER TOTAL ** ***** GRAND TOTAL ***** 0 COUNTY OF FREDERICK VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE TAX SEARCH PAYMENT HISTORY DEPT BASE TAX RE1998 216.06 RE1999 216.06 432.12 432.12 PENALTY INTEREST PAGE: 7 PAYMENTS 216.06 216.06 432.12 432.12 • DATE: 9/09/1999 COUNTY OF F REAL EST MAP NUMBER: 65 A 40 TICKET NO TAX PAYER DEPT BASE 10130 001 FU-SHEP FARM PARTNERSHIP RE1998 10130 002 FU-SHEP FARM PARTNERSHIP RE1998 10193 001 FU-SHEP FARM PARTNERSHIP RE1999 ** REAL ESTATE TOTAL ** ** SANITARY TOTAL ** ** ST. LIGHT TOTAL ** ** NEWSPAPER TOTAL ** ***** GRAND TOTAL ***** C µ �. , --) G 74' c- e.L- L_ _ 1 a COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDINBURG. VA 22824 COMMISSIONER January 25, 2002 CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. David Madison & Mr. Greg Bancroft C/O Manning & Ross Developers, LLC P. 0. Box 27 Winchester, VA 22604 Ref: Traffic Signal Contribution Route 657 Frederick County Gentlemen: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984-5600 FAX(540)984-5607 Enclosed please find your Check #1197 in the amount of $25,000. We are retuning this document because payment was previously received per the attached copy of letter dated January 16, 2002 from our office to Dr. Allen Futral. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to call. /rf Enclosures xc: Mr. Dave Heironimus Mr. Evan Wyatt Mr. Mark Smith Sincerely, Steven A. Melnikof Transportation Engineer AECJEIVED )AN 2 8 2002 _.,,. nG PI MNp,InGVFI no%Ar7, WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING i COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER Dr. Allen Futral 405 Briarmount Drive Winchester, VA 22601 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 January 16, 2002 Ref: Traffic Signal Contribution Route 657 Frederick County Dear Dr. Futral: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 9B4-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 We are in receipt of your Check #0747 per our request dated January 8, 2002. Attached please find Receipt #264007 acknowledging this contribution. Thank you for your speedy reply. /rf Enclosure xc: Mr. Dave Heironimus Mr. Leon Sheets Mr. Evan Wyatt Mr. Mark Smith Mr. David Madison Mr. Greg Bancroft Dr. George Sheppard Mr. John Scully Sincerely, Z6' Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer VDOT EDINBURG RESIDENCY PERMITS & 9kj6Dj\/1,9I0NS JAN 16 2002 S [✓�RLF WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER Mr. Mark Smith C/O Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 January 8, 2002 Ref: Traffic Signal Contribution Route 657, Frederick County Dear Mr. Smith: Pursuant to the recorded Rezoning Document #15-99 Pages 4, 8 and 11. 2. Traffic Signals JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 b. The owners shall make a $25,000 cash contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Senseny Road (Route 657). This contribution shall be made to the Virginia Department of Transportation upon their request and upon approval by said department for the installation of this traffic signal. In the event a traffic signal is installed at said intersection before this contribution is made, the Department of Transportation may request the transfer of said contribution towards signalization at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659). The developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final subdivision and/or site plan approval. As part of our Greenwood Road project, the traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Senseny Road (Route 657) has been constructed. Therefore, VDOT is requesting this $25,000 cash contribution, as outlined above, be presented to the Department at this time. Please make the check payable to the Virginia Department of Transportation. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Steven A. Melnik Kff,jA% 10 " Transportation Engineer SAM/rf )EPT OF PLANNING Enclosure xc: Mr. Dave Heironimus, Mr. Leon Sheets, Mr. Evan Wyatt, Mr. David Madison, Mr. Greg Bancroft, Dr. George kv e�F d'VRr,,N1g%F l A Mr. John Scully ��'Rcn • e FILE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 February 1, 2000 Greenway Engineering Attn: Mark D. Smith, P.E. 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: January 6, 2000 Meeting - Channing Drive Master Development Plan Dear Mark: The purpose of this letter is to respond to the questions raised during our meeting regarding the referenced project. The following information will need to be addressed during the formal review process associated with this master development plan: 1) General Development Information The master development plan will need to depict an 80-foot right-of-way for the development of Channing Drive from Senseny Road to the Fieldstone Heights development. The plan will also need to provide all proposed housing types and minimum lot sizes, as well as a phasing plan for the entire acreage that was rezoned. 2) Potential Elementary School Site It is my understanding that the Frederick County School Administration is working with the applicants of this project to potentially acquire land for a new elementary school. The master development plan can be approved by Frederick County prior to a final decision regarding this issue; however, the master development plan would need to be revised if the potential elementary school site transpires. 3) Charming Drive Right -Of -Way It is my understanding that the applicants only have a 55-foot right-of-way where Channing Drive will be developed from Senseny Road into the Lynnhaven parcel. An 80-foot right-of-way will need to be provided for the development of Charming Drive from Senseny Road to the Fieldstone Heights development. In response to your question regarding land acquisition for Channing Drive, historically, the County has not endorsed private property condemnation for residential subdivision 107 North Kent 5tr�!et • Winchester, L ir),inhi 226W1-5i)OO 1 0 0 Mark Smith Letter - Page 2- February 1, 2000 streets; therefore, it is not anticipated that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors will be interested in condemning land from Senseny Road into the Lynnhaven parcel should the Frederick County School Administration determine that a future elementary school site is desirable along Charming Drive. Frederick County would allow for the master development plan to be phased to allow for development in other areas of this project prior to the acquisition of land for Charming Drive, provided that this phase plan was logical and consistent with phasing plans that have been approved for other developments. 4) Channing Drive Road Efficiency Buffer Section 165-37(E)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance requires all residential structures to be separated from arterial roads and major collector roads by an appropriate road efficiency buffer. Therefore, the master development plan will need to provide an appropriate road efficiency buffer along the existing and future residential portions of Charming Drive from the intersection with Senseny Road to the Fieldstone Heights subdivision. To my knowledge, this is the first master development plan that has not had available land for the provision of the required right-of-way and road efficiency buffer since this requirement was enacted in September 1995; however, it is evident that this language was designed to protect existing and future residential uses from impacts created by new roads that were planned after the effective date of this ordinance. 5) Futral/Sheppard Road System and Access The master development plan will need to delineate the road system throughout the acreage identified as the Futral/Sheppard parcels. Access to these parcels will need to occur through the proposed boulevard street system that will traverse the Bancroft/Madison development and the Giles parcel. Appropriate connections to adjoining residential subdivisions will be required; however, these connections should be related to the final phase of the development of the Futral/Sheppard parcels to ensure that the existing residential subdivisions are not the primary access points. This approach was taken during the development of the Ravenwood, Raven Oak, Raven Pointe Master Development Plan which was endorsed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 6) Membership Recreational Facility The master development plan will need to be approved before a site plan can be approved for the development of the membership recreational facility. Our department would allow for a parallel review process for the master development plan and the membership recreational facility site plan; however, a building permit could not be issued until final master development plan approval. Furthermore, the membership recreational facility will need to be located within the portion of this Mark Smith Letter -Page 3 - February 1, 2000 acreage that is zoned B-2 District. The Zoning Ordinance allows recreational facilities which serve a specific residential subdivision within that subdivision's common open space area; however, a membership -based recreational facility, such as the Downtown Athletic Club, is not permitted. I hope that the information in this letter is beneficial to your work on this project. I will be glad to meet with you to review a preliminary design of this project prior to formal submittal if desired. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the information in this letter. Sincerely, LtU Evan A. Wyatt, AP Deputy Director cc: John R. Riley, Jr., Frederick County Administrator Tom Sullivan, Frederick County Public Schools Jerry Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation Bill Tisinger, Harrison and Johnston Ben Butler, Kuykendall, Johnston, McKee & Butler Greg Bancroft, Bancroft Homes, Inc. David Madison, Madison Masonry U:\Evan\Common\CORRE S P\MarkSmidiLetter-January6,2000ChanningDriveM DPMeeting.wpd COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 0.,41 AP A, c) M iti 65E • 1• - 31- o W31 OS428 (10AF[E AVE C WAUKESHA, WI 53188-9448' COUNTY of FR EDIE� ICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 673-0682 October 20, 1999 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #15-99 OF CHANNING DRIVE On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing on November 3, 1999 at 7:00 p.m., in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This hearing is to consider Rezoning 915-99 of Channing Drive, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 354.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), and 22.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). The property is located on the north side of Senseny Road, on both sides of Bean's Pond Lane, and adjacent to the Bedford Village, Apple Ridge, and Carlisle Heights subdivisions. This site is identified with Property Identification Numbers: 55-A-206, 209, 211, 213 and 65-A-30, 31, 39, 40 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This rezoning application incorporates (and is a continuance of) the previous applications: Rezoning #05-99 of Giles Farm, Rezoning #06-99 of Sheppard/Futral, and Rezoning #07- 99 of Lynnehaven which were heard at the March 3, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library approximately one week prior to the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, 1 Evan A. Wyatt Deputy Director EAW/ch 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 tr COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 IJ1'IFICA 'IONI Or PUBLIC rIMARI Ir October 20, 1999 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #15-99 OF CHANNING DRIVE On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing on November 3, 1999 at 7:00 p.m., in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This hearing is to consider Rezoning #15-99 of Channing Drive, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 354.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), and 22.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). The property is located on the north side of Senseny Road, on both sides of Bean's Pond Lane, and adjacent to the Bedford Village, Apple Ridge, and Carlisle Heights subdivisions. This site is identified with Property Identification Numbers: 55-A-206, 209, 211, 213 and 65-A-30, 31, 39, 40 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This rezoning application incorporates (and is a continuance of) the previous applications: Rezoning #05-99 of Giles Farm, Rezoning #06-99 of Sheppard/Futral, and Rezoning 407- 99 of Lynnehaven which were heard at the March 3, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library approximately one week prior to the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt Deputy Director EAW/ch 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on Qrt- �Lol rfi'j from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 65E -1- - 13- CROWE, DUANE T 55 -A- - 181- EASTERN FREDERICK PO BOX 2097 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.1297 55 - A- - 210- ADAMS, GOLDIE 310 EDDYS LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7915 55 - A- - 212- HAGGERTY, JOHN S & EDWARD D 5 PARTRIDGE LN LINCOLN, MA 01773-1803 65 - A- - 39- HIGH, WANDA G & ETALS 2283SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.8903 65 - A- - 43- JASBO, INC & FRED L GLAIZE III PO BOX 880 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.BOBB 65 - A- - 195- RIGGLEMAN, FOREST & MILDRED L. 2737SENSENY RD WINCHESTER. VA. 22602.8929 65D - 1- 3- 22- STROTHER, LEWIS W. SR. 101 EDGEWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.6713 105 WAYFARING DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6751 65E - 1- - 14- BUCKNER, DONALD C & HEIDI L 102 WAYFARING DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6751 65E - 1- - 16- MERKEL, KENNETH T & ANN L 129 MORNING GLORY OR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6728 65E - 1- - 17- CONNOR, DENNIS M & KATHERINE S 131 MORNING GLORY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6728 65E - 1- - 18- STRAUB, SCOTT L & MARIE F 133 MORNING GLORY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6728 65E - 1- - 19- BINGMAN, TROY A & TAMMY L 135 MORNING GLORY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6728 Evan A. {Wyatt, De �ty Director Frederick Co. Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGLNIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, &�h —nn �—�u 1 a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director, for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this ( UT day of DDIDrerr Aq My commission expires on Le baj rl r7 JC� Q �NARY PUBLIC A 4 A 3 �S, DAVID L. 14u-8 28TH ST Mr. Mark D. Smith NICEVILLE, FL. 32578-2723 Greenway Engineering; 656 - 4- A- 4- 151 Windy Hill Lane KOONCE, SWAGLER H II & BRENDA S Winchester, VA 22602 240 CLAYHILL DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2309 55 - A- - 206- LVNNEHAVEN, LC 65B - 4- A- 6- BOWERS, TERESA J 112 N CAMERON ST 2324 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4745 WINCHESTER, VA 22602-8920 55 - A- - 208- 65B - 4- A- 7- BEAN, MARTIN L & HELEN R SEE, ROBERT D. JR. & BESSIE E. 561 BEANS POND LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6753 2310 SENSENY RD 55 - A- - 209- WINCHESTER, VA 22602-8920 FU-SHEP FARM PARTNERSHIP 65B - 4- A- 8- SEE, ROBERT D. JR. 405 BRIARMONT DR 2310 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22601 3701 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.8920 65 - A- - 30- 65B - 4- A- 10- LYNNEHAVEN, L C GILMER, ROBERT & WANDA 112 N CAMERON ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4745 2286 SENSENY RD 65 A 34 WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.8919 PARSONS, STEPHEN DOUGLAS 65B - 5- - 1- JENKINS, IRENE N 2239 SENSENY RD 2374 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.8902 WINCHESTER,VA 22602-8920 65 - A- - 36- 65B - 5- - 2- FIBER, JOHN A & SHERRI L KEELER, JOHN W. 2251SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602 8902 2384 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.8920 65 - A- - 37- GILES, RICHARD F & DIANA L 65B - 5- - 3- KUMP, MELVIN H. & MARY E. 2154 SENSENY RD 2303 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.8910 WINCHESTER, VA. 22602-8921 65 - A- - 38- 65B - 5- - 4- HIGH, WANDA JEAN & JACK NICKLESON, CHARLES W 2283SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22602-8903 108 BROAD AVE 65 - A- - 40- WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6706 - FU-SHEEP FARM11 —TTNERSHIP l 405 BRIARMONT DR 65B 5- - 5- SNYDER, EDWARD L & LEONA CIO REBA RANNELLS WINCHESTER, VA 22601-3701 125 BROAD AVE 65B - 4- A- 1- WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6709 EMMONS, ROBERT S JR 65B - 5- - 7- 2366 SENSENY RD KERNS, ZANE 0. & ELANORE M. WINCHESTER, VA 22602.8920 401 THREE CREEKS RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.1867 65B - 4- A- 2 HILL, ROLAND D & HEATHER L 65B - 5 MASON, ELIZABETH R. 2360 SENSENY RD CIO THELMA MASON WINCHESTER, VA 22602 2444 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22602-8922 65B - 5- - 9- LAMBERT, SHIRLEY D. i PO BOX 362 BERRYVILLE, VA. 22611-0362 65E - 1- - 31- WILLIAMS, KENNETH E. & FLONNIE M. W310S428 MAPLE AVE WAUKESHA, WI 53188.9448 55 - A- - 184-A GREENWOOD ROAD CIO SHIHO, INC PO BOX 3276 WINCHESTER, VA 22604-2476 55 - A- - 184-C GROVE, EUGENE F. & BARBARA L. 340 W PARKINS MILL RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.4735 55 - A. - 201- ORRICK CEMETERY COMPANY, INC. CIO R W BURKS ADMN 501 S BRADDOCK ST WINCHESTER, VA. 22601.4048 55 - A- - 208- BEAN, MARTIN L & HELEN R 561 BEANS POND LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602-6753 551 - 1.4- 186- GREER, GORDON R JR & TAMMY S 308 WOODROW RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7602 551 - 1.4. 187- PUGH, REX A & VERONICA Y 307 WOODROW RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7607 551 - 1-4. 188- KRECL, JOSEPH X & DIANA L 102 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7626 551 - 1- 4- 189- HART, GERARD R & KENDRA Y 104 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7626 551 - 1.4- 190- RAUCH, ARTHUR G JR & JOYCE E 106 REBECCA OR WINCESTER,VA 22602-7626 551 - 1-4- 191- NEWMAN, NATHAN A & KARIE L 108 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7626 551 - 1- 4- 192- DOUBLE S ASSOCIATES, LC 1616 WHITTIER AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22601-2831 a 551 - 1.4- 193- WYMER, BILLY T 112 REBECCA OR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7626 551 - 1-4- 194- RICE, KEITH W & AMY L 114 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER,VA 22602-7626 551 - 1-4. 195- BEAN, CHRISTOPHER M & TINA M 116 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7626 551 - 1- 4- 196- MINUNNI, MICHAEL H 118 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7626 551 - 1-4. 197- BURKE, DORIS E 120 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER,VA 22602.7626 551 - 1. 4- 198. MCDONALD, BRIAN E & MICHELLE M 122 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER,VA 22602-7626 551-1-4-199. BEHNEKE, JEFFREY M & LISA L 124 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7626 551 - 1- 4. 200- GRIM, WILLIAM G & CYNTHIA D 126 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER,VA 22602.7626 551-1.4.201. GRAVES, MICHAEL S & ROBYN R 128 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER,VA 22602 551 - 1- 4- 202- PFEUFER, DAVID S & LISA 6 130 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7626 551 - 1. 4. 203- WHIPKEY, DAVID A & BETTY J 132 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER,VA 22602-7626 65 - A- - 23- MORELAND, RUSSELL W & VELMA 2105SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.8901 6 0 65 - A- - 24- MORRIS, SHARLEY E 2123 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602-8901 65 - A- - 25- BAKER, GARY R & BRENDA C 2135 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.8901 65 - A- - 25-A BAKER, SKIP PO BOX 174 STEPHENSON, VA 22656.0174 65 - A- - 25-B BYERS, ROBERT J & LINDA S 2159SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.8901 65 - A- - 27-A BURACKER, LARRY W & ELDA M 2044 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.8917 65 - A- - 28-A BURACKER, LARRY W & ELDA M 2044 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER.VA 226028917 65 - A- - 30- LYNNEHAVEN, L C 112 N CAMERON ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601-4745 65 - A- - 39- HIGH,'WANDA G & ETALS 2283 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602-8903 65-A-39 Robert A. Giles, et als 2309 Senseny Road Winchester, VA 22602 67(ev 'lokf" fl 0/4 0. 3266 W(A(-UR 2z60 -- r • Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page: Al, Date Jan. 23, 1999 Everything Is Acccording to Plan By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star The game is called Simcity. Those who play get to create a community from scratch. — hous- es, roads, industry, business, and services. In 1980, the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors played a version of Simcity. Only it wasn't a game. Seven years earlier, the county adopted it's first zoning map, a creation of the county's first plan- ning director, Ron Berg. "Ron had a love affair with crayons, and he immediately started coloring maps of the coun- ty," former Board of Supervisors liaison to the Planning Commis- sion Kenneth Y. Stiles said of that first zoning map. The problem was that every- thing was zoned according to what the planning schools teach you, Stiles said. "Wasn't it patterned somewhat after Fairfax County, the way they did it?" former Planning Commission Chairman James Gol- laday added. "If we develop the county as it is zoned now, we'll make an urban county like Loudoun look small," Board of Supervisors Chairman S. Roger Koontz said in 1980. In any case, the decision- mak- ing was out of the hands of the elected officials. That's what scared Koontz and ultimately the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. "We looked at that and said `We've got to fix it,' " Golladay added. So, they bit the bullet. The county underwent a comprehen- sive downzoning. On a recent weekday afternoon, former Planning Commission chairmen C. Langdon Gordon, Frank Brumback, and Golladay along with current Planning Com- mission Chairman Charles De - Haven Jr., gathered with Stiles in County Administrator John R. Ri- ley Jr.'s office. The men talked of vision — that the Frederick County of to- day closely resembles what they envisioned 20 years ago. "We were really scared when we discovered how much land was zoned residential at that time," said Gordon, who was chairman of the Planning Commission through the downzoning process. "I guess you'd have to say we just had growing pains." Downzoning reclassified 13,000 of the county's 261,000 acres to more restrictive zoning. The zoning was important be- cause it allowed the property to be developed in certain ways. At the time, the county had six different residential zoning classifications that outlined the specific number of units per acre that could be built. By changing the zoning back to rural areas, or RA, developers would have to ask the county for permission to develop more dense residential or business property. If the county isn't ready for the pro- ject, it can deny the rezoning re- quest. Riley said the direction he was given by Gordon and Brumback when they hired him as planning director has made a lasting im- pression on the county. Riley said he was told to devel- op a long-range plan that was de- fensible, "something. we can work within and feel comfortable with so that when someone comes in and says we want to put in 1,200 houses or whatever the case may be we are in the position where we can say it's a good thing or something we aren't ready for and it doesn't meet where we want to be on a long-range basis." Riley was the county's planning director in 1980, having joined the planning staff in 1979. "John came on board and we gave him a present," Golladay said. "A lot of this is due to his leadership." Riley looked at every county parcel and assessed whether it was appropriately zoned. "The downzoning was legally a very ticklish matter," Stiles, the supervisors' liaison to the Plan- ning Commission from 1979-1991, said. About a dozen properties fell into gray zoning areas, and were examined even more closely. "It was the consensus of the Planning Commission and the board that we were not going to include any- thing to be downzoned that was at all iffy, because nobody had ever done a downzoning without being challenged in court," Stiles said. "We were afraid that if we put one in that was borderline justifi- able and got sued on that one and lost, there would be a domino ef- fect and the whole thing would just collapse." "We weighed the vested inter- ests angle," Gordon said. "We had to weigh that very strong." During the 1970s, state appeals courts had given a series of deci- sions on property and develop- ment rights that were very clearly leaning in the favor of the proper- ty owners, severely limiting what counties could do. "We tried to use the same cri- teria on all of (the downzonings). We tried to be fair," Golladay, who was on the Planning Commission from 1976-1994, said. Every property had to pass the same litmus test, Riley said. "The whole thing would have collapsed if someone could have challenged it on the basis that `Well, you singled out my property and didn't treat it like everyone else's,' " Stiles said. "If we were threatened by one person, we were threatened by a hundred, to be sued." To prevent the downzoning from being tossed by the court on a technicality, the county hired an attorney who specialized in zoning issues. "Retaining David (Andre) for that project so he could work with us through it was a wise decision," Riley said. "David was very help- ful in making sure we were con- sistent." "Every decision we made we knew somebody was looking over our shoulder, so we had to be very cautious," Gordon said. Originally, 22,000 acres of county land was slated to be moved back into an agricultural category from either residential, industrial, or commercial zoning. In the end, the figure was ap- proximately half that. Downzoning shifted 13,000 acres back to agri- culture. The county contains 261,000 acres. Then -County Administrator James White joked about the downzoning as "The Frederick 'County Bar Association Relief Act of 1980." "We're still one of the few places in the state that didn't face a major court challenge," Golladay said. "It's hard to overstate what an • achievement that was," Stiles added. "We were evolving from the dark ages," Gordon said. Now, nearly 20 years later, the former commissioners are pretty pleased with the way things turned out. "Over the last 20 years, Freder- ick County has done a better job of planning for growth and devel- opment and handling it in a rea- sonable way than any other coun- ty in the state of Virginia," Stiles said. He pointed to neighboring Clarke County as an example. Stiles said Frederick County, which many slow -growth activists claim is growing out of control, has a real estate tax rate of 59 cents per hundred dollars of as- sessed value, while Clarke Coun- ty, which prides itself on con- trolled growth, has a real estate tax rate of 92 cents. "Look at the development of fa- cilities, the development of roads," he said. "If we had not done the downzoning, where would we be today? I think we are far better off," Stiles said. "I think the county's turned out pretty much the way we envi- sioned it back in '76 and '80," Gol- laday added, with the bulk of the growth east of Interstate 81. The dust had a chance to settle after the comprehensive downzon- ing because of the economy. "Back in the '80s, it was like a roller coaster," Brumback said. "The best thing that I have done is get- ting the downzoning completed in the fashion we did so it would give us a reasonably good basis to go from there." "It was a watershed," Gordon said. Riley said the comprehensive downzoning was just the start of the county's planning strategy. That long-range plan is still being used today. "Whey passed it on to the new Planning Commission members that are now hopefully dealing with something that has some consistency to it," Riley said. "They know how they want to bal- ance it and how they want to get there. I feel pretty good about where they were and where they are now." DeHaven is now carrying the mantle of a long-range view of Frederick County. "While we're facing a lot of con- cerns on a lot of fronts, I think the reason we're in as good a shape as we are today is because there was a lot of good compre- hensive, long- range planning and thought that went into the process and it didn't happen overnight," DeHaven said. "We've been real fortunate that we've had a good plan. No plan is ever perfect, but it was a good plan, it was well thought out, and all those con- cepts were applied real consistent- ly through the years." "You guys have done a lot of amazing things around here in a fairly short period of time," Riley said. 0 Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page: A7, Date Jan. 23 Long Range Planning Become Difficult As Population Booms By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star "You look back and see what's been accomplished, how consis- tently its been applied and contin- ues to work, I think we are very, very fortunate," Frederick County Planning Commission Chairman Charles DeHaven Jr. said recent- ly. "We started virtually with nothing." DeHaven said the county up- dates its comprehensive plan each year. "We're doing a lot of things right and I think that's why it's working so well. There's been a lot of talented, real bright, real ded- icated people involved with it through the years." While the Planning Commis- sion is keeping up with the coun- ty's growth, DeHaven wonders about the long-range view. "With the rate of growth we have been experiencing, it's hard- er and harder to find the time to devote to that longer -range plan- ning and setting the groundwork for the next 30 or 40 or 100 years. I don't think anyone's lost sight of it, but it gets tougher all the time." According to a recent survey by the University of Virginia's Wel- don Cooper Center for Public Ser- vice, Frederick County is the 18th fastest growing locality in Vir- ginia, with a 22 percent popula- tion growth rate. The county's commitment ,to comprehensive long- range plan- ning isn't falling by the wayside, though. Today, county planners are working on land use plans for var- ious segments of the county. Some plans already in place include U.S. 11 south of Winchester and U.S. 11 north of Winchester. There's also a plan for the Round Hill area. Currently, staff is working on the Southern Frederick Land Use Study, which encompasses an area the size of Winchester, roughly be- tween Middle Road and U.S. 522 South. Without the 1980 downzon- ing, there wouldn't be a reason to do the Southern Frederick Land Use Study, because the zoning for development would all be in place, County Administrator John R. Ri- ley Jr. said. "If (the downzoning) hadn't happened when it did, there wouldn't be any controls for any of this," DeHaven said. "The county would have just been sitting back and waiting for it to happen." "Who would have thought back in 1980 we'd been dealing with battlefield preservation?" Riley asked as he pointed out the coun- ty's planning vision evolves with the times. "It's still been a matter of see- ing a lot of pressure in a partic- ular area," DeHaven said. "We haven't been truly reacting to it. We've been a little pro -active, but it's a little scary how close (that line is)." Is L� Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page: A7, Date Jan, 23 Downzoning Helped Give Frederick County a Foundation to Build On Its Character By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star Downzoning was an undertak- ing that needed to be done if Frederick County was to retain its character. "The accomplishment of that downzoning is probably the high- light of what we accomplished overall because that set a good solid foundation to build on," for- mer Planning Commission Chair- man Frank Brumback said. "You didn't have a lot (of properties) left out in the wings and have problems later on." County Administrator John R. Riley Jr., who was county plan- ning director at the time, said the commissioners and Board of Su- pervisors made the task manage- able. "It was easy for staff, too, because every time you looked around, they were still behind you," Riley said. "They were deter- mined that it was going to get done." Part of getting it done, though was keeping the public informed. That was one of the biggest chal- lenges, according to former Plan- ning Commission Chairman C. Langdon Gordon. When the public hearing on downzoning took place Sept. 16, 1980, just nine people spoke. More than 400 people attended five sep- arate community meetings earlier in the year to hear about the plan. The learning experience went both ways, though. Ask Brumback about what ad- vice he'd give planners today and he's quick to reply. "One of the mistakes, at least I know I made, was probably taking the word of the developer (when it wasn't in writing). We took the word of too many people in this county for too long a period of time. "Here's a classic example — Lakeside. It was supposed to have a 10-yoar buildout period. The thing was built in less than three years. We weren't ready for that." Golladay's 20-20 hindsight vi- sion is focused on the roads. "I don't know how we would have done it based on the highway de- partment's working at that time." He used Aylor Road as an ex- ample. "We all knew a problem was coming by the additional res- idential houses, but the highway department said Fredericktowne is OK to hook on, Albin Village is OK to hook on, but they didn't take the cumulative effect of all those houses into effect on that road and if they did, they didn't tell anybody." "We wanted a collector road," Brumback jumps in. "Nobody would listen to us. We wanted a collector road and a traffic light." "We knew the safety factor out there and knew it was coming," Gordon said. "I don't know if the highway department wanted to work with anybody," Golladay said. That's changed, Riley said. The county and the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation now work closely to build roads and high- ways. Some examples of that new- found cooperation between the county and VDOT can be seen in the planned Warrior Drive and the work being done to fix some of the problems on Aylor Road. 0 0 Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page: Al, Date Feb. 24, 1999 Bigger Picture Is Becoming Clearer For Development 20 846-Home Project in Frederick Shows Importance of Planning Relationship By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star A quick glance at the numbers will tell the story of a major de- velopment being planned along Senseny Road: • 846 homes. • 355 residential acres. • 22 acres of commercial use. Frederick County Deputy Plan- ning Director Evan Wyatt said Greenway Engineering, which is developing three contiguous prop- erties just southeast of Greenwood Road, is trying to address the big picture of the proposed develop- ment. Wyatt said there have been in- formal discussions between the landowners — Giles Farm, Lyn- nehaven, and Sheppard/Futral — and the county for about six months. The rezoning request will face a Planning Commission pub- lic hearing March 3. It will go to the Board of Supervisors on April 14. Wyatt said the promises, or proffers, being offered by the de- veloper to entice the Board of Su- pervisors to approve a rezoning re- quest are fairly significant. "Then again, it's a fairly significant de- velopment proposal," Wyatt said during an interview earlier this week in his office. The land involved is currently zoned rural area, or RA. The re- quest is to rezone it to residential performance (RP) and busi- ness/commercial (132). The developers are promising to build roads, pay for turn lanes off Senseny Road, pay for traffic lights along Senseny Road, set aside 15 acres of land for a new school, and dedicate land for a possible trail network in the fu- ture. "They may develop it as a mar- keting tool, but they are not re- quired to. The land will be there, but whether or not a physical trail will be constructed is another thing," Wyatt said. The developers originally agreed to construct the trail in lieu of a monetary contri- bution to the Parks and Recre- ation Department, but the coun- ty's Parks and Recreation Com- mission opted for the cash. A civil engineer for the Freder- ick County School Board is evalu- ating the 15 acres proposed by the developers as a possible school site. Wyatt said the School Board was interested, but it needs to find out if the site is able to be developed. That site would be in lieu of some monetary contributions to the School Board as a result of the residential development of the area. The developer also has promised not to build townhouses or apartments on the land, al- though Wyatt said duplexes and multi-plexes are possibilities. The buildout will occur over an 11- year period, creating approximate- ly 79 new homes each year. "It's not an astronomically large num- ber, but it is significant. It is a lot of building permits," Wyatt said. The county averages 650 new res- idential permits a year, two-thirds of which are in the urban develop- ment area. The land involved in the rezoning request is inside the county's urban development area. The proffers aren't just for the residential land, either. The devel- opers haven't committed to any type of use for the commercial land, although they have agreed to rule out auto dealerships and outdoor commercial recreational uses, such as batting cages. They also have agreed to certain archi- tectural styles as well. The land that is proposed to be commercial falls on either side of a main thoroughfare, Channing Drive, planned through the devel- opment. "Twelve acres on one side and 10 acres on the other," Wyatt said. "That's usually the size of a lot that you look for when you are doing plaza -type development, where you might have a grocery store, drugstore, service shops, that sort of thing." If the property is rezoned, a new wetlands area may be created as well. Wyatt said the developer is planning to create forebays, a type of retention pond, in addition to the main drainage area, which will be to the Twin Lakes. "The intent is to create wetlands areas throughout there for environmen- tal reasons," Wyatt said. The rezoning request is adja- cent to several existing subdivi- sions, or subdivisions that have been master -planned but not yet built, Wyatt said. Some of those subdivisions in- clude Apple Ridge, Bedford Vil- lage, Burning Knolls, Carlisle Heights, Fieldstone Heights, and Briarwood Estates. Wyatt said the Planning Department was ap- proached by the officers of some of the property owners associations of those subdivisions. "I certainly enjoyed that be- cause it was an opportunity to sit down and show them at least what we knew and listen to what concerns they had," Wyatt said. "They still have concerns, but what they will be able to do when they go into the public hearing process is speak to what they know and ask questions about what they don't know." The mixed -use rezoning request is something that the planning staff and Planning Commission has been encouraging. "They want to look at the comprehensive pic- ture," Wyatt said. "The piecemeal rezonings are trouble in that you can't get the full impact." There's a downside, though. "When you do something like this, the numbers really, really look massive. And in some degree they are. You're planning a significant area — 400 acres is a large area to be planned." However, Wyatt said looking at the big picture makes it much easier to figure out the potential impacts. Wyatt said while the numbers are large, it isn't the county's biggest rezoning request in the past decade. That distinction be- longs to Wheatlands, which is ap- proved for 1,463 units just south- west of the intersection of Va. 277 and U.S. 522 at Double Tollgate. That development hasn't been built yet. C 0 Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page; B1, Date March 2, 1999 Group Is Tired of Frederick Growth Says Senseny Road Rezoning Shows Growth Out of Control By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star The prospect of hundreds of more houses along Senseny Road has sparked a group of county res- idents to battle residential growth. Gina Forrester, chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Oppo- sition of the Rezoning, said she's received a lot of phone calls from people supporting the effort to fight the rezoning of 355 acres. That rezoning is expected to result in 846 houses during the next 11 years. Forrester, who lives in the Ap- ple Ridge subdivision adjacent to the area proposed to be rezoned, said the magnitude of the project caught people's attention. "It's the next big project and people finally have had enough," Forrester said Sunday in an inter- view from her home. Forrester said while the rezon- ing request carries many attrac- tive promises, such as walking trails and a 15-acre site for a new school, there are large deficits as well. She said the school site doesn't come with the funds to build or operate the school. "Your kids will be long gone out of the system," Forrester said at a public meeting organized by Greenway Engineer- ing last week. That company is shepherding the rezoning requests through the system. Traffic from the built -out devel- opment would also increase the load on area roads by 125 percent, according to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) trip projections. The Frederick County Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on the rezoning requests at 7 p.m. Wednesday night in the Board of Supervisors meeting room at the Frederick County Of- fice Complex. The three requests — for Giles Farm, Lynnohaven, and the Fu- tral/Sheppard tracts — are being represented by Greenway Engi- neering. The rezoning requests not only mobilized residents in the sur- rounding subdivisions, but fused an alliance called Friends of Fred- erick. The group is circulating a peti- tion that reads in part, "Whereas Frederick County's residential de- velopment policies have weakened our tax base, undermined our schools, congested our roads, and degraded our quality of life, we petition the Board of Supervisors to impose a freeze on further res- idential rezonings." The petition urges residents to attend Wednesday night's rezon- ing hearing as well, and to bring their children along. F. Scott Gregory, of Middle Road, is helping to organize Friends of Frederick. "It's time to take a stand," he said Monday afternoon in a tele- phone interview from his home. "We all pay in the long run." Gregory has a son and a daughter at Robinson Elementary School. The new Back Creek Dis- trict School is being built across the street from his orchard. "We should learn the lessons of Loudoun, Fairfax, and Prince William counties," Gregory said. He grew up in Warrenton during the '60s and '70s. He said Manas- sas has changed drastically be- cause of the rapid growth of Prince William County. Even though he lives across the county from the where the Sense- ny Road rezonings would occur, he sees residential growth as a coun- ty- wide problem. "It has a real impact on all of us. We want to slow the growth down every- where." Gregory said the costs in terms of services and infrastructure far outweigh the benefits of new res- idential development. "I know what's coming down the road," he said. "Higher taxes. Where are they going to get the money from? The reason we all love it here, we're losing fast." 0 0 Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page: Al, Date March 3, 1999 Giles: Farm Land Ready for Families By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star When Frederick County's Plan- ning Commission takes up three separate rezoning requests tonight that could result in 846 homes on 355 acres along Senseny Road during the next 11 years, Alice Giles will be listening closely. Giles, her husband, Robert, and his siblings want to sell their 152- acre farm because none of the family is able to farm it any- more. "We have farmed the land. We are getting up in age that we can't. Why can't we have a piece of the American Dream like every- body else?" Alice Giles said this morning in a telephone interview. "The land that they are talking about has been farmed and there is no more farming it." The Giles Farm, along with land owned by Lynnhaven LC and a parcel owned by George and Marguerite Sheppard and Betty and Allen Futral, will all be con- sidered as separate rezoning re- quests, although Greenway Engi- neering is presenting a single pro- ject that would cover all three properties. The prospect of 846 new homes along Senseny Road has sparked controversy among county resi- dents who think there should be a moratorium on residential growth in Frederick County. Some of the most vocal opponents have been residents in the subdivisions that surround the properties in ques- tion. That raises Alice Giles' ire. "These people came in here out of another county, lived off of us, and I didn't complain," she said. "I've lived here all my life. I'm paying taxes. I don't have a child in school. I haven't had a child in school since 1981." The Giles farm was passed down from George Washington Giles to his children. "If we can't farm it anymore, he'd want kids on that property, he'd want families on that property," Alice Giles said. She said discussions have gone on for some time about what would happen to the farm if it were sold to developers. "It's well thought out," Alice Giles said. "When somebody ap- proached us to buy, we had to know what they would do before we would sell it." Giles doesn't have a problem with newcomers to the county. "Frederick County right now is just like the Statue of Liberty (inviting to outsiders)," Giles said. 0 0 Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page: Al, Date March 4, 1999 Rezoning for 846 Homes Is Tabled By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star After hailing the plan as one of the best they've seen, the Freder- ick County Planning Commission tabled indefinitely three rezoning requests that could add 846 hous- es to the Senseny Road area. The commissioners told Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering to iron out the transportation and phasing problems with the plan, as well as the school impacts, be- fore bringing the requests back. `Troperly address those issues — I'd be in favor of the rezoning," Planning Commissioner Wayne Miller said. Thirty-five people paraded be- fore the Planning Commission on Wednesday night to express their views on the rezoning of the Giles Farm, Lynnehaven, and property jointly owned by George and Mar- guerite Sheppard and Betty and Allen Futral. In all, 355 acres would be rezoned from rural area to residential performance, if the rezonings were approved. While there are three rezonings involved, the development was presented as one project by Smith. Smith outlined the big picture as well as the proffers — or promises of land and cash — the developer was making to try to offset the impact of the develop- ment on Frederick County. "We're trying to regionally plan the area, get some infrastructure built," Smith told the Planning Commission. The first of the three parcels to be developed would be Giles Farm, which fronts on Senseny Road. Local developer Greg Ban- croft and his partner, David Madi- son, are taking on the project. "This plan did not come out of thin air," Bancroft said. "I think the plan speaks for itself." The project includes land for a neighborhood shopping center, 15 acres for a new school site, walk- ing trails, and bike paths. It also contributes financially to in- stalling traffic lights at the inter- section of Senseny and Greenwood roads as well as the future inter- section of Channing Drive and Senseny Road. Still, an overwhelming majority of the 160 people who braved a whipping rain storm to attend the meeting spoke out against the pro- posal. "We're not opposed to growth, but I think you should pay as you go," said Scott Gregory, who lives on Middle Road. Gregory is spokesman for Friends of Freder- ick, which is urging a moratorium on all residential rezonings. Carlisle Heights resident William Renkenberger urged the commissioners to put on the brakes. "We're not doing ourselves or our community any favors," he said. Wayne Nicholson, who lives in College Park, was worried about rapid growth in Frederick County. "We're going to get to the point where all the apple orchards are gone," he said. "We clearly can't handle our current growth," Apple Ridge res- ident Gina Forrester said. "Let's not dig ourselves deeper." A couple of dozen school chil- dren also attended the public hearing. Several spoke, including Desta Golden, who talked about overcrowded bus rides to James Wood Middle School and over- crowded classrooms once she gets there. However, not everyone was against the rezoning requests. County resident Richard Crane said he knew when he bought a home in Glenmont Village that the entire area would be built up. He wishes that the opposition to the rezoning would evaporate. "The owners may give up trying to sell (the farm) and take up pig farming." Crane implied that those who are living in the surrounding sub- divisions — Apple Ridge, Carlisle Heights, Bedford Village, Burning Knolls, Senseny Glen, and Glen- mont Village — want to have their cake and eat it too. "They're enjoying their cable TV, their pub- lic water and sewer," Crane said of the existing subdivisions that contributed to the county's growth. "They can't have it both ways." Former Frederick County Board of Supervisors Chairman Kenneth Y. Stiles agreed with Crane, saying many of the people railing against the residential per- formance rezonings are living in subdivisions themselves. "This property has been identi- fied for residential use for more than 25 years," Stiles said. "The best way to protect the rural parts of Frederick County is to allow de- velopment to occur where it is de- signed to occur." Stiles added another twist to the story. He pointed out that, historically, Frederick County is- sues 650-700 building permits a year, 600 of those for single family homes. "Even if this is denied, how many building permits are is- sued next year has nothing to do with this rezoning." One of the Giles Farm owners, Robert Giles, explained the 160- acre farm has been on the market for a few years. He said there isn't any pasture to grow for cattle. "We aren't going to get rich on this." He added several developers have approached the family, and this is the finest proposed develop- ment he's seen. After two hours of public com- ment, Smith wandered back to the podium to try to address some of the concerns. "There is a solution to this. I'm not sure its totally clear in my head," he said. The commissioners praised Smith's efforts and tried to ex- plain the county's growth philoso- phy to the residents who stayed until the end of the meeting. "It's not going to destroy the quality of education in Frederick County," Commissioner Roger Thomas said, addressing concerns about overcrowded schools. He said the county is building 20 per- cent fewer houses now than it did 10 years ago. He also reminded residents the county is trying to keep its rural character intact west of Interstate 81. He said development is needed east of I-81 to accomplish that. "We wanted to keep that devel- opment in one area. We didn't want it sprawling," added Plan- ning Commissioner Robert A. Mor- ris. He said those protesting the subdivision plans had been insin- uating that growth in the county depended on the rezoning of land, and that's not true. "We've been beating these de- velopers over the head about 'bringing large chunks of land (be- fore us) so we can see the big pic- ture," Morris said. The Greenway Engineering proposal was exactly what the planning commissioners have been asking for — a regional look at development, dealing re- • L�J gionally with problems that might be caused by that development. "This rezoning is the right thing to do," Morris said. Planning Commissioner John Light, though, probably had the best words of encouragement for the residents who braved the weather to attend the meeting. "What you did do tonight is raise the stakes of development," Light said. "Whether you feel you won or lost, you have created a better planning situation. It's far above what we've dealt with so far." Attending the Frederick County Planning Commission meeting in the Frederick County Board of Su- pervisors Meeting Room in the Frederick County Office Complex were Chairman Charles S. De - Haven Jr., Morris, Light, Thomas, Miller, John Marker, Rick Ours, S. Blaine Wilson, George Romine, Terry Stone, and Wayne Miller. • Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page: Al, Date April 6, 1999 Development Debate Continues Along Senseny Rd. Engineer Says Those Building 846 Homes Shouldn't Pay for All of the Past Growth By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star Nearly a dozen residents of the Glenmont Village Homeowners As- sociation gathered Monday night at the Greenwood Fire Hall to hear the latest in the rezoning plans for three parcels of land along Senseny Road. The project, expected to gener- ate 846 homes on 355 acres over an 11-year period, has sparked some strong debate over residen- tial growth in Frederick County. The three parcels of land — one owned by Lynnehaven L.L.C., the Giles Farm, and the Sheppard/Fu- tral tract — would be developed separately, but under one master development plan. The land is in the county's urban development area, an area Frederick County has designated for high -density growth. Mark Smith, the president of Greenway Engineering, said there's already a buyer for the Giles Farm, which sits in the mid- dle of the three parcels. "We brought it all in together so we can plan it as a community," Smith said, adding the owners could have pulled off 25-acre parcels at a time to subdivide like other projects that have been de- veloped in the area. Some features of the proposed development include a 15-acre site for a new elementary school, 22 acres for commercial development, walking trails, and a road sys- tem. "Traffic is an issue," Smith said. He added the developers, Greg Bancroft and his partner, David Madison, have agreed that only half of the homes can be built before Charming Drive from Valley Mill Road to Senseny Road is complete. The landowners also are ready to put up $75,000 to- ward a traffic light at the inter- section of Greenwood and Senseny roads. Smith said the developers are willing to pay their fair share to mitigate the impact of the new homes on the area. "We can't pay for every cent of previous develop- ment," Smith added. Glenmont Village Homeowners Association President Richard Crane had some harsh words for the adjoining residents who have been fighting the rezoning of the Lynnehaven, Giles, and Shep- pard/Futral tracts. He said those residents moved into their subdi- visions and now they want to stop others from coming in. One Glenmont homeowner re- ferred to two sheets passed out prior to the meeting by Friends of Frederick as "propaganda." Friends of Frederick is a group urging a moratorium on all resi- dential growth in the county. Smith explained that the pro- posed housing throughout the three parcels will vary from sin- gle-family homes similar to those in the surrounding developments to larger, more expensive homes near the lake on the Shepard/Fu- tral property. Smith said the project may be back before the Frederick County Planning Commission in May or June. The Planning Commission tabled the rezonings at Smith's re- quest following the March 3 public hearing. After Planning Commission ac- tion, Smith expects the proposal to go before the Board of Supervisors in June or July. Smith said if the rezonings are approved, it will still take months for a master de- velopment plan to be finalized. "You won't see anything hap- pening this year at all," Smith said. Also attending the Monday night meeting were representa- tives of the Giles family, Robert and his wife, Alice. "We feel an obligation to the community," Robert Giles said. He explained he and his brother could no longer keep up the 152-acre farm. "I promised my father on his deathbed we'd keep it as a farm as long as we could." Robert Giles said that was over two decades ago. In that time, as the residential subdivisions began encroaching on his farm, lie watched people use his land as a park, take Christmas trees, and otherwise treat his land as theirs. He said he wished he could keep the farm, but it just isn't possible. "We're just regular folic," he said. For Alice Giles, though, the battle over her family land is per- sonal. "This is our property," she said. "We were the residents of the Senseny Road area before any of this." With emotion rising in her voice, Alice Giles said the charge that her family is single-handedly destroying the quality of life in Frederick County is even more up- setting. "They've got too much," she said. "They don't even know what they've got." 0 E Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page: Al, Date April 17, 1999 Putting the Pieces To Frederick's Puzzle Together By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star During recent controversies about development in Frederick County, several visions of the fu- ture have been put forward. Frederick County Planning Di- rector Kris Tierney has seen them all — and knows others not before the public. lIe has some advice for those who would shape Frederick's physical future. "Look to the future. Look at trying to imagine 10, 15, 20 years down. What is Frederick County going to look like if things contin- ue the way they are today? If it's not a pretty picture, now is the time to try and reroute things. The challenge on us is to try to create that picture," Tierney said. "Create the image of — under current rules, current regulations — here's what your county is like- ly to look like. We're building 650 homes a year, a third of those are going in the rural area, most of them are going on 5-acre lots. "At that rate, how quickly does that rural area become a sea of 5- acre lots? How many school kids does that generate? If we are go- ing to have growth, it is much more efficient to have it in a com- pact area, the urban development area." Just how contentious growth within the urban development area can be is illustrated by two residential developments that front on Senseny Road, Oakdale Crossing was rezoned to residential performance in 1983. Its 250 acres could hold as many as 670 houses. Currently, 69 homes are in the subdivision with another 50 about to be built. When it was rezoned, a developer was not expected to mitigate the impacts of the rezoning on the county. Today, the county has the abil- ity to accept proffers — or promis- es in the way of cash or amenities fi•om developers — on rezoning re- quests. It is the only time a coun- ty can expect a developer to offset the impact of a subdivision on the surrounding area. Fast forward to a current re- zoning request. Greenway Engineering is repre- senting the landowners of three large parcels of land along Sense- ny Road. The 355 total acres are expected to yield 846 new homes at a rate of 79 homes a year for 11 years. The impact of the development on the county when the project is finished will be great according to the documentation with the rezon- ing request: 0 It would generate 16,830 ve- hicle trips per day, increasing the traffic count at the intersection of Greenwood and Senseny roads by 125 percent. The impact on other roads in the area would be simi- lar. • The school system would see an additional 330 elementary school, 119 middle school, and 144 high school students. The proffers being offered by local developers Greg Bancroft and David Madison on the Giles, Lynnehaven, and Sheppard/Futral tracts are also substantial: • The developers would partic- ipate in the cost of providing a traffic light at Greenwood and Senseny roads. • They would donate 15 acres of land to the Frederick County school system as a future school site. "The impact is tremendous. They're aware of that," Tierney said. "(The developers) know that in order for this thing to go any- where they're really going to have to put together a package that mitigates those impacts, spreads them out over time." The Frederick County Planning Commission hasn't decided whether to recommend acceptance of the rezoning requests for the Giles Farm/Lynnehaven/Sheppard- Futral development to the Board of Supervisors. It's still mulling its options. ❑❑❑ "If you're not going to some- times say `no', then why go through the exercise?" Frederick County Supervisor Richard C. Shickle asked at a Frederick County Planning Commission re- treat earlier this year. He and other officials want more information on the potential effects on the county if a rezoning request is granted. The supervisors recently turned down a residential rezoning re- quest from developer David Holli- day, who wanted to build 250 homes at Carriebrooke, land he owns just northeast of the Freder- ick County Sanitation Authority headquarters on Tasker Road. The reason for denial: the tim- ing wasn't right. Assessing the timing is the toughest part for the county. Tier- ney said it's a "ticklish" issue. "We have got statements in the (comprehensive plan) that very bluntly state that development proposals shouldn't be approved until the infrastructure is in place to support them," Tierney said. The key to saying no, Tierney said, is following the comprehen- sive plan consistently and without deviation. "(This policy) certainly gives me some degree of comfort," Tierney said. "Through good plan- ning and decent administration, we've not been dragged into court." In the late 1970s, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission realized all the zoning was in place for res- idential development. This fiightened them because it took all control away from the lo- cal boards. So the county tackled a com- prehensive downzoning, returning 13,000 acres to an agricultural classification from a residential one. The Urban Development and the Sewer and Water Service ar- eas came along later — in 1983 — further restricting where there could be high -density residential development in the county. Though there are some excep- tions, basically the county re- stricts the bulls of its residential growth to the area east of Inter- state 81. The Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) is a bit larg- er than the Urban Development Area (UDA), but allows only in- dustrial or commercial growth, not residential hook-ups. Restricting sewer service areas is something other communities are starting to use to manage res- idential growth. "Development is going to come, but somebody's got to pay for the fixture impacts," said Paul Ander- son, president of the Frederick County Farm Bureau. The Ander- son's 100-acre farm, off Marlboro Road, has been in Mary Ander- 9 • son's family for 100 years. Behind his farm is a subdivi- sion built on two -acre lots, all fi•onting on Carter's Lane, a wind- ing, narrow road. Anderson said that's part of what's wrong with the county's plan for development outside the UDA. Anderson said encroaching de- velopment on Frederick County farmland brings many problems with it, including new residents that don't understand the way agriculture works or the smells that go with farming. It also drives up the value of the farmland. "The value of the land isn't worth anything to us unless we want to sell it," Ander- son said. "And we don't want to sell it." This is an issue that the county is looking at closely as well. At the recent Frederick County Planning Commission retreat, offi- cials learned that 31 percent of the residential growth in the county is outside the UDA. That stunned planning commissioners. Stephen M. Gyurisin, a consult- ing planner with G.W. Clifford and Associates of Winchester, said the five -acre house lots are a waste of land. "It's like telling a farmer he can have just one cow for every 30 acres." Gyurisin won't get an argu- ment from the Frederick County planners. "Five acre lots — they're waste- ful," Tierney said. "There's a bet- ter way to do it." Tierney said dealing with de- velopment in the rural areas brings with it a web of complex is- sues. "What do you want the rural area of the county to look like 20 years from now? If the way we are heading isn't beginning to sketch the picture you want to see, then what rule changes or what policy changes do you want to protect what you've got now?" Tierney said. At the Frederick County Plan- ning Commission retreat, the planners were directed to wrestle with the problem of growth west of Interstate 81. "We want to try to preserve the rural character of the county, as does Loudoun (County). You look at what's happening over there and .you know that they're 10-15 years ahead of us. We're going to be facing those same issues," Tier- ney said. It's not just a matter of good planning, Tierney added. "The real rock bottom issue is for these agri- culturalists, or large landowners, a lot of their wealth — if you want to call it that — is their land." Tough restrictions on that land is money out of the landowners' pockets, Tierney said. Those landowners need to be brought in- to the discussion when the plan- ners figure out how to best pre- serve the rural nature of the coun- ty. "We need to be sure that we understand their concerns and their issues so that we can try to put together something — again the same as dealing with the builders," Tierney said. "If agricul- tural land, for example, is what we are most interested in protect- ing, then maybe somehow we need to differentiate the agricultural land — the prime agricultural belt that's pretty identifiable — differ- entiate that from the rest of the rural land." Still, Tierney understands such planning comes with a risk as well. "You just can't tighten up the screws on that agricultural land because that is the sort of fall back for those folks." One way a county can help both the landowners and the local infrastructure is to buy the devel- opment rights on open land. In Virginia Beach, officials call it "cost avoidance." They use tax dollars to buy up the development rights of land, justifying it as a way of actually saving money. It goes something like this: If I own 100 acres that would be worth $400,000 to developers and would cost the locality $1 mil- lion in infrastructure improve- ments, the local government buys the development rights for $200,000. The farmer keeps his land, has some cash in the bank, and the locality has just avoided spending $800,000 in infrastruc- ture costs. There are many ways of setting up the sale of these development rights. Some private, non- profit groups also buy development rights. "I like the development rights concept," Anderson said. However, he has some strong feelings on the way development rights should be purchased. "You don't know what's going to happen 25 years from now. To be in the hands of gov- ernment leaders forever is wrong." Anderson said a specific term on the purchase of development rights would address many of the problems. At the end of the term, the landowners could purchase the development rights back, at cur- rent land values, not the value of the land when the rights were purchased. "It's a tool that those of us who don't want to sell off our property can use to help control growth," Anderson said. "It's obviously a major policy decision," Tierney said. "You're talking tax dollars. And unless it's important enough to the citizens, it's not going to happen." Another option to preserve the rural nature of Frederick County is to fine tune the 2-acre cluster- ing provision in the rural area. Clustering is favored by the county because it concentrates the development in a smaller area. It's also attractive to developers be- cause the infrastructure costs — road, water and sewer lines — are less expensive because there are shorter distances involved. Under the rural area clustering provi- sion, 40 percent of the total acreage needs to be set aside as open space, and the lot sizes can be 2-acres instead of 5- acres. "The simple, easy, low-cost up- front way (to develop rural land) is to just do the same old 5-acre lot," Tierney said of the paperwork required for the 2-acre option. "One of the challenges to us is we've got to create a carrot and make it worth somebody's time and effort to do (the 2-acre cluster development)." 11 • Reprinted from The Wuielitester Star Page: Al, Date April 17, 1999 Building Affordable, High -Quality Houses Is Tricky By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star Sidewalks, curb and guttering, and streetlights. The county is requiring those as part of site plans for residential development. Oakcrest Builders President James T. Vickers said the county has a higher quality, higher level of residential develop- ment now than in the past, and that this has taken a toll on af- fordable housing. "I think the new subdivisions that are coming out are better planned. The layouts are better, the road systems are better," Vick- ers said. "With all those things added, and then you throw the proffers on top of that, you do have an issue on affordability. You have to look at trying to balance that also." Frederick County Planning Di- rector Kris Tierney said there was some resistance from the develop- ers when the county began requir- ing curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. "Once a couple of developments put them in and found those lots sold, and sold at a premium and sold quicker, people found that `Gee, it's not that bad after all.' " Vickers said in an attempt to create affordable housing, perhaps some areas of a subdivision may not . have all the amenities, such as sidewalks. Tierney said that's treading on some slippery ground. "One of the many conflicts we run into is, if you have a low- income family, do they not deserve a sidewalk and streetlight? How do you provide decent, quality, affordable hous- ing? And what frills do you turn off? It's something we haven't done much on." Frederick County Board of Su- pervisors Chairman James L. Longerbeam, a Realtor, said it's important to create a climate so that new, affordable housing will be built. "We have a good stock of af- fordable housing. However, none of it is new," Longerbeam said. Part of the problem, according to Longerbeam, is that by the time the first shovel of dirt is moved to build a foundation, the building lot is costing the develop- er as much as $40,000. The rule of thumb is that the land is a quar- ter of what the home is worth. "Do the math," Longerbeam said in explaining why housing costs are going up. ❑❑❑The Top of Virginia Build- ing Association is stuck in the middle of the growth controversy. As homebuilders, the organization is hardest hit by the proffer dance. Proffers are things that devel- opers promise local government as a way to offset the cost of their projects. This promise can be for cash or other items, such as build- ing roads or donating land for schools. Since 1995, Frederick County has collected $468,456 in proffer money, according to its Planning Department. That money is divid- ed among the schools, parks, and emergency services through a for- mula. The potential impact of any given development is run through the county's Fiscal Impact Model, which takes into account the re- zoning request's affect on schools, recreation, and emergency ser- vices. In general, residential de- velopment has a negative fiscal impact on the county, while com- mercial and industrial develop- ment has a positive fiscal impact on the county, according to the fis- cal impact model. The result of the county's as- sessment is provided to the devel- oper so he can try to offset the de- velopment's impact. It's an elaborate dance. Under enabling legislation from the General Assembly, only rezon- ing requests can carry proffer statements. Those proffers have to be given voluntarily by the devel- oper, not requested by the local government. Tierney said a project would not be turned down just because it didn't have proffers. "However, the odds are if they haven't done that, there are going to be significant impacts of that development that have not been adequately ad- dressed." James T. Vickers, president of Oakerest Builders, said it's clear what is expected. "You're aware of the guidelines. I would not personally bring in a development that would be below what is (in the fiscal impact state- ment). And in many cases, what we try to bring to the table is go- ing a step beyond," Vickers said. "We want to be an asset to the community. In the scope of things, it really adds value to your own project when you do that." Still, homebuilders are unhap- py that proffers land heaviest on them. Top of Virginia Vice Presi- dent James R. Wilkins III said while the county has done a good job keeping down taxes and build- ing a good school system, residen- tial growth has become the fa- vorite whipping boy. "You can't have (commercial and industrial) growth without people who work there," Wilkins said in an interview at his office on Winchester's Loudoun Street Mall. It's been 10 years since Wilkins returned home to become a devel- oper. (He is the third generation of his family to develop local land.) He said in 1989, the only added -on cost per lot in Frederick County was for the water and sewer availability fee. Back then, the fee was $550. Today, that fee is $3,595. Wilkins said when you add in the $4,500 in proffers per single-family home and additional increases planned this year in the water and sewer availability fee, that's nearly an additional $10,000 per house that wasn't there just 10 years ago. Wilkins said rather than the proffers, which only affect one seg- ment of the housing market, a more fair assessment would be a transfer tax tacked onto the trans- fer of property deeds. Right now, new homeowners — not necessarily new residents — pay the price for development, Wilkins said. "It wouldn't have to be the big dollars because it would be spread out." Vickers had some numbers to add to Wilkins' assessment. Of the 100 or so new homes built this year by Oakcrest — the area's largest homebuilder — more than 75 percent of its customers are current residents of Winchester or Frederick County. "The person that might be mov- ing in from New York, or might be moving in from Loudoun County, might not buy a new -construction home. They might come in and buy an existing home, which, the way the system works, has no proffers," said Vickers. "So that's where it gets really mixed in on what's fair and what is the right thing to do. It's not always the right person paying for (develop- ment)." Tierney agrees that the current proffer system isn't the most equi- table, but it's the only way a lo- cality can try to offset the costs of development. He said localities have been pushing for years to be able to as- sess impact fees on development, but the builders and Realtors lob- byists have been able to success- fully fight local governments. De- velopers — including the home construction industry — donated $167,500 to legislators during the second half of 1998, according to an Associated Press report. Tierney said that the majority of homes being built in the county are not paying proffers because the land was rezoned prior to 1990. "We've got to find what com- mon ground we have with the building community. We know where we differ. What can we both live with that will benefit both of us?" Tierney said. "There's no quick fix. There's no silver bul- let. The deeper you dig into these issues, the more complicated you realize they become." Any changes in the way the lo- calities do business would have to be approved by the General As- sembly. It hasn't been receptive to many of the slow -growth requests from cities and towns. During the 1999 General As- sembly session, the Joint Legisla- tive Audit and Review Commis- sion was asked to look at all the legislation that was introduced this year to manage growth. A re- port is expected for the next Gen- eral Assembly session. 9 • Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page: Al, Date June 3, 1999 Planners Endorse Development Of 668 Homes 3 Planned Frederick Subdivisions Should Help Improve U.S. 50 East, Access to Senseny Road By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star After 21/2 hours of discussion, the Frederick County Planning Commission gave its blessing to a master development plan encom- passing 247 acres and creating 668 housing units. The project, planned jointly by Glaize Developments and Jeni Co., is on land already zoned for hous- ing, but 70 Frederick County res- idents turned out to hear more about the project and to let their feelings be known. Nineteen of them addressed the Planning Commission. The acreage borders on several existing subdivisions — Pembridge Heights to the west, Oakdale Crossing and Fairway Estates to the north. Its eastern boundary is the Carper Farm. Its access will be through a new road off the north side of U.S. 50 East, approx- imately 400 feet east of the en- trance to Carpers Valley Golf Course, on the south side of U.S. 50. In explaining the scope of the project, Winchester attorney Billy J. Tisinger — who was represent- ing Glaize and Joni — pointed out that the developers have already addressed some concerns about the plans. Initially, the portion of a major collector road between U.S. 50 and Senseny Road wasn't going to be built until the third phase of the development. Now, building the start of that road will be first. Tisinger also agreed to talk to the owners of the Carper Farm about realigning the major collec- tor road, which is currently planned to dissect the farm. Plan- ning Commission Chairman Charles DeHaven Jr. said there's an opportunity for the road to have less of an impact on the farm when a connection is eventu- ally made to Senseny Road. At the beginning of the deliber- ations, Frederick County Planning Director Kris Tierney framed the discussion. "This land has been zoned residential since the coun- ty's original zoning," he said. "This is not a request for rezon- ing. There are no proffers," Tisinger said. "We are crossing our Ts' and dotting our Ts' in ac- cord with your plan." Tisinger quickly enumerated the high points of the plan, in- cluding the road improvements to U.S. 50 and the development of the major collector road through the three subdivisions — Raven Wing, Raven Pointe, and Raven Oaks. Nearly all of the subdivisions are planned for single-family homes which will be marketed in the $160,000 to $220,000 range, according to Tisinger. The one ex- ception is Raven Oaks, which will be mixed -use residential, perhaps for senior housing, Tisinger said. Some of the discussion focused on the friction that occurs when houses abut farmland. Sandra Carper Ambrose, who owns Carper Farm with her broth- er and sister, said she hoped there would be enough open space in the subdivisions. "I have a great fear our farm will become (open space) for the families that move (to the subdivisions)," she said. Her sentiment was echoed by her brother, John Carper and Paul Anderson, president of the Frederick County Farm Bureau. Anderson said developments that abut farmland need to take into consideration farmers and the impact on them. Constance Story, who lives in Fairway Estates, said she's seen traffic on Senseny Road increase dramatically during the three years she's lived there. "This is going to impact our community," she said. "The builders aren't go- ing to pay for that. We are, the taxpayers." Story's comments highlighted the difference between the Raven Wing, Raven Pointe, and Raven Oaks master development plan and a rezoning request. Because the land is already zoned RP (residential perfor- mance), the developer is not ex- pected to mitigate any of the ef- fects the subdivision may have on the community. During a rezon- ing, however, the developer tries to sweeten the pot for the county and provide cash and amenities (proffers) to offset the effects of a project. After listening to public com- ments, Tisinger had some things to add. He asked for a waiver so that the developer could cul-de-sac Custer Drive, keeping Raven Wing traffic from funneling through Miller Heights. The connections between Raven Wing, Oakdale Crossing, and Underwood Estates would not be created until the Planning Commission said it was the right time. "That way we keep traffic off Senseny Road and have no impact," Tisinger said. He also said that the develop- ers will talk to the residents of Miller Heights to see if they are interested in hooking into public sewer lines. Particular care will be taken when developing the stormwater management plan, Tisinger said, especially to keep the drainage away from Fairway Estates. "It's a massive undertaking and I understand that," Tisinger added. Planning Commissioner John Marker said the commission asked developers to show the big picture, rather than piecemeal projects of 20 to 30 acres. "Now when they do, everybody gets scared," While commending the develop- ers for the thoroughness of the planned project, Marker urged them to meet with Ambrose and the Carpers. "I know what it's like to back up to a subdivision," said Marker, who is an orchardist on Cedar Creels Grade. Though no proffers were in- volved in the master development plan, Planning Commissioner Roger Thomas said the county would be happy to accept a gift from the developers if they want- ed to offer one. "I'm certainly con- cerned about the schools," Thomas said. Planning Commissioner John Light once again praised the coun- ty residents who showed up to take a stand. "You're changing the face of development in the coun- ty," Light said. The county is get- ting better quality development because "basically they know you all are going to show up," Light said. "We are getting your phone calls, we are reading your let- ters." In other action, the Planning Commission: 0 • • Recommended approval of a conditional use permit for a cot- tage occupation tack and saddle shop on Heartwood Drive. • Recommended approval for a conditional use permit for a cot- tage industry cabinetmaker on Three Creeks Road. • Recommended approval for a rezoning request at 2659 Martins- burg Pike, rezoning 1.826 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) to RA (Rural Areas.) Attending the Planning Com- mission meeting in the Board of Supervisors meeting room at the Frederick County Office Complex were: DeHaven, Light, Marker, Thomas, Robert Morris, Marjorie Copenhaver, S. Blaine Wilson, George Romine, and W. Wayne Miller. Rick Ours and Terry Stone were absent. • Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page: Al, Date July 15, 1999 Master Plan for 668 Homes Is Approved By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star With little fanfare Wednesday, the Frederick County Board of Su- pervisors approved a nine -phase master development plan that would create 668 new housing units on 247 acres during the next eight to 12 years. "We're following the rules and ordinances," said Billy Joe Tisinger, the attorney represent- ing developers Glaize Develop- ments and Jeni Company. The land fronts on U.S. 50 East just north of Carper's Valley Golf Club. Because the acreage has been zoned for residential use since the 1970s, the developers didn't need to make any offer to mitigate the impact of the devel- opment on the county. However, prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting, Tisinger addressed many of the concerns raised during the Planning Commission review of the master development plan. "We're going to do it right," Tisinger said. The supervisors unanimously approved the master development plan for the four subdivisions — Oakdale Crossing III, Ravenwing, Raven Pointe, and Raven Oaks. "It was well -planned," said James L. Longerbeam, chairman of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, after the meeting. He said the developers were able to convince residents in the sur- rounding subdivisions that they wouldn't be inconvenienced. Three county residents ad- dressed the master development plan during the citizen comment portion of the Board of Supervi- sors meeting. Sandra Carper Ambrose, whose family farm abuts the develop- ment, was one of three county res- idents who spoke against the plan. She said she can live with the compromises over the major collec- tor road that is planned as far as the boundary of her farm and the fence the developers agreed to put up to keep the farm from becom- ing active open space for subdivi- sion residents. Still, she wanted to make one thing clear. "I don't want this road," she said. "I'm op- posed to the subdivision because of the impact it will have on the county, but especially the impact it will have on my farm." In other action, the supervi- sors: bullet Agreed to language on a boundary line adjustment with Stephens City. A public hearing will be held during the Sept. 23 Board of Supervisors meeting. If approved, the boundary line adjustment would bring 225 acres into Stephens City, something the town says it needs in order to boost its economic base. bullet Appropriated $73,149 in incentives to GRW Technologies, Inc. to re -locate in Frederick County. The plastic injection molding operation is expected to contribute $225,000 in tax rev- enue during the next five years. bullet Hired Blue Ridge Ap- praisal Co. for the upcoming real property reassessment. bullet Approved a rezoning for Ronald and Velma Simkhovitch to rezone 1.8 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) to RA (Rural Areas) at 2659 Martinsburg Pike approxi- mately 0.5 miles north of Old Charlestown Road. Attending the Frederick County Board of Supervisors meeting at the Frederick County Office Com- plex were Longerbeam, Richard C. Shickle, Charles W. Orndoff Sr., Robert M. Sager, Margaret B. Douglas, and W. Harrington Smith Jr. 0 • Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page: Al, Date Nov. 2, 1999 Request For Major 3- Port Development Returns to Frederick Traffic Is Key Question, Concern for the 846 Homes By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star Traffic. That was one of the Frederick County Planning Commission's top concerns as it tabled the rezoning of about 354 acres of land along Senseny Road from rural area to residential performance. Specifically, the commissioners wanted to know the impact the Channing Drive request would have when the 700 unimproved housing lots already approved for the area were built upon. This week, they get their an- swer. The revised request for 846 new housing units nestled be- tween Bedford Village, Apple Ridge, and Carlisle Heights as well as the proposed- Fieldstone subdivision, is scheduled for a public hearing at 7 p.m. Wednes- day night. The last time the plan was dis- cussed at the Planning Commis- sion six months ago, the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room was packed with Senseny Road resi- dents concerned about increased traffic and crowded schools. Unlike the recently master - planned Raven Wing, Raven Oaks and Raven Pointe subdivisions off U.S. 50 East which will create 668 single-family homes on 247 acres of land zoned for houses decades ago, the land for the Channing Drive development needs to be re- zoned. Most rezoning requests in Frederick County carry proffers, or commitments from the develop- er for cash and amenities to offset the impact of the development on the county. The Channing Drive proposal carries substantial proffers — 13 pages worth. At the very top of the list is a phased construction plan. Only 79 units will be built each year, spreading the effect of the devel- opment out 10 years. The project will also pay $100 per lot — or $84,000 total — to Frederick County to help offset the costs of redesigning and re- placing the one -lane bridge on Valley Mill Road. The day after the rezoning ap- plication is approved, the develop- ers will give the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation a check for $75,000 to help pay for traffic signals at Greenwood and Senseny roads. The developers will also give VDOT $30,000 to construct turn lanes from Senseny Road on- to Channing Drive. By the sixth year of the project, Channing Drive needs to be built between Valley Mill and Senseny roads. That needs the cooperation of the people putting together the Field- stone project just north of the Channing Drive rezoning request. "We planned for the worst case," said Mark Smith, an engi- neer with Greenway Engineering of Winchester. VDOT agrees. "Traffic growth associated with this rezoning will be acceptable and manageable with the proposed improvements," VDOT Transportation Engineer Steven A. Molnikoff said in a let- ter to Smith. When sewer lines and streetscapes are added to the traf- fic proffers, the developers are spending $2.4 million in upfront infrastructure costs. There's more. Each residential lot on the Lynnehaven L.C. prop- erty will kick in $3,278.31 before a building permit will be issued. For Giles Farm, that cash proffer will be $3,558.73 while the Shep- $ard-Futral cash proffers will be 4,205.14. The proffers will be used for capital needs of the schools, parks and recreation, and fire and rescue.The first parcel to be developed will be Giles, which is being purchased by local devel- oper Greg Bancroft and his part- ner, David Madison. In addition to the cash proffers and the mitigation of traffic con- cerns, the development will have a recreation center that will be by membership and privately run. There will also be a neighbor- hood shopping center planned along Channing Drive near Sense- ny Road. Walking trails throughout the three parcels will lead to the lake on the Sheppard-Futral land. Smith said looking at the three parcels together made sense be- cause it's much more efficient. "It greatly enhances the community tie-ins," Smith said. "That's what planning is all about. It's not 10 acres here, 10 acres there." 0 Reprinted from The Winchester Star Page: Al, Date Nov. 4, 1999 Frederick Panel 01(s 846-Home Rezoning By ANNETTE JONES The Winchester Star Nearly 100 residents turned out on Wednesday night as the Frederick County Planning Com- mission weighed a rezoning re- quest that would create 846 new homes over 10 years on the Sense- ny Road corridor east of Winch- ester. It took 90 minutes for 28 peo- ple to speak on the Channing Drive request. When the dust settled, the plan, which covers 376 acres, was sent on to the Board of Supervi- sors with a unanimous endorse- ment from the Planning Commis- sion. The sentiment expressed dur- ing the meeting was more evenly split than it was in March when the project first surfaced and was sharply criticized. "I didn't know it would take me eight months to get back here," said Mark Smith, president of Greenway Engineering. Smith designed the project, which encompasses three tracts and creates a consortium for de- velopment. "I got an education," he said. All but 22 acres of the request would be rezoned from rural areas to residential performance. The rest would be zoned commercial. The project site is between Ap- ple Ridge, Carlisle Heights, Field- stone Heights, Burning Knolls, Senseny Glen, and Bedford Vil- lage. Because this is a rezoning re- quest, the county can accept prof- fers — promises of cash and amenities from the developer to offset the impact of the develop- ment on ' the county. In this case, those proffers are extensive. The proffer statement alone runs 13 pages. Included in the package are transportation and other infras- tructure improvements, which car- ry a price tag of $2.4 million. The developers, Greg Bancroft and David Madison, will also give the county $2,628,183 for the pub- lic schools; $476,794 for parks and recreation; and $45,324 for fire and rescue service. Several residents of Morning Glory Drive in the Apple Ridge subdivision were concerned about their road continuing through into the new subdivision. "We're having trouble with traf- fic now," said resident Jill John- son. While admitting that the devel- opment would be positive, Country Club Circle resident Pat Gochenour said the current growth in the county was too much to handle. "There's no amount of proffers to offset what the Frederick Coun- ty leadership has allowed," she said. Bob Wells, president of the Top of Virginia Building Association, disagreed. "This plan is probably the best representation of smart growth that the citizens are now demand- ing," he said. "Nothing is ever go- ing to be perfect." Another resident, Charles Parker, also commented favor- ably: "I've seen a lot of subdivisions go up that are more poorly planned than this. (The develop- ers) are offering to help fix prob- lems that should have been fixed years ago." Still, residents along Senseny road were concerned about crowd- ed schools and traffic congestion. Desta Golden, an eighth -grader at James Wood Middle School, said she had 32 students in her classes and "my teachers are al- ready overwhelmed." "Please hold off. Give us a few more years," said Gina Forrester, an organizer of Friends of Freder- ick County and the runner-up in Tuesday's election for chairman of the Board of Supervisors. "There are still too many questions still unanswered." Bob Pownall, who lives in Col- lege Park, was also concerned about the schools: "The schools are really a prob- lem that has to be addressed, not just here, but throughout the county." Project developer Bancroft said he, too, was originally taken aback by the idea of a development this size. He said that when he first ap- proached county officials, he was told that the planners wanted to see the "big picture." "I said, `My Lord! Isn't this go- ing to scare the public?' " But Bancroft and his partner, Madison, decided to jump in. "Our commitment to the infras- tructure is huge," Bancroft said. "We've pretty much gone beyond reason with this, solving problems that weren't ours." "We have often called upon de- velopers to give us the big pic- ture," said Planning Commissioner Robert A. Morris after the public hearing finished. "Usually they give us little islands." He said when you take into ac- count the random development in the agricultural areas, there's "a morass" of uncontrolled, unman- aged growth. "We have before us something we've been asking for for a long time," Morris said. "If we don't do this, we will force residential ar- eas into the agricultural area." He waxed poetic, musing about a neighborhood where residents could walk the dog to the grocery store, get a haircut, ride a bicycle around town, and walk to school. "It's an exemplary plan," Mor- ris added. Planning Commissioner John Light agreed — and not just with Morris. "All of you have valid com- ments," he said. "The development that we've been looking for came before us tonight. It answered what we've tried to accomplish for years." Light praised county residents for turning out. "(The developers) knew they didn't have a chance unless they reached the top level of achievement." "It's not the kind of checker- board development that caused our problems on Senseny Road," said Planning Commissioner Roger Thomas. "We have to resist the temptation (to make this de- velopment) pay for past sins." "It's the right thing to do," Planning Commissioner W. Wayne Miller said just prior to the vote. The rezoning request will be addressed by the Frederick Coun- ty Board of Supervisors at its Dec. 8 meeting. • • Reprinted from affect of the rezoning on the coun- The Whichester Star ty. Page: Al, Date Dec. 9, 1999 Frederick Rezones 350 Acres for Hofnes Board of Supervisors Approves Channing Drive Project off Senseny Road That Could Yield 846 Residences By ANNETTEJONES The Winchester Star The Frederick County Board of Supervisors rezoned more than 350 acres along Senseny Road on Wednesday, a change that is ex- pected to generate 846 new homes over the next decade. After two Planning Commission hearings that drew hundreds of concerned residents, Wednesday's Supervisors' meeting barely drew three dozen. Of the 13 who spoke during the public hearing, eight favored the rezoning from Rural Area to Residential Performance. Without discussion, the board unanimously approved the 354.3- acre rezoning. "I feel it's one of the best plans we've seen," said Stonewall Super- visor Charles W. Orndoff Sr. be- fore he offered a motion to ap- prove the development, which is in his district. Absent from the meeting were the residents of the subdivisions along Senseny Road who had spo- ken passionately during the two Planning Commission hearings, The Channing Drive project re- zones as much acreage for resi- dential use at one time as all the land the county rezoned residen- tial over the past decade. It involves three tracts of land: Giles Farm, Lynnehaven, and the Sheppard/Futral property. It's nes- tled along Senseny Road, tucked between Bedford Village, Apple Ridge, and Carlisle Heights subdi- visions. Mark Smith, president of Greenway Engineering, presented the application. More than $2.4 million in road improvements and amenities, as well as $3.15 million in cash proffers for parks, schools, and fire and rescue are part of the rezoning package. A proffer is a promise by the developer to pro- vide a service or cash to offset the Although in attendance, former Board of Supervisors candidate Gina Forrester didn't speak dur- ing the public hearing. Forrester said the numbers weren't there Wednesday night because of school Christmas pageants. However, Marie Straub, vice president of the Apple Ridge Homeowners Association urged su- pervisors to not rezone the land at this time. She said just two of the supervisors live within the urban development area (Opequon Su- pervisor Robert M. Sager and Shawnee Supervisor W. Harring- ton Smith Jr.). "The rest of you haven't a clue what you're doing to us," she said. Wayne Nicholson of the College Park subdivision called the resi- dential performance zoning "a can- cer that will .ruin this county." Unlike Winchester, which has several different residential zoning types, Frederick County's residen- tial zoning is tied into tract size and overall density. rem 1 is there a short explana- tion we could throw in here that tells what residential performance zoning is, what is allows, dtw>rem 0 Straub and Nicholson, though, were outnumbered by those who didn't share their view. "This is a good plan," said Robert Wells, president of the Top of Virginia Builders Association. "You're not growing at a pace you can't keep up with," said Fair- fax County resident and Winch- ester businessman Bill Christie. "Frederick County is not Fairfax County. It's not Fairfax County 30 years ago. For Pioneer Heights resident Eric Gingras, it's not a question of growth, it's a question of neighbor- hood. He said Pioneer Heights is not the type of neighborhood he thought it would be. "(Channing Drive) has that kind of neighbor- hood, " he said. "There's a new standard being set, a new expectation," said Gainesboro Supervisor Richard C. Shickle, the incoming chairman of the Board of Supervisors, echoing the sentiments of many of the public hearing's speakers. Shickle said the development incorporates all of the design standards the county has been seeking — curb, gutter, recreational facilities, transportation networks. "It's an opportunity to master plan a larger tract." The controversy sparked in the spring over the Channing Drive rezoning launched the slow -growth candidacy of Forrester. "It's not whether this project is a good pro- ject or a model project," she said after Wednesday's vote. "It's not happening in a vacuum." Though not sure what her next move will be, she'd like the Chan- ning Drive rezoning to be a test case for the county's comprehen- sive policy plan. "We'll find out whether (the supervisors) are con- sistently applying the comprehen- sive plan, she said. Forrester is basing her argu- ment on the supervisors' denial of a rezoning request from David Holliday earlier this year. In late January, the supervi- sors voted 3-2 to deny Holliday's request for 250 units of single- family homes and condominiums on 72 acres east of Tasker Drive and just south of Va. 37 near Stephens City. Traffic was the deciding factor in the Carriebrooke vote, For- rester said, yet the 25 percent traffic increase along Tasker Road that would come with the Holliday development pales in comparison with the projected traffic increase along Senseny Road at buildout of Channing Drive and the surround- ing subdivisions. 3 9.2 +x Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #24-99 OF RHODA KRIZ, TO ESTABLISH A BED AND BREAKFAST. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 547 APPLE PIE RIDGE ROAD AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY Planner II Amy Lohr presented this conditional use permit to the Board noting that staff and planning commission recommended approval with conditions. Phil Farley, adjoining property owner, appeared before the Board advising that he had some concerns with transient people being in this bed and breakfast. He further advised that he wants to be a good neighbor, but he does not want to see a business in his neighborhood. Upon motion made by Supervisor Shickle, seconded by Supervisor Smith, CUP #24-99 was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye SS IS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Planner II Amy Lohr presented this request to the Board, advising that staff and planning commission recommended approval with conditions. There was no public input. Uponmotionmadeby SupefvisorSager, secohdddbySupervisor Douglas, CUP #25-99 was approved as presented by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING #15-99 OF CHANNING DRIVE, SUBMITTED BY GREENWAY ENGINEERING, TO REZONE 354.3 ACRES FROM RA (RURAL AREAS) TO RP (RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE), AND 22.0 ACRES FROM, RA ,(RURAL; AREAS) TO B2 BUSINESS GENERAL). THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SENSENY ROAD, ON BOTH SIDES OF BEAN'S POND LANE, AND ADJACENT TO THE BEDFORD VILLAGE, APPLE RIDGE, AND CARLISLE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISIONS. THIS SITE IS IDENTIFIED WITH Board of Supervisors Meeting of 12/08/99 Minute Book Number 26 393 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 55-A-206, 209, 211, 213 AND 65-A-30, 31, 39 40 IN THE STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. THIS REZONING APPLICATION INCORPORATES (AND IS A CONTINUANCE OF) THE PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS• REZONING #05-99 OF GILES FARM, REZONING #06-99 OF SHEPPARD/FUTRAL AND REZONING #07=99 OF LYNNEHAVEN WHICH WERE HEARD AT THE MARCH 3 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APPROVED Assistant Planning Director Evan Wyatt presented this request to the Board advising that staff and planning commission recommended approval of this rezoning request. Mark Smith, of Greenway Engineering, appeared before the Board to discuss and answer any questions the Board might have. Chairman Longerbeam asked about the right-of-way on Channing Drive to Valley Mill. Mr. Smith advised that this has been worked out. Chairman Longerbeam asked Mr. Smith to summerize the proffers, being made available as part of the conditions, for this rezoning that totals approximately $6 million. Resident Engineer Jerry Copp, with Virginia Department of Transportation, appeared before the Board to address the two turn lanes advising that $30,000 would build the two lanes. Assistant Planning Director Evan Wyatt advised that there would not be any townhouses or apartments built at this location. project. The following citizens appeared before the Board to express their views on this request: Mr. Bean whose mother lives in the immediate area asked about the build out time of this Ben Dunn, adjacent property owner, had questions concerning the location of a school if this acreage is completely built out. He asked about parks and recreation involvement and whether roads would be in and complete as development progresses . He feels all monies realized through proffers should go back into this project. President of Top of Virginia Builders Bob Wells, appeared before the Board advising that that this organization endorses this plan. Marie Stroth, Secretary of Apple Ridge Homeowners Association, supporter of Friends of Frederick, and substitute teacher in county schools, appeared before the Board to request that this plan not be approved as this time. She stated that she felt the county had done a poor job of planning growth and also in planning of the need for county schools, especially in light of all the development that continues to take place in the county. Board of Supervisors Meeting of 12/08/99 Minute Book Number 26 :39 Bill Christian, owner of property in Frederick County, even though he lives in Fairfax County, has moved his business here and he supports this plan. Richard Crane, area resident, supports this plan. He feels the Board has done a good job. Ben Butler, local attorney, appearing on behalf of Dave Madison and Greg Bancroft, local contractors, supports this plan, as do the owners of Eastern Frederick Development. Wayne Nicholson, Frederick Drive, is not in favor of this request, as he feels growth is out of control in Frederick County. plan. Mark Hask representing a local subcontractor, recently moved into the area, endorses this Eric Shengrass, county resident for fourteen years, feels this plan is very good, especially in light of all the developers are offering. Mark Miles, county resident for twenty years. He feels this plan has been done very well. Charles Barker, resident of the county for twelve years. He does not feel the number of permits addressed earlier is too many for this area and he feels this is a good plan. Darell Bean, explained to the Board where his mother is currently living, as it relates to this property, and he would like the Board, or staff, to explain to him about his mother's water rights, etc. Transportation Engineer with Virginia Department of Transportation Steven A. Melnikoff, advised the Board that they will be notified when the traffic count figure has been determined. Mark Smith advised the Board that what VDOT is requesting will be done. He further advised that the plan calls for the project to start on Senseny Road and work from that point, with a build out being occurring in six and seven years. Upon motion made by Supervisor Orndoff, seconded by Supervisor Sager, rezoning #15-99 was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye BOARD TAKES A RECESS CHAIRMAN CALLS MEETING TO ORDER Board of Supervisors Meeting of 12/08/99 Minute Book Number 26 Chapel Hill subdivision. Mr. Dove said that the owner, Ms. Viola M. Destefano, desires to sell her house and purchase a smaller home. Mr. Dove explained that Mr. James T. Vickers, one of the principals of Valley Development Group, Inc., will include the new 15,000 square foot lot within the Chapel Hill subdivision, as far as restrictive covenants are concerned. A member of the Commission said that if the lot is to legally become part of Chapel Hill, it will need to be reflected in the plat. It was also suggested by the Commission that Mr. Dove's client move the existing entrance on Route 522 over to Bentley Avenue. There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision Application # 10-99 of Viola M. Destefano, submitted by Dove & Associates, for the subdivision of a 1.0282-acre RP tract into two lots with the stipulation that it be designated as a part of the Chapel Hill subdivision and also contingent upon the applicant satisfying all review agency comments. The following three rezoning applications were presented together, however, each of the rezonings were acted on individually. Rezoning #05-99 of Giles Farm, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 140.2 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), and 12.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). This property is located on the north side of Senseny Road, 850 feet east of Beans Pond Lane, across from the Burning Knolls and C.M. Lockhart subdivisions, and adjacent to the Bedford Village and Apple Ridge subdivisions, and is identified with P.I.N. 65-A-39 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Tabled; Applicant Waived Time Requirement Rezoning #06-99 of Sheppard/Futral, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 132.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). This property is located on Eddy's Lane (Route 820), approximately 0.8 miles from the intersection with Valley Mill Road and adjacent to the Apple Ridge and Senseny Glen subdivisions, and is identified with P.I.N.s 55-A-209, 55-A-211, 55-A-213 and 65-A-40 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Tabled; Applicant Waived Time Requirement Rezoning #07-99 of Lynnehaven, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 81.4 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), and 10.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). This property is located west of Beans Pond Lane, 400 feet from the intersection with Senseny Road, and adjacent to the Carlisle Heights subdivision, and is identified with P.I.N.s 55-A-206, 65-A-30 and 65-A-31 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Tabled; Applicant Waived Time Requirement Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 317 Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, read the background information and review agency comments for each of the three rezoning applications. He said that the cumulative total for all three rezonings is approximately 355 acres to be rezoned from RA to RP with the remaining 22 acres being rezoned from RA to B2. Mr. Wyatt pointed out the location of each of the properties on display maps. Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that three potential impacts have been identified by the staff: transportation, school facilities, and solid waste convenience centers. He said that the proposal is consistent with the land use patterns identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the general road network layout is consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan's Eastern Road Plan Map. Mr. Wyatt said that the Frederick County Public Schools and the County Engineer express concern with the impacts this proposal would create to their facilities, while staff has identified the need to adjust secondary road improvement priorities to fund future improvements to the road systems within the proximity of the properties. Mr. Wyatt added that the applicant's proffer statement provides significant concessions to offset the impacts created by the rezoning; however, the staff has concerns regarding the ambiguity of some of the proffered conditions which could make the timing for enforcement difficult. He said that the staff believes that many of these issues could be clarified through the submittal of a proffered generalized development plan which ties the proffered conditions for the construction of building lots, road segments, traffic signalization, pedestrian walkways, and other applicable development issues into a specific phasing plan. A member of the Commission asked the staff if the WATS plan shows Channing Drive going out to Route 50. Mr. Wyatt replied that Channing is defined as a major collector road and is ultimately envisioned to provide access from Route 7 all the way through to Route 50 East, however, this application alone would not get it there. He said that the ultimate design of the various subdivisions in this area, as they come into development, eventually would. Mr. Sager stated that a 15-acre portion has been proffered for a school site; however, the County normally only looks at sites for schools that are 25-30 acres. Mr. Wyatt pointed out that normally, the County looks at larger school sites because there is a partnership with the County Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. Wyatt explained that this site would strictly accommodate a school and would not have a Parks & Recreation opportunity; he explained that the School System is very aware of this site and are studying the property's feasibility. Mr. Sager said that he is concerned because just across the street, over in the Redbud area, there is a 100+ acre site which the County had designed for schools, and it seems like a moot point to designate another school site less than a mile away. Another Commissioner said that if the parcels are considered together, there will be 355 acres of RP -zoned land which will require a minimum of 15% and a maximum of 30% open space, which calculates to approximately 56 acres of open space. It was pointed out that if you subtract the 15-acre school site and the areas of steep slopes, there may be only 28 acres of "building property" that would need to go into open space on this development, which is not much of a contribution. Mr. Mark Smith with Greenway Engineering, the design engineers for the three rezonings, gave a brief history of how the project proposal and overall road network was accomplished. Mr. Smith explained that approximately in June of 1998, a couple of local builders were considering the Giles farm for development. He stated that in working with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, they proposed a revised road network that the Commission has reviewed several times and endorsed. He said that they arrived at a situation Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 318 • u • where they realized that Channing Drive needed to be built and that aroused consideration of the Lynnhaven project. Mr. Smith said that a cost -sharing arrangement to build Channing Drive was worked out. He explained that as feasibility studies continued, along with discussions on the development potential of the property, the sewer capacity issues were considered, which brought the third property into play, the Sheppard/Futral property. He said that although the Sheppard/Futral property owners do not want to sell their property for a few years, they wanted to be included in the future planning effort. Mr. Smith next discussed the neighborhood commercial area, the entrance and streetscaping, the community recreation center, and the trail system. Regarding the school site, Mr. Smith said that they've had three meetings with representatives of the school system. He said that school representatives agreed to the 15 acres, partly because they will be provided road access, water and sewer, and off -site storm water management. Mr. Smith next discussed the proffers dealing with road planning and water issues. He believed the biggest commitment was the $75,000 that will be available at the time of rezoning for a traffic signal and improvements to Senseny and Greenwood Roads. He added that a pump station, designed to serve all three properties, will be built by the developers and then turned over to the Sanitation Authority for ownership and maintenance. Mr. Smith continued, stating that meetings were held with various homeowners groups and most of the attendees said they did not have problems with the plan, but were more concerned with the affect of increased development on the school system and the quality of education. Mr. Smith requested that the rezonings be tabled without a time frame, so they could rework the proffers in an acceptable fashion. There was discussion between the Commission and Mr. Smith about the traffic situation. Commission members believed that a detailed traffic analysis needed to be submitted by the applicant. Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT's Resident Engineer, and Mr. Norman Sparks, VDOT's Assistant Resident Engineer, came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Commission members wanted to know what level of service could be expected along Senseny Road, considering its present condition, once the development is built. They also wanted to know what could be expected at the intersections, and in the future, would there be a necessity to four -lane Senseny Road. Mr. Copp replied that VDOT is not only considering these three properties proposed to be rezoned, but the other properties between Route 7 and 50 that have already been rezoned. Mr. Copp stated that they are uncertain if, and when, Channing Drive will be built from Valley Mill Road to Senseny Road and when Channing Drive will be constructed from Senseny Road to Route 50. He said that there are many questions that they do not have the answers for at this time. Mr. Copp said that VDOT will be looking for the developer or the County to provide them with a traffic impact analysis with a level of service according to phases of development; VDOT will then review the analysis and determine if it is correct. Regarding the Greenwood/Senseny Road intersection, Mr. Copp said that VDOT will be advertising Greenwood Road construction, between Senseny Road and Valley Mill Road, in Spring of 2000 and a traffic signal at Greenwood Road and Senseny Road will be included as a part of the project. He said that no VDOT right-of-way is available along Senseny Road for widening purposes. He did not believe Route 37 would be constructed in this general area at any time in the near future. Members of the Commission asked Mr. Copp if he and his staff would be agreeable to reviewing an analysis to predict the level of service at various intersections under different scenarios; for example, a level of service without the connection to Valley Mill Road or the connection to Sulphur Spring Road. Mr. Copp replied that they would certainly want to review that, along with other scenarios to determine Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 319 the impacts to the overall road network within this area. Mr. Copp said that all this will be examined in conjunction with all the other impacts that are occurring everyday in this location. At this point, Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Richard Crane, Stonewall District, came forward to endorse the rezoning proposals. Mr. Crane said that he realized when he moved here that growth would occur and development would eventually line the entire Senseny Road corridor. He said that he wanted that growth to be planned, single-family dwelling communities and that is exactly what these three rezoning propose. Mr. Crane believed that the County should work with the developers to gain as many amenities as possible. Mr. Scott Gregory, Back Creek District, stated that he was one of the spokesman for Friends of Frederick. Mr. Gregory was concerned about the cost of residential growth. Mr. Gregory believed that the growth should be slowed down and be paid for as it occurs. Ms. Barbara Van Osten, Back Creek District, had many questions about the long-range impact that the proposed rezonings would have on Frederick County, such as: status of water resources, a build -out analysis for urban and rural areas, the ratio of industrial to residential development, and the impact to the school system. Ms. Van Osten urged the Commission to table the request until the carrying capacity of the County was determined. Mr. Blaine Dunn, resident of Bedford Village, was concerned about the previously -zoned RP areas that did not have to submit proffers and will take another five to ten years to develop. Mr. Dunn inquired why the Commission would consider rezoning additional land when there were already enough RP -zoned areas that have not yet been built upon. He was also concerned about the additional traffic impact to Senseny Road. Mr. Dunn suggested that there be a planned park, or some other area designated for the children to play, besides on the streets. Mr. William Rinkenburger, homeowner at Carlisle Heights, was concerned about overcrowding of schools, especially the Redbud Run Elementary School, and the effect of overcrowding on the quality of education provided. Because of the size of the facilities at the school, he believed that some children would be cheated on their library time, computer time, gym time, etc. Mr. Rinkenburger was concerned about how rapidly this area of the County was growing and he felt steps should be taken to slow the rate of growth down. Mr. Wayne Nicholson, resident at 123 Princeton Drive in the Shawnee District, was not convinced that the whole school issue had been examined thoroughly enough. He wondered if the trips per day associated with the proposed school were included in the traffic figures calculated by the applicant. Mr. Nicholson inquired if the City of Winchester was informed about the proposed rezoning because of the traffic impacts this proposal would create on the City. He inquired about whether the proffers were legally binding if the property was sold; and, he inquired if research was done to determine if any battlefields or historic areas were located on the property. Mr. Nicholson recalled that the Opequon Sewage Treatment Plant flooded within a short time after it opened and he wondered if the topography was considered in relation to the Opequon Creek and the surrounding hilly terrain. Mr. Nicholson believed that RP Zoning was going to be the ruin of Frederick County and he believed the County would soon reach a point when all the apple orchards were gone. Mr. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 320 Nicholson was opposed to the rapid growth that was occurring and its effect on the quality of life for the residents of Frederick County. Mr. Daryl Bean representing his mother, Mrs. Martin L. Bean, resident at 561 Bean Pond Lane, said that his mother does not approve of the proposed project. Mr. Bean said that his mother has lived on Senseny Road since 1961, when it was very rural, and they have watched the area grow. He said that some of the growth has been good, but he believed that some hadn't been planned the way it should. He believed that eventually, this land will be developed; however, he believed the road system, especially Senseny Road, needed to be addressed because of the traffic problems. Mr. Bean also believed the school situation needed to be addressed because of the overcrowding. Mr. Bean said that he appreciated Mr. Smith working with them to give them different road options on the property to his mother's, however, they are still concerned about her privacy, her right-of-ways, and her easements. Mr. Greg Bancroft, a resident of Frederick County since 1992, said that he was one of the persons hoping to get this property rezoned. Mr. Bancroft wanted to share with the Commission his and his partner's vision of what they planned for this area. He said that when they started working with staff over a year ago, the staff encouraged good planning and stressed the importance of working with VDOT, the Sanitation Authority, and the necessity to rework the Comprehensive Road Plan. Mr. Bancroft said that many people have asked him where they could find a home in a planned community in Frederick County that has curb and gutter, sidewalks, recreational areas, and/or a trail system that leads to a school. He stated that these types of communities are not available in the County. Mr. Bancroft believed their proposal fits the description of what many people are searching for and he believed this development would be a benefit to the County. Mrs. Gina Forrester, resident of the Stonewall District, said that she was representing 120 homeowners in the Apple Ridge Subdivision. Speaking for herself and the Apple Ridge homeowners, Mrs. Forrester believed that the County's infrastructure could not handle the additional growth that this rezoning would create and the impacts created would negatively affect their quality of life. Mrs. Forrester raised the following issues: the increased traffic on Senseny Road, the desire for no tractor trailers on Senseny Road, the opinion that there already was a sufficient amount of land zoned for residential development; the desire for no duplex or multiplex units because of the increased density; the amount of money it would cost to construct an additional solid waste facility to accommodate additional development; and, the cost of building additional schools and personnel salaries. Mrs. Forrester wondered where will the funds would come from. Mrs. Forrester stressed that the County did not have the school capacity or the road capacity to handle this kind of growth and the applicant's proffers did not come close to mitigating those impacts. Mrs. Janita Giles, one of the owners of the Giles farm, spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning. Mrs. Giles believed that the gentlemen who designed the plan did a very good job and that it would help development east of the City. Mr. Claus Bader stated that he is employed by Greenway Engineering, he is a landowner in Frederick Heights, and he was also purchasing a lot in Senseny Glen. Mr. Bader believed that this proposal would not increase the number of building permits issued per year, but would just draw more people from other subdivisions in the area. Mr. Bader said that he supported the proposed development and believed it was a good plan. Mr. Charles Pinkam, Vice -President of the Homeowners Association of Section I in Pioneer Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 321 Heights, stated that he represented 159 property owners in stating that they are unanimously against the proposition primarily on the basis of school impacts and taxes. Mr. Wilson Gilbert, President ofthe P.T.O. for both the Senseny Road Elementary School and the James Wood Middle School, stated that there are children in the Senseny Road area, who are in the fifth grade, who have been relocated to schools three times without ever leaving the same house. He was very concerned about the overcrowding of schools. Mr. Gilbert believed that growth at this accelerated speed had to stop. Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, former Chairman of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, and resident of the Stonewall District, stated that this property has been identified for residential use for more than 25 years. Mr. Stiles said that the best way to protect the rural parts of Frederick County is to allow development to occur where it is designed to occur and where the services are in place, such as with this location. He continued, stating that whether this project is approved or denied, next year the County will issue somewhere between 650-700 residential building permits; the number of building permits issued next year will not be a result of whether or not this rezoning is approved. Mr. Stiles believed that in a county the size of Frederick, with a population of 55,000, an additional 500-600 houses per year would not overwhelm us with growth. Mr. Stiles next spoke about the schools and overcrowding issue. Using the School Board's figures, Mr. Stiles stated that the elementary schools in Frederick County were approximately 800 students below capacity. He agreed that Redbud Run Elementary School is overcrowded; however, the four elementary schools whose attendance zones are adjacent to Redbud Run --Stonewall, Senseny Road, Robinson, and Armel, are all 100+ students below their capacity. Mr. Stiles also stated that the enrollment in the two high schools, James Wood and Sherando, is exactly the same this year as it was last year; and, in fact, Sherando's enrollment is down this year from last year. Mr. Stiles suggested that before the Planning Commission made a decision on this, that the Commission specifically tie down the completion of Charming Drive through Fieldstone to Valley Mill Road to get traffic off Senseny Road. He also suggested that the Commission address the issue of getting the bridge replaced at Dr. McHale's on Valley Mill Road which, as it is now, is and will become a worse bottleneck. Mr. Stiles concluded that this is good, long-range planning. He said that it has been suggested that a prudent approach needs to be taken and he believed that 79 units per year and 31 elementary students per year certainly qualified as prudent. Mr. Scott Straub, resident ofthe Stonewall District, compared the growth in Frederick County to the growth in Loudoun County. Mr. Straub believed the idea of building little feeder roads out to Valley Mill Road to get out to Route 7 was ludicrous because Valley Mill, Greenwood, and Senseny Roads were little two-lane roads. Regarding long-term traffic planning, he believed the County needed to look all the way out to Pleasant Valley. He believed that Frederick County was not ready to absorb this kind of growth. Mr. Randy Forrester, resident ofthe Apple Ridge Subdivision in the Stonewall District, stated that this proposal is not in the best interest of the citizens of the County at this time. Mr. Forrester believed that the County has already approved enough residential areas to keep area builders busy for over ten years. Regarding the subject of overcrowding of schools, Mr. Forrester disputed the school capacity figures previously Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 322 reported by one of the citizens who previously spoke, stating the figures were architectural capacity figures and not practical capacity figures. He said that the empty seats in question come from shared computer labs, smaller classes for special education, and art and music rooms. He continued, arguing that the applicant's school proffer does not meet the needs of even this proposal, let alone offset the cost to the County to build, staff, and supply a school at this site. Mr. Forrester next stated his concerns about the traffic impacts and the cost of a new solid waste facility. Ms. Katherine Winesong, resident of the Back Creek District, was concerned about the availability of water resources and the lack of a detailed water study. She felt the County needed to first determine if there was enough water to take care of the existing residences, before approving additional development. Ms. Audrey H. Gleske, resident of Gore in the Gainesboro District, said that the governing bodies, the citizens, and the school board should work together towards acquiring the necessary funds to support growth. She spoke about a defeated impact bill, Senate Bill #693, which would require subdivisions, approved prior to the proffers mandate, to pay impact fees at the time of building permit application. Ms. Gleske stressed the need to go back to Richmond and petition to have this bill re -issued. In addition, she said that House Bill #2324, a special use permit, would also have given local jurisdictions more control over growth. She said that because our legislators in Richmond turned this down, it negated our ability as residents to say that we do not want a particular development. Mrs. Gleske also believed that the County's real estate taxes needed to be increased. She concluded by saying that growth was good, as long as it was controlled growth. Mr. Philip Mew, ten-year resident of Frederick County in the Shawnee District, spoke in favor of the proposed development. Mr. Mew pointed out that this will be a planned community with homes, businesses, and educational and recreational areas; he believed this was the type of well -designed, well -planned community that Frederick County needs. He pointed out that the development would take ten years to complete. Ms. Marcella Vance, Vice -President of the P.T.O. on Senseny Road and resident of the Apple Ridge area, stated that Senseny Road Elementary School currently has 463 students and it has a capacity of 550. Ms. Vance said that next year, when Red Bud Run kindergarten comes over, it will put the school at capacity; she said that this doesn't include the 250 homes that have already been approved on Greenwood Road. She also mentioned the number of lots in Apple Ridge and the number of potential elementary students there. Ms. Vance stated that Frederick County teachers aren't getting the pay that Loudoun County teachers are getting; she believed the quality of education in Frederick County was lacking. She said that parents are pulling their children out of public schools to home -school them. She believed that Frederick County needed to re-evaluate approving 846 new homes when the schools were already at capacity. Mr. John Lamanna, resident of Shawnee District and President of the Frederick County Schools Council, stated that the Frederick County Schools Council is a group of volunteer parents, each representing the P.T.0.s of the local schools, whose mission is the quality of education in Frederick County. Mr. Lamanna said that over the past ten years, Frederick County schools have grown at a rate of three times the state average. He said that the proposed school board budget recognizes a projected enrollment of 10,697-- which is up 272 students for this year. He said that unfortunately, our high schools are crowded and the school board budget includes three modular classrooms for each one of our high schools. Mr. Lamanna stated that, as previously mentioned, Senseny Road will be at capacity, Red Bud is over capacity, and those are two feeder Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 323 schools to James Wood Middle School, which is also crowded. Mr. Lamanna believed that County schools were in trouble; they are crowded; he remarked that we see this through behaviors and through the quality of education being offered. Mr. Lamanna concluded his statement by saying that he was not against growth, but he was for planned growth. He said that it was time for the County to take a stand and allow our schools to be ahead of the curve, rather than behind it. Mr. Dwayne Bean, son of Mrs. Martin Bean, an adjoining property owner, spoke about the congested traffic in this area. Mr. Bean said he lived only three miles from his mother, but it takes 20 minutes to drive to her home because of the traffic. Mr. Bean added that when he attended James Wood High School, his classes were held in the auditorium in 1963 because of overcrowding. He remarked that he didn't like that; however, he cared more so when two years later, Handley High School raised teachers' salaries and all the good teachers left James Wood to go to Handley. Miss Dusty Golden, a student of James Wood Middle School, said that she rides to school on a crowded bus, with three to four children per seat, to an at -capacity school. Miss Golden stated that if we can not provide for the students we have, why do we want to add more fuel to an already out -of -control fire. Mrs. Golden, Dusty's mother, said that she was seriously considering at-home schooling for her children because of the over -capacity conditions at Frederick County schools. She said that she was tired of her children being transferred from one school to the next because of poor planning by the County for the growth that is presently taking place. Mr. Bob Pownall, resident of Shawnee District, inquired about who would be responsible for the maintenance and taxes of the proposed school, trail system, and recreation center, once it was built. He raised the subject of the County's Impact Model, whereby the Board of Supervisors agreed with the Top of Virginia Builders Association in implementing the model beginning at 50% and then increasing it at 5% per year. Mr. Pownall said that in light of the fact that the old model was already eight years old, the County will be playing catch up. He also recalled that at that same Board session, a budget freeze on County departments was announced by the County Administrator. Mr. Pownall added that the Top of Virginia Builders Association boasted that the home construction industry was the biggest industry in Frederick County. Mr. Pownall said that he expects some growth, but he believed that the County could not maintain its present tax base while continuing to grow at this accelerated rate. Mr. Pownall concluded by mentioning a state legislation bill that was killed and that some of our representatives encouraged that; however, it would have given the Planning Commission and Board more capability towards encouraging smart growth. Mr. Paul Morgan, five-year resident of the Stonewall District, said that he was a parent of children in Frederick County's elementary school system and he opposed the rezoning. Mr. Morgan said that judging by the way the County has handled growth issues related to schools, especially at the recent budget hearings, it appears the County does not see the need to develop the educational infrastructure of public schools. He believed that this was not just a physical space issue, but a quality of education issue that requires investment and top-notch staff and curriculum. Mr. Morgan next read some student enrollment figures for several of the elementary schools and he also gave some lot figures on area subdivisions that are expanding, such as the Greenwood Road subdivisions, Carlisle Heights, and Regency Lakes. He said that growth must be funded and we need to give the schools a chance to catch up. Miss Vance, a junior at Sherando High School and resident of Apple Ridge subdivision, said Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 324 that she travels 22 minutes to get to school. Miss Vance said that the two busses assigned to Senseny Road are overcrowded and this does not include students who drive to school. She continued, stating that school hallways are overcrowded and she has classes where every single seat is filled and still, more students are sent into the classroom. Ms. Vance said that the overcrowding creates a difficult learning environment for her because of the disruptive behavior it creates. She did not see where more children could be placed; she said that there were already three modular classrooms outside. She commented that she has lost friends due to the splitting of schools and she didn't feel that was right. Ms. Pat Gochenour, resident of the Shawnee District, said that she was proud of the people that spoke this evening and she hoped that the Commission would be good stewards of the land. She was concerned that development had destroyed all of the wetlands around her home. Mrs. Gochenour stated that as an educator, she believed the students in Frederick County were not getting the quality of education they deserved and she blamed it on the overcrowded conditions. She believed that splitting neighborhoods so that some children go to one school and others go somewhere else was causing children to lose their sense of community. She also pointed out that her area has been in a crisis situation over water. Mr. Mike Boda, resident of Gainesboro District, agreed with Mr. Stiles' comments that "X"number of houses will be built next year, whether this plan is approved or not. Mr. Boda said that having been in the building business for 23 years, he believed this was the finest development plan he has seen in all those years. He said that he has worked in a professional capacity with the applicants for four years and he believed they should be recognized as true professionals. He stated they have done an excellent job with the homes they've built in the past and he expected this development to be no less. Miss Jessica Forrester, a student in the Frederick County School System, said that she has attended three overcrowded schools. Miss Forrester said that she first attended Armel School, from Kindergarten through fourth grade, which was 22 miles away from her home. She said that she made good friends at Armel, but all her friends lived far from her home. Miss Forrester told the Commission that she was then transferred back to Senseny Road, which was only two miles away from her home all along. She said that she is now at James Wood Middle School and it also is very crowded. Mr. Larry Duncan, a native of Winchester and a Frederick County businessman who currently resides in Clarke County, pointed out that approximately 100 people braved the severe weather and missed the Barbara Walters' interview with Monica Lewinsky to show their concern for this project. Mr. Duncan said that if this rezoning was tabled, the growing opposition movement could double or triple that amount. He stated that the points of this case are traffic and schools, and he did not feel the applicant could come up with anything material enough to eliminate those basic points of contention. Mr. Duncan requested that the Commission act on the rezoning this evening. Mr. Philip Lloyd, resident of the Stonewall District, said that he is originally from Fredericksburg, Virginia, which went through tremendous growth in the `70's and `80's. Mr. Lloyd believed that this project should not be approved until the roads are taken care of and the school situation is rectified. He has observed that traffic bottlenecks badly at Greenwood Store; he was also concerned about the costs for additional fire, rescue, and sheriff's services. Mr. Dave Hepler, resident of Senseny Glen, said that he was in favor of the proposed development. Mr. Hepler believed this was a wonderful development plan and that it would complement the Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 325 0 -16- • existing homes in the area. Mr. Bob Giles, resident of the Stonewall District, came forward to speak on behalf of the owners of the Giles farm. Mr. Giles said that they have had their farm for sale for several years; he said that his family is not making a lot of money on this sale, they are in debt. Mr. Giles explained that they've sold all their cattle because there is no pasture to raise cattle on; he said that with shale ground, you don't get pasture unless you have a good, rainy season. Mr. Giles stated that they have been approached by several developers, but these folks presented a well thought-out plan with single-family homes. He said that speaking for the Giles family, we didn't want just anyone coming in and building townhouses and multiplex dwellings. Mr. Charles Pitcock, resident of Frederick Heights and a retired police officer, was concerned about the costs of patrolling increased crime and traffic accidents. He was also concerned about the possibility of increased taxes to pay for growth and the effect on retirees who are on a fixed budget. Mr. Pitcock believed that growth needs to slow down and there was too much traffic. Mr. Wayne Nicholson, from Shawnee District, came back to the podium and requested that the numbers, facts, and figures presented by all represented parties be looked at very carefully. Mr. Forrester, Stonewall District resident, returned to the podium to state that he thought the proposed project called for duplexes and multiplexes. Mr. Forrester also announced that there were 160 people in attendance for this hearing. He also brought to the Commission's attention that, in only five days, they were able to get 360 signatures on petitions of opposition. Mr. Greg Bancroft, one of the proposed developers, returned to the podium to refute a statement made earlier about the types of homes planned. Mr. Bancroft stated that their plan is to have 100% single-family homes, with some patio homes. Ms. Diane Shuck, resident of Apple Ridge and adjoiner to the Giles farm, said that their community is small and they feel safe. She said the proposed plan is a wonderful plan, but it seems too big, and she believed it would affect her family's feeling of safety and security. Mrs. Alice Giles, one of the owners of the Giles farm, pointed out that many of the people that spoke in opposition have the luxury of her property. Mrs. Giles stated that they want to sell their property. She argued that all of the people who spoke in opposition came to Frederick County from somewhere else, while she and her husband have lived on Senseny Road for over 35 years. Mrs. Giles said that she never spoke against people coming into the County to build their home, or spoke against their children going to Senseny Road School. She said that she and her husband are helping to pay the taxes to send those children to school. She said that the people in opposition would not like someone telling them that they couldn't sell their home. She believed this was a well thought-out project and it will occur in phases. As all members of the audience had an opportunity to speak, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comments portion of the public hearing. Members of the Commission pointed out that the County's designated rural areas are west of Interstate 81; they stated that development needs to occur in areas east of 81, in the County's Urban Development Area (UDA), so that our rural areas west of 81 may be maintained. They pointed out that growth Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 326 will continue in Frederick County at the same rate it has been, even if this rezoning is not approved. They noted that a large portion of the 600+ building permits issued per year are occurring outside of the UDA, maybe as many as 35%40%, and this is eating up our rural land five acres at a time, not quarter or half -acre lots at a time. Commission members stressed the need to keep development within the UDA, so that it is not sprawling all over the County, ruining our viewsheds. Commission members stressed their desire to see master planning for large areas of land, so that they can see the bigger picture, so that there is an opportunity to signalize, to build roads, to have open spaces, and parks and recreation trails, etc. Members ofthe Commission did not believe that this development would destroy the quality of education offered in Frederick County. The Planning Commission believed that this developer had done an excellent job ofbringing before the Commission a large, master planned area inside the UDA. They believed the problems could be mitigated. The Commission continued their discussion, stating that there were several issues that needed to be addressed before they could recommend approval of the proposal. Specifically, they requested that the applicant prepare a detailed traffic analysis providing levels of service under different scenarios. Further, this analysis needed to be reviewed by the VDOT staff at Edinburg and their comments submitted to the Planning Commission. They believed that access to Route 7 needed to be tied down and a commitment made, and the bridge at the McHale farm also needed to be addressed. Also mentioned was the plan to re-route Valley Mill Road to another location through here, and it was possible that this issue needed to be considered because it would have an impact on the phasing of this development. Commission members said that phasing will have to be associated with the traffic levels of service and the other issues that have already been mentioned this evening. They asked that the applicant re -address the proffers and the school site issue. Finally, Commission members believed the solid waste issue needed to be dealt with and, hopefully, the developers will provide a site where this could be accommodated. Members of the Commission believed that by properly addressing these issues, they would be in favor of the rezoning, primarily because the request is in the proper location and development of this area will eventually occur. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table Rezoning #05-99 of Giles Farm, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 140.2 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) , and 12.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) with a waiver of the time requirement, per the applicant's request. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table Rezoning Application #06-99 of Sheppard/Futral, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 132.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) with a waiver of the time requirement, per the applicant's request. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table Rezoning Application #07-99 of Lynnehaven, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 81.4 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 327 1 RP (Residential Performance) and 10.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) with a waiver of the time requirement, per the applicant's request. (Commissioner Light abstained from voting on this rezoning, 407-99 of Lynnhaven.) ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. by unanimous vote. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Page 328