Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout004-08 Red Hawk Estates - 85.3 Acres RA to RP - Shawnee - Backfile (2)RECEIPT DATE RECEIVED FROM pio. 9193 ADDRESS }•V`i�Nz DOLLARS $FOR RENTFORCASH !�C/.J, I�y � (ti,�1 • 1 L�� 1, v� I.GU i AMT7DUE � �`-� CHECK MONEY "'� ORDER BY REZONING TRACKING SF%ET Check List: Application Form Proffer Statement Impact Analysis Adjoiner List Fee & Sign Deposit Deed Plat/Survey Taxes Paid Statement Impact Model Run DATE / ' C Application received/file opened Lolq-GReference manual updated/number assigned (� ,� 4 0 D-base updated (�IR k4a f Copy of adjoiner list given to staff member for verification Four sets of adjoiner labels ordered from data processing % a b Color location maps ordered from Mapping a�,o8 IW File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary PC public hearing date ACTION: BOS public hearing date ACTION: Signed copy of resolution for amendment of ordinance, with conditions proffered [if applicable], received from County Administrator's office and given to office manager for placement in the 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 File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary (final action) File given to Mapping/GIS to update zoning map Zoning map amended U \Bev\Common\Tracking sheet s\REZ_tracking wpd Revised 05/09/02 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP �=/j Deputy Director 'C—� RE: Rezoning Application RZ#04-08, Red Hawk Estates DATE: September 2, 2008 The Applicant for this rezoning application has requested that the application remain tabled until the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for November 19, 2008, or until the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting which may occur after that date. Please see the attached letter. As you will recall, the Plamzing Commission at your August 6, 2008 meeting and following the Public Hearing, tabled the rezoning request for 45 days to allow the applicant additional time to coordinate with representatives of the Arcadia project and to work on the issues raised during the Planning Commission meeting. This Rezoning Application was scheduled to return to the Commission at this meeting, September 17, 2008. This request from the Applicant would satisfy the Planning Commission Bylaw which states that the applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from a scheduled Plaiming Commission one time. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine if it is appropriate to satisfy the request of the Applicant. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. MTR/bad Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 0 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 IIARRISON & JO NST'^ PLC 21 South I A-Moun street W'inchestrr: %irb niu 22601 i'_O. Pox 809 Winchcstcr, Virginia 226(9 Telephone 540.667,1266 August 29, 2008 VIA EMAIL lt4.ichael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planting & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 nzruddv(&.co.frederic;k.va.us In ate: Red Flam,lr Estates Remising Application 404-08 Dear Mike: Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Facsimile 540.667.1312 peiticr'u.:harrison johnstoit.com Mobile. 5411.664.5134 On behalf of my client, Turner Enterprises, LLC, 1 request that the above referenced rezoning application remain tabled until the larmingCommission meetingscheduled forNoventbur19,2008, or until the next scheduled Planning Commission which may occur after that date. The applicant has made a number of revisions to the proposed proffer statement and is in the process of discussions with Arcadia Development Company to finalize the agreement to permit Turner Enterprises to construct proposed Chamting Drive across the Arcadia Development Company parcel to connect Red Hawk Estates to Route 50, Turner Enterprises and Arcadia Development Company met yesterday, August 28, 2008, and due to a number of site planning and engineering issues which must be addressed by each parties' respective engineers, they have determined they can come to a final agreement to be submitted to the Planting Commission ifthe application is continued until late November. Accordingly, this letter serves as that request. If I can provide any further information or assistance with regard to this application and the continuance of its being tabled., please do not hesitate to contact me. With best regards, 1 am Ve4"Aruly yours,, ;r r 6111�p; t L. 3 ettie, Ir. S ,'; sP cc: i liner R nte-pr lam.- s, � (., REZONING APPLICATION 904-08 RED HAWK ESTATES Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: July 16, 2008 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Planning Commission: 08/06/08 Board of Supervisors: 09/24/08 Action Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 655). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Residential and vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: B2 (Business General) Cast: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural Use: Vacant Use: Residential/Agricultural Use: Residential/Agricultural/ Frederick County PROPOSED USES: Up to 69 Single Family Homes and 170 Townhomes Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virl4inia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 655, 656 and 50. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is NOT satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application dated January 15, 2008 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. VDOT offers the following comments: 1. The applicant has increased the financial contribution from $60,000 to $150,000 for potential off -site improvements along Sulphur Spring Road. While the increase is welcomed, it is far less (approximately $625 per unit) than many of the recent rezonings have provided. 2. The residence lots noted along existing Greenwood Road should not be constructed until such time as Greenwood Road thru traffic has been relocated to future Channing Drive as shown on the County's Eastern Road Plan. The existing roadway lacks sufficient sight distance to safely allow for ingress and egress to these residential sites. 3. VDOT suggests that the applicant look at the possibility of accessing the Town House portion of the development via Route 50 and the Arcadia parcel adjacent to the proposed development vs. constructing a crossing of the Sulphur Spring stream. VDOT is willing to meet with the applicant to review the above comments. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Co.: Needs to be some sort of guarantee as to not having full road closure for any period of time. Department of Inspections: No comments Department of Public Works: See attached. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments regarding changes, except those comments put forth on April 11, 2006 letter regarding water and sewer usage. 4/11/2006 - There are no flow projections given for water and sewer usage. The plan seems to indicate there are 232 dwelling units, which could be equated to around 50,000 gallons a day. The developer should verify water and sewer usage. Sanitation Authority Department: We should have sufficient sewer and water capacity to serve the development. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proffer statement, as it relates to trails, open space and parks and recreational amenities, includes so many generalities and contingencies it is difficult to understand Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 3 the impact of the proffer. Staff recommends the developer commit to specific offerings that are measurable today. Staff recommends the county proffer model be used in determining the impact this development will have on the capital facilities needs of the Parks and Recreation Department. Furthermore, the construction of the trails should be completed by the development and in accordance with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan, with no reduction in the cash proffer for Parks and Recreation capital facility development. The 100% hard surface trail system, on public easements, should then be turned over to the HOA. All trails should meet Frederick County Standards. Staff also recommends that more specific benchmarks be used when identifying when the development of amenities will be completed. Plan appears to provide the appropriate amount of usable open space. Plan should include a trails summary outlining locations, costs, typical sections, schedule for development and how, and by whom, trails will be maintained. Developer should determine whether all conditions necessary for the inclusion of the bicycle trail can be met and then complete the proffer accordingly. Construction of the trail system should take place as Red Hawk Estates is being developed. The schedule for trail construction should not be based on development of adjoining parcels. The area to be dedicated as community open space should be more clearly defined. The developer should provide a more concrete proposal pertaining to the offer of obtaining the "Community Wildlife Designation". It is not clear to staff if the information pertaining to Parks and Recreation in section 9 of this report constitutes an offer by the developer to include these amenities within this development. Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objection if public water and sewer are provided, and existing sewage disposal systems and water supplies are not affected. All required setbacks to the above must be maintained. Winchester Regional Airport: After review of the revised proffer for Red Hawk Estates for proposed residential performance, we did not see anything addressing our prior comment made in 2006 as follows: "The proposed site does lie within airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport and is in close proximity to the northeastern edge of the Airport Support Area. In order to protect growth and fixture operations of the Winchester Airport, residential occupants should be provided with disclosure statements about the close proximity of the site to the Airport and the possibility of experiencing noise from over flights of aircraft arriving to and departing from the Winchester Regional Airport." The center of the proposed residential development portion of the project with 239 residential units is less than 6,000 feet from the centerline of the runway at the Winchester Regional Airport. With twenty-four operations, jet traffic has steadily increased over the past several years and continues to grow with owners of larger jet aircraft housing their jets at Winchester. We are not opposing the rezoning request but we do feel it is important to protect the operations of the airport and request you include our request to make know to fixture homeowners that they are in close proximity to a regional airport through a disclosure statement and/or a covenant in their deed. Frederick County Public Schools: We offer the following comments: 1. The cumulative impact of this project and other projects in various stages of development in eastern Frederick County will necessitate fixture construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. We estimate that the 71 single family detached units and the 166 single family attached units that this development will contain will house 28 high school students, 25 middle school students Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 4 and 49 elementary school students. In order to properly serve these 102 students, Frederick County Public Schools will outlay $3,583,000 in capital expenditures and $1,042,000 annually in operating costs. 2. The cash proffers for school construction total $3,463,000. This would defray most but not all of the resultant capital costs noted above. 3. The current intersection of Greenwood Road and Sulphur Spring Road is in an awkward and unsafe arrangement for school buses. Buses turning right momentarily block both lanes of traffic. Based on the Conceptual Plan contained in the Impact Analysis Statement, potentially two additional buses (one elementary and one middle/high) would travel through this intersection. Improvements to Greenwood Road and extension of Channing Drive per the Eastern Road Plan would improve safe transportation of students. We note the proffered dedication of right-of-way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and the extension of Channing Drive and the proffered construction of a portion of Channing Drive. Unfortunately, relocating Greenwood Road and connecting it to Charming Drive will occur at a later date as neighboring parcels develop. 4. Please note there are two different Conceptual plans and two different Generalized Development plans in the packet submitted to us. Frederick County Public Schools is concerned about all land development applications. Both capital expenditures and annual operating costs are significantly increased by each approved residential development. Historic Resources Advisory Board: see attached Attornev Comments: see attached. Blue Ridte Forestry Consultants: No changes have been made with the application that will impact the fixture productivity, aesthetic or wildlife qualities of the forested acreage. Planning Department: Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A -I and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a. composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 5 [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The properties are located in the UDA and the SWSA. The Comprehensive Plan's Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan provides no specific guidance as to the future land use designations in this area. The use of adjacent land is a significant consideration in the evaluation of the appropriate future land use of this area. The property is in the vicinity of the Frederick County Landfill, the old Frederick County landfill which is currently being utilized by the Sherriff's Office, existing industrial businesses, property currently zoned B2, Business General, and scattered existing residential uses on individual health systems. It is recognized that the property is within the UDA; however, the proposed residential request should be carefully evaluated to ensure it is consistent with current or planned land uses in this area. The application should be reviewed based upon the current Comprehensive Plan. It is recognized that through the UDA Study this area was preliminarily identified as an opportune area for additional commercial and industrial land uses, and potentially a location for future recognition as an urban center. However, this is not presently a part of the Comprehensive Plan. hn addition, the consideration of land uses supportive of the operations of the Frederick County Landfill and the Frederick County Sheriff who operates an outdoor shooting range on the property to the west of this site should continue to be a high priority. Transportation The County's Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of this project identifies improvements to Greenwood Road and the extension of Channing Drive. Both are identified as major collector roads. It is anticipated that the intersection of these two roads and Sulphur Springs Road would occur in the immediate vicinity of this property. A solution to the convergence of these three roads should be identified and addressed in conjunction with this rezoning application. Subsequent planning efforts have elevated the improvement of Sulphur Springs Road to the top of the County's secondary Road Improvement Project list. VDOT is currently in the design phase for this project. This rezoning application should recognize the future improvements to Sulphur Springs Road. In addition, the alignment of Channing Drive through this project to Route 50 in the vicinity of Independence Drive has been reinforced through the eastern road plan. The construction of Channing Drive in this location was also recognized in the rezoning of the adjacent property to the Southeast in rezoning #06-90 of Kathryn M. Perry. This property is currently owned by Acadia. This old rezoning application proffered the construction of a four lane divided road through their property in support of their commercial rezoning. Site Access and design. The Application is generally divided into two sections by Sulphur Springs Road. Access to the property to the north is via Greenwood Road and access to the southern property is indirectly to Route 50. Additional access to the southern property is via improved Brimstone Lane. It is Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 6 important to recognize that there are several properties located internal to the properties requested to be rezoned. A Generalized Development Plan further identifies the site access and design. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The properties are bisected by Sulphur Springs Run and its associated floodplain. This is key feature that has been addressed in the application. The property also contains several smaller tributaries that bisect the development area. In addition, several wetlands exist on the site. Other features of the property include areas of steep slopes and mature woodlands which should be a greater consideration with this request. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Anal The TIA prepared for this application does not effectively evaluate the transportation program proffered by the Applicant. However, it should be recognized that the modifications to the application and proffer statement more accurately depict the transportation network envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. The limited value of the conclusions of the TIA should be recognized. Transportation Program. The Applicant's transportation program is highlighted on the accompanying Generalized Development Plan and is farther summarized as follows: • The dedication of right-of-way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and Channing Drive over their property. • A commitment not to construct houses on Greenwood Road until such time Greenwood Road is relocated to Channing Drive. • A contribution in the amount of $180,000 for the construction of a traffic signal or other transportation improvement. • The construction of a four lane divided section of Channing Drive across their property. • The construction of a two lane roadway across the adjacent Arcadia Development Company property to connect with Route 50. • Pedestrian improvements in association with the transportation improvements. Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 7 Several alternative trigger mechanisms are proposed in implementation of the Applicant's proffer Statement. Many of these are less than desirable and should be more specific. It is Staff s intent to ensure a Proffer Statement that can be effectively administered in the future. Additional comments from Mr. John Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner are summarized as follows. 1. The transportation proffers as written have no time triggers. 2. Arcadia is committed to building two lanes to Route 50. If Red Hawk takes on that responsibility instead of building an additional two lanes, what has the County gained? You cannot offset your impact by offsetting someone else's impact instead. 3. Given item two, the signal proffer amount seems insufficient to offset the impacts of Red Hawk. 4. The signal proffer, as currently worded, is too restrictive and would be better if there was an option to use the cash in the general area. 5. It may be worth pointing out that it will be appropriate to cul de sac Greenwood Road upon the implementation of the new connection with Channing Dr. C. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services. The application recognizes these impacts. However, the latest version of the County's Development Impact Model should be used to ensure that these impacts are accurately mitigated. As noted previously, this project may have an impact on adjacent County owned facilities; the old Frederick County Landfill which is currently home to the Frederick County Sherriff's impound lot and outdoor Shooting Range, and potentially to the existing Frederick County Landfill. The impact to the existing residential land uses internal to this project should continue to be recognized. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated May 1, 2008, Revised July 14, 2008 A) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has proffered a generalized Development Plan which identifies access, areas of residential land use, types of residences, and area of open space preservation. B) Land Use The property shall contain a maximum of 240 residential units with no more than 69 single family detached units and no more than 170 single family attached residential units. It should be clarified that no multifamily units will be developed on this site. Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates July 16, 2008 Page 8 The application provides for approximately 32.5 acres of open space. C) Transportation The dedication of right of way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and Charming Drive over their property. A commitment not to construct houses on Greenwood Road until such time Greenwood Road is relocated to Charming Drive. A contribution in the amount of $180,000 for the construction of a traffic signal or other transportation improvement. The construction of a four lane divided section of Charming Drive across their property. The construction of a two lane roadway across the adjacent Arcadia Development Company property to connect with Route 50. Pedestrian improvements in association with the transportation improvements. C) Community Facilities The Applicant has provided monetary contributions to offset the impacts to community facilities. This item should be updated to reflect the current impact model and should not include any credit calculations such as proposed for Parks and Recreation. With regards to Public Safety, the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution up to $650,000 toward the construction of a new indoor shooting range. This proffer should indicate the impact that placing a residential development adjacent to one of the few remaining outdoor shooting ranges would have on the operation of the range. A proffered contribution towards the construction of a new facility appears to be wholly inadequate. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/06/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: While the property is located in the UDA, the residential land use proposed in this rezoning should be carefully evaluated in consideration of the surrounding land uses. Many of the impacts associated with this rezoning request have not been mitigated by the Applicant. In particular, the impact to the adjacent Sheriff's shooting range facility. In addition, the transportation impacts associated with this request and the proffered transportation improvements aimed at mitigating the impacts may not be sufficient. Transportation improvements do not appear to have been provided in the same scale as the proposed development. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supe1•visors concerning this rezoning application ivould be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Mike Ruddy is From: Kathie Williams [willirk@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 11:37 PM To: mcheran@co.frederick.va.us; elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us; mruddy@co.frederick.va.us Subject: Comments on Red Hawk Estates Importance: High Gentlemen: am writing in response to your letter dated July 25, 2008 and received this date regarding the above application. have been aware of the purchase of the property (previously unbuildable due to inability to perc) surrounding my property at 253 Brimstone Lane, Winchester, VA. I was also made aware several years ago during a visit from the Fire Marshal that, at least at that time, my property was the closest home allowed to the Perry Engineering explosives bunker. I was also told that a specific distance must be maintained between Perry and any residences which rendered much of the land near me unusable. I do not believe the bunker has moved. Furthermore, given the current economic downturn and resulting dramatic drop in real estate sales and an even more dramatic increase in real estate foreclosures, I do not see the benefit in creating the potential for 240 more homes. In an area where builders are unable to sell existing homes, are taking deep price cuts to move existing homes or are leasing homes which cannot be sold, I fail to see the sense in rezoning to permit more homes. Builders in this area have walked away from already approved and started developments (i.e., Stephens Landing - returning deposits rather than build at a loss). The required expenditure of time (County employee salaries) and money (necessary installation of various serviceslinfrastructure needed to service the new development) seems not only unnecessary but ludicrous! There is already talk about charging for ambulance services and other budgets (County, State and Federal) having to be slashed; therefore, why is the County even considering adding more drain to an area already having financial difficulty? Based on your letter, the proposal to rezone the 85.3 acres would result in an average lot size of .35 acres. With that density the demand for services (schools, fire, water/sewer etc.) would be significant. Any further increase in taxes needs to be offset by an increase in the tax -base; however, there have been several businesses which have closed in spite of a long presence in the area (House of Liu comes to mind - closing due to lack of business), new businesses which close due to the lack of disposable income in the general public, and the loss of industry (such as Barber & Ross) which affect both the unemployment and the tax base and definitely have an impact on the amount of disposable income available to support other businesses. Once the rezoning is granted, there is nothing to stop the developerlbuilder from moving forward with plans to build even more cookie -cutter homes to sit and drain the budget and increase taxes. Please consider carefully the overall impact. The latest information suggests that we are not yet at the end of the foreclosure crisis and that when the involuntary foreclosures reach their peak, the country will then be hit with a wave of voluntary foreclosures which could last another 2 years. Why is more home construction even being considered??? Thank you for your time Kathleen Williams Owner, 253 Brimstone Lane, Winchester, VA To: John F. Callow Subject: FW: Red Hawk Estates - VDOT Comments to Rezoning F'MM Matthew B. Smith, P.E. Residency Staff Engineer VDOT - Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone # (540) 984-5615 Fax # (540) 984-5607 From: Funkhouser, Rhonda On Behalf Of Smith, Matthew, P.E. Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:18 PM To: 'pettler@harrison-johnston.com' Cc: Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Hoffman, Gregory; 'mruddy@co.frederick.va.us'; John.Bishop Subject: Red Hawk Estates - VDOT Comments to Rezoning The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 655, 656 and 50. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is generally satisfied the transportation proffers offered in the revised Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application dated July 15, 2008 address transportation concerns associated with this request. However, VDOT offers the following comments: * Revised Proffer 14.3: The current proffered monetary amount may be insufficient to offset all traffic impacts. Also traffic improvements may be necessary prior to the proffered time trigger of one hundred dwelling units being constructed. We feel traffic improvements could certainly be required prior to the proffered time trigger. * Proffer 14.5: Concerning the two lanes to be constructed through the Arcadia Property, it should be clarified that the Red Hawk development's construction is in addition to the already proffered Arcadia two lanes rather than a substitution. The ultimate goal is a -four lane roadway. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work ►Q performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Matthew B. Smith, P.E. Residency Staff Engineer VDOT - Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone # (540) 984-5615 Fax # (540) 984-5607 3 REZONING APPLICATION #04-08 RED HAWK ESTATES iY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: June, 2008 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by tl:e Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Planning Commission: 08/06/08 Board of Supervisors: 09/24/08 Action Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 655). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 65-A-86, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A PIOPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: PROPOSED USES: Up to 69 Single Family Homes and 170 Townhomes Rezoning 404-08 — Red Hawk Estates June , 2008 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 655, 656 and 50. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is NOT satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application dated January 15, 2008 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. VDOT offers the following comments: 1. The applicant has increased the financial contribution from $60,000 to $150,000 for potential off -site improvements along Sulphur Spring Road. While the increase is welcomed, it is far less (approximately $625 per unit) than many of the recent rezonings have provided. 2. The residence lots noted along existing Greenwood Road should not be constructed until such time as Greenwood Road thru traffic has been relocated to fixture Channing Drive as shown on the County's Eastern Road Plan. The existing roadway lacks sufficient sight distance to safely allow for ingress and egress to these residential sites. 3. VDOT suggests that the applicant look at the possibility of accessing the Town House portion of the development via Route 50 and the Arcadia parcel adjacent to the proposed development vs. constructing a crossing of the Sulphur Spring stream. VDOT is willing to meet with the applicant to review the above comments. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Frederick County, Deputy Director -Transportation: Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Co.: Needs to be some sort of guarantee as to not having full road closure for any period of time. Department of Inspections: Department of Public Works: Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments regarding changes, except those continents put forth on April 11, 2006 letter regarding water and sewer usage. 4/11/2006 - There are no flow projections given for water and sewer usage. The plan seems to indicate there are 232 dwelling units, which could be equated to around 50,000 gallons a day. The developer should verify water and sewer usage. Sanitation Authority Department: We should have sufficient sewer and water capacity to serve the development. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proffer statement, as it relates to trails, open space and parks and recreational amenities, includes so many generalities and contingencies it is difficult to understand the impact of the proffer. Staff recommends the developer commit to specific offerings that are measurable today. Staff recommends the county proffer model be used in determining the impact this development will have on the capital facilities needs of the Parks and Recreation Department. Furthermore, the construction of the trails should be completed by the development and in accordance with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan, with no reduction in the cash proffer for Parks and Recreation capital facility development. The 100% hard surface trail system, on public easements, should then be turned over to the HOA. All trails should meet Frederick County Standards. Staff also recommends that more specific benchmarks be used when identifying when the development of amenities will be completed. Plan appears to provide the appropriate amount of usable open space. Plan should include a trails summary outlining locations, costs, typical sections, schedule for development and how, and by whom, trails will be maintained. Developer should determine whether all conditions necessary for the inclusion of the bicycle trail can be met and then complete the proffer accordingly. ConstrUCtion of the trail system should take place as Red Hawk Estates is being developed. The schedule for trail construction should not be based on development of adjoining parcels. The area to be dedicated as community open space should be more clearly defined. The developer should provide a more concrete proposal pertaining to the offer of obtaining the "Community Wildlife Designation". It is not clear to staff if the information pertaining to Parks and Recreation in section 9 of this report constitutes an offer by the developer to include these amenities within this development. Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objection if public water and sewer are provided, and existing sewage disposal systems and water supplies are not affected. All required setbacks to the above must be maintained. Winchester Regional Airport: After review of the revised proffer for Red Hawk Estates for proposed residential performance, we did not see anything addressing our prior comment made in 2006 as follows: "The proposed site does lie within airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport and is in close proximity to the northeastern edge of the Airport Support Area. In order to protect growth and fixture operations of the Winchester Airport, residential occupants should be provided with disclosure statements about the close proximity of the site to the Airport and the possibility of experiencing noise from over flights of aircraft arriving to and departing from the Winchester Regional Airport." The center of the proposed residential development portion of the project with 239 residential units is less than 6,000 feet from the centerline of the runway at the Winchester Regional Airport. With twenty-four operations, jet traffic has steadily increased over the past several years and continues to grow with owners of largerjet aircraft housing their jets at Winchester. We are not opposing the rezoning request but we do feel it is important to protect the operations of the airport and request you include our request to make know to future homeowners that they are in close proximity to a regional airport through a disclosure statement and/or a covenant in their deed. Frederick County Public Schools: We offer the following comments: 1. The cumulative impact of this project and other projects in various stages of development in eastern Frederick County will necessitate future construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. We estimate that the 71 single family detached units and the 166 single family attached units that this development will contain will house 28 high school students, 25 middle school students and 49 elementary school students. In order to properly serve these 102 students, Frederick County Public Schools will outlay $3,583,000 in capital expenditures and $1,042,000 annually in operating costs. 2. The cash proffers for school construction total $3,463,000. This would defray most but not all of the resultant capital costs noted above. 3. The current intersection of Greenwood Road and Sulphur Spring Road is in an awkward and unsafe arrangement for school buses. Buses turning right momentarily block both lanes of traffic. Based on the Conceptual Plan contained in the Impact Analysis Statement, potentially two additional buses (one elementary and one middle/high) would travel through this intersection. Improvements to Greenwood Road and extension of Charming Drive per the Eastern Road Plan would improve safe transportation of students. We note the proffered dedication of right-of-way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and the extension of Charming Drive and the proffered construction of a portion of Channing Drive. Unfortunately, relocating Greenwood Road and connecting it to Charming Drive will occur at a later date as neighboring parcels develop. 4. Please note there are two different Conceptual plans and two different Generalized Development plans in the packet submitted to us. Frederick County Public Schools is concerned about all land development applications. Both capital expenditures and annual operating costs are significantly increased by each approved residential development. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Attorney Comments: Blue RidLe Forestry Consultants: No changes have been made with the application that will impact the future productivity, aesthetic or wildlife qualities of the forested acreage. PlanninjZ Department: Planninlz & Zoning: 1) Site History 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the fixture physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use Transportation Site Access and des 3) Site Suitability/Environment 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. Transportation Program. am. B. Design Standards C. Community Facilities 5) Proffer Statement — Dated May 1, 2008 A) Generalized Development Plan B) Land Use C) Transportation D) Community Facilities STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/06/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning is rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. �a�z„��' PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# RA to RP PROPERTY: 85.3 Acres Tax Map Parcels 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A RECORD OWNER: Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. R.J. Turner, Manager APPLICANT: Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Red Hawk Estates PROFFER DATE: May 1, 2008, Revised July 14, 2008 The Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as identified above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' ("Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. The Applicant hereby proffers as follows: REZONING: PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ# PROPERTY: 85.3 Acres FITUM • M 'r Tax Map Parcels 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A RECORD OWNER: Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. R.J. Turner, Manager APPLICANT: Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Red Hawk Estates PROFFER DATE: May 1, 2008, Revised July 14, 2008 The Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as identified above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' ("Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. The Applicant hereby proffers as follows: LAND USE 1.1 Areas of development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Performance ("RP") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code. All residential development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be approved by Frederick County. 1.2 The Property shall be developed in conformity with the Generalized Development Plan ("GDP") dated April 16, 2008 submitted herewith with regard to the locations for residential dwelling units, open spaces, improvements and roadways as generally depicted on the GDP. 1.3 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum gross density of 2.81 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of two hundred forty (240) dwelling units on 85.3 acres. Of the maximum number of dwelling units (240), no more than sixty-nine (69) dwelling units shall be single family detached residential units, and no more than one hundred seventy (170) dwelling units shall be single family attached residential units. 1.4 The construction of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) units per calendar year. 1.5 In order to preserve the distinctive natural characteristics of the Property, the minimum amount of open space on the Property after development will be at least 32.5 acres or thirty eight percent (38%) of the Property. No more than fifty percent (50%) of this open space will be within lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. 1.6 In order to preserve the distinctive natural characteristics of the Property, the 100- year floodplain area for Sulphur Spring Run located on the Property and all wetlands and steep slopes (exceeding fifty percent (50%) slope grade) adjacent to Sulphur Spring Run located on the Property will be preserved as "community open space" as generally depicted on the GDP. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all areas of the Property on which the location of roadways or trail systems are depicted shall be specifically excluded from the terms of this proffer, and the right to install and maintain utility facilities, access rights of way and recreational facilities in and upon such areas is hereby reserved. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS 2.1 The Property shall be developed as a single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, design standards and this Proffer Statement, as approved by the Board. -2- 3. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL; LINEAR PARK 3.1 The Applicant shall construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail ten feet (10') in width, and dedicate an easement twenty feet (20') in width encompassing said trail for the purpose of creating and maintaining the area as a linear park open to the general public along the banks of Sulphur Spring Run. In addition, the Applicant shall construct a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails along the public roadways generally depicted in the GDP submitted herewith connecting all the areas of open space and all of the residential areas of the Property by a continuous network of trails. These trails shall be ten feet (10') in width, located within an easement area twenty feet (20') in width dedicated to the Property Owner's Association for the development and included as "open space" in the development. The location of the trails is to be determined by the Applicant but shall be as generally depicted on the GDP submitted herewith as the "Proposed Trail' (in the designated "Proposed Sulphur Springs Greenway") and along the public roadways depicted therein. Construction of said trails by the Applicant shall be in accordance with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and in conformity with specifications imposed by the County. The trails shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the drawing labeled "bike trail typical" submitted herewith. The Applicant shall construct the trail in its entirety on or before the date on which the building permit for the one hundredth (100'h) unit is issued. The area of the public linear park shall be maintained as open space by the Property Owner's Association but shall be dedicated to public use, not limited to use only by the property owners in the development. 3.2 The Applicant will construct a water feature in that area identified for the same in the "Community Open Space" set forth on the GDP submitted herewith. The water feature will consist of an impoundment of water ("pond") constructed in accordance with all applicable State and County statutes and ordinances. The water feature will be constructed and completed on or before such time the "Community Open Space" generally depicted on the GDP is conveyed to the Property Owner's Association in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 below. 4. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES 4.1 The Applicant will implement the following Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to the extent feasible after detailed engineering of the site development and within a hybrid design including both conventional and LID stormwater management techniques. Page references provided below refer to: The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Urban Manual for Low Impact Site Development by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission and Engineering Concepts, Inc. (October 2005): -3- 4.1.1 Conservation of resources: reservation of the area within the 100-year flood plain of Sulphur Spring Run, designated wetlands and adjacent steep slopes as community open space and the protection of woodlands located within same (including the planting of more or additional native species, as advisable) in order to provide a substantial buffer along Sulphur Spring Run (page 4-2); 4.1.2 Limitations on impervious surfaces (page 4-7); 4.1.2.1 Limitation of residential private driveway widths to nine (9) feet; 4.1.2.2 Minimization of building front setbacks to the extent permitted by the Zoning Ordinance in order to reduce residential private driveway lengths; 4.1.2.3 Use of private roads where possible; 4.1.3 Installation of bio-retention basins in conjunction with conventional stormwater management facilities, if determined feasible during site engineering (pages 3-4, 4-13, 6-1 through 6-7). 4.2 In addition to implementation of the low impact development techniques set forth above, stormwater management and best management practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, so that the highest order of stormwater control existing under Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility results. PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 5.1 The Applicant shall erect an appropriate historical marker or plaque identifying the site of the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop as identified in Section H of the Impact Analysis Statement. The Applicant shall preserve the site of the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop. 6. FIRE & RESCUE 6.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $771 per single family detached residential unit for fire and rescue purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $568 per single family attached residential unit for fire and rescue purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 7. SCHOOLS 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $19,431 per single family detached residential unit for school purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $12,980 per single family attached residential unit for school purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $2,028 per single family detached residential unit for recreational purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit, subject to Section 8.3 below. 8.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,550 per single family attached residential unit for recreational purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit, subject to Section 8.3 below. 8.3 In consideration of the construction of the bike trail and dedication of the public linear park set forth in Section 3.1, the Applicant agrees to snake the contributions set forth in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 subject to a credit in the total amount of $40,000 to be applied by reducing the amounts payable upon issuance of a unit's building permit in the amount of $166.67 per payment ($40,000 divided by 240 units equals $166.67 per unit [$40,000 / 240 = $166.67]). This amount ($40,000) reflects the estimate of the cost to install the trails submitted to the Applicant by its engineers and does not include the value of the land dedicated to public use. 9. LIBRARIES 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $372 per single family detached residential unit for library purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 9.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $285 per single family attached residential unit for library purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit. -5- 10. PUBLIC SAFETY 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $875 per single family detached residential unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $669 per single family attached residential unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $650,000 toward the actual contracted cost of construction for the construction of an indoor shooting range to replace the currently existing outdoor shooting range, one of the last outdoor firing ranges owned by a city or county in the Commonwealth of Virginia, located on Tax Map Parcel No. 65-A-95 owned by the County, which adjoins the Property. The location of the indoor shooting range shall be determined by the County. The Applicant shall not be required to make the aforesaid contribution unless and until the County has approved a contract for the construction of the referenced indoor shooting range and given written notice to Applicant that the County will permanently discontinue the use of its property (Tax Map Parcel No. 65-A-95) as an outdoor shooting range upon the completion of the construction of the said indoor shooting range. The Applicant shall make this contribution within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written notice from the County but in no event shall the Applicant be liable for the contribution set forth in this Section 10.3 after that date which is ten (10) years from the date of final rezoning of the Property. In the event the County has not given the Applicant the written notice required under this Section 10.3 within ten (10) years from the date of final rezoning of the Property, this proffer shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. In the event the actual contracted cost of construction for the referenced indoor shooting range shall be less than $650,000, the Applicant shall only be liable for the total amount of the actual contracted cost of construction. 11. GENERAL GOVERNMENT 11.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $450 per single family detached residential unit to be used for general government administration upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 11.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $344 per single family attached residential unit to be used for general government administration upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 12. CREATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION 12.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a Property Owners' Association (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all community open space and other "common areas" not dedicated to the County or others, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development. In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall be responsible for refuse and recycling collection throughout the development. 12.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all community open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use; (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, including curbside refuse pick-up by a private refuse collection company; and (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12.3 After the establishment of the POA, upon the first sale of each lot on which a residential unit or units are located in the development, the POA will be entitled to collect an initial assessment in the amount of $200 per unit (in addition to the regular annual assessments imposed by the POA) to fiind the initial operations of the POA. 13. WATER & SEWER 13.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 14. TRANSPORTATION 14.1 The Applicant shall dedicate a right of way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and Channing Drive over those portions of the Property identified as "Extended and Improved Greenwood Road As Per Eastern Road Plan" and "Extended and Improved Channing Drive Per Eastern Road Plan," each as generally depicted on the GDP attached herewith. 14.2 The Applicant agrees not to construct houses on lots adjacent to existing Greenwood Road which will be accessed from existing Greenwood Road unless and until Greenwood Road is relocated and connected to proposed Charming Drive per the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan as set forth in its Eastern Road Plan. After such time as Greenwood Road is relocated, the Applicant may -7- construct houses on lots which may be accessed from that road which corresponds to existing Greenwood Road. 14.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $180,000 to the County for the construction of a traffic signal and/or other associated improvements as required by the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation at such time the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation determines such traffic signal and/or associated improvements become necessary to address measurable impacts resulting from the development of the proposed Red Hawk Estates. 14.4 The Applicant agrees to construct the proposed Charming Drive as a four (4) lane, divided roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Charming Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation in that area of the Property dedicated to the County for the relocation of Charming Drive pursuant to Section 14.1 above. The Applicant will construct the improvements proffered in Section 14.5 below prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. The Applicant will complete the construction of the proffered improvements set forth in this Section 14.4 upon the completion of eth construction of the last townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. 14.5 The Applicant will construct on the property owned by Arcadia Development Co. (Frederick County Tax Map # 65-A-116) proposed Channing Drive as a two (2) lane roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Charming Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Applicant has entered a memorandum of understanding with Arcadia Development Co. whereby the parties agree to enter a definitive agreement providing that Arcadia Development Co., its successors and assigns, will allow the Applicant, its successors and assigns, access to the property to construct said roadway from the Property to U.S. Route 50 and Arcadia Development Co. will dedicate the right of way related to such roadway to the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation upon acceptance of the same after construction. The agreement between the Applicant and Arcadia Development Co. will be contingent upon the granting of this rezoning application as applied for by the Applicant. 14.6 The Applicant agrees to construct all improvements, including pedestrian improvements, locat ed on the Property r elated to "Old Greenwood Road" as depicted in the GDP attached herewith and all improvements, including pedestrian improvements, located on the Property in that area of the Property IN dedicated to the County for the relocation of Greenwood Road pursuant to Section 14.1 above. Such improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Greenwood Road and "Old Greenwood Road" and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 15.1 In the event the monetary contributions contemplated under this Proffer Statement are paid to the Board within thirty (30) months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after thirty (30) months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") reported by the United States Department of Labor such that, at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI- U from (i) the CPI-U as reported on that date which is twenty-four (24) months after the date of the final rezoning to (ii) the CPI-U as reported on the date of the most recently available CPI-U relative to the date on which the contributions are paid. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the amount of contributions be adjusted by a factor greater than six percent (6%) per year, simple interest. Respectfully submitted this day of Q, 2008, TURNER EN TE RISES, LLC By: R.J,. T , Manager / Mem STATE OF �MRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: (adThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2008, by R.J. Turner, as Manager for and a Member of Turner Enterprises, LLC. ` NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: MAUREEN A. GRILLO NOTARY ID * 7123235 NOTARY PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 2011 REZONING PUBLIC HEARING ` w Frederick County imration Build - Admen inq 40 0. r S 't ma`s I �• � � �� � • .,�/; ��� r �,..- 10. TP "T of1. , 1 t t To: John F. Callow Subject: FW: Red Hawk Estates - VDOT Comments to Rezoning FYI Matthew B. Smith, P.E. Residency Staff Engineer VDOT - Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone # (540) 984-5615 Fax # (540) 984-5607 From: Funkhouser, Rhonda On Behalf Of Smith, Matthew, P.E. Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:18 PM To: 'pettler@harrison-johnston.com' Cc: Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Hoffman, Gregory; 'mruddy@co.frederick.va.us'; John.Bishop Subject: Red Hawk Estates - VDOT Comments to Rezoning The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 655, 656 and 50. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is generally satisfied the transportation proffers offered in the revised Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application dated July 15, 2008 address transportation concerns associated with this request. However, VDOT offers the following comments: * Revised Proffer 14.3: The current proffered monetary amount may be insufficient to offset all traffic impacts. Also traffic improvements may be necessary prior to the proffered time trigger of one hundred dwelling units being constructed. We feel traffic improvements could certainly be required prior to the proffered time trigger. * Proffer 14.5: Concerning the two lanes to be constructed through the Arcadia Property, it should be clarified that the Red Hawk development's construction is in addition to the already proffered Arcadia two lanes rather than a substitution. The ultimate goal is a four lane roadway. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work z performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Matthew B. Smith, P.E. Residency Staff Engineer VDOT - Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone # (540) 984-5615 Fax # (540) 984-5607 3 Mike Ruddy From: Kathie Williams [willirk@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 11:37 PM To: mcheran@co.frederick.va.us; elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us; mruddy@co.frederick.va.us Subject: Comments on Red Hawk Estates Importance: High Gentlemen: am writing in response to your letter dated July 25, 2008 and received this date regarding the above application. 1 have been aware of the purchase of the property (previously unbuildable due to inability to perc) surrounding my property at 253 Brimstone Lane, Winchester, VA. I was also made aware several years ago during a visit from the Fire Marshal that, at least at that time, my property was the closest home allowed to the Perry Engineering explosives bunker. I was also told that a specific distance must be maintained between Perry and any residences which rendered much of the land near me unusable. I do not believe the bunker has moved. Furthermore, given the current economic downturn and resulting dramatic drop in real estate sales and an even more dramatic increase in real estate foreclosures, I do not see the benefit in creating the potential for 240 more homes. In an area where builders are unable to sell existing homes, are taking deep price cuts to move existing homes or are leasing homes which cannot be sold, I fail to see the sense in rezoning to permit more homes. Builders in this area have walked away from already approved and started developments (i.e., Stephens Landing - returning deposits rather than build at a loss). The required expenditure of time (County employee salaries) and money (necessary installation of various services/infrastructure needed to service the new development) seems not only unnecessary but ludicrous! There is already talk about charging for ambulance services and other budgets (County, State and Federal) having to be slashed; therefore, why is the County even considering adding more drain to an area already having financial difficulty? Based on your letter, the proposal to rezone the 85.3 acres would result in an average lot size of .35 acres. With that density the demand for services (schools, fire, water/sewer etc.) would be significant. Any further increase in taxes needs to be offset by an increase in the tax -base; however, there have been several businesses which have closed in spite of a long presence in the area (House of Liu comes to mind - closing due to lack of business), new businesses which close due to the lack of disposable income in the general public, and the loss of industry (such as Barber & Ross) which affect both the unemployment and the tax base and definitely have an impact on the amount of disposable income available to support other businesses. Once the rezoning is granted, there is nothing to stop the developerlbuilder from moving forward with plans to build even more cookie -cutter homes to sit and drain the budget and increase taxes. Please consider carefully the overall impact. The latest information suggests that we are not yet at the end of the foreclosure crisis and that when the involuntary foreclosures reach their peak, the country will then be hit with a wave of voluntary foreclosures which could last another 2 years. Why is more home construction even being considered??? Thank you for your time Kathleen Williams Owner, 253 Brimstone Lane, Winchester, VA Mike buddy From: Sheriff Robert Williamson [rwilliam@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:38 PM To: mruddy@co.frederick.va.us Cc: pettler@harrison-johnston.com Subject: Proffer statement for Red Hawk Subdivision Dear Mr. Ruddy, I have reviewed the proffer statement for Red Hawk Subdivision as it pertains to the relocation of the existing Frederick County Sheriffs Office Range and Impound Lot. The proffer for the range of $650,000.00 is by no means sufficient to construct an indoor shooting range. However, it should be noted that the County's investment, in the current, range is significantly less than the proffer offer. It is noted in the proffer statement that this is one of the last outdoor ranges in Virginia. I'm not certain that this is accurate but the current trend is to build indoor ranges. With the growth that Frederick County has experienced, my staff has been for sometime discussing the need to look into the feasibility of replacing the current range with an indoor facility. This would provide some protection from civil liability as well as enhance training opportunities for our staff. There is currently no provision, in the proffer statement, for relocating the impound lot. I'm not certain that there is a need associated with this request to relocate the impound lot. Certainly the liability issues associated with the range are not present with the Impound lot. In summary, I am not opposed to the proffer of $650,000.00 for relocation of the range provided the County is able to provide acreage for such relocation. - Sincerely, Sheriff Robert T. Williamson Frederick County Sheriffs Office 1080 Coverstone Dr. Winchester, Virginia 22602 540-662-6168 rwilliam6c co.frederick.va.us REZONING APPLICATION For a subdivision to be called RED HAWK ESTATES 239 Units on 85.3 acres at Sulfur Spring and Greenwood Roads Shawnee Magisterial District Applicant: Turner Enterprises, LLC R. J. Turner, Manager Land Planner: Sympoetica, LLC J. Barry Carpenter, ASLA & Phoebe Kilby, AICP Engineer: Painter -Lewis, PC John Lewis, PE, CLA - Principal • 0 REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: PROFFER DATE: PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ# © 4 69 RA to RP 85.3 Acres Tax Map Parcels 65-A-86, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. R.J. Turner, Manager Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. Red Hawk Estates May 1, 2008 The Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as identified above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' ("Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. The Applicant hereby proffers as follows: r 0 • 1. LAND USE 1.1 Areas of development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Performance ("RP") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code. All residential development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be approved by Frederick County. 1.2 The Property shall be developed in conformity with the Generalized Development Plan ("GDP") dated May, 2007 submitted herewith with regard to the locations for residential dwelling units, open spaces, improvements and roadways as generally depicted on the GDP. 1.3 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum gross density of 2.81 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of two hundred forty (240) dwelling units on 85.3 acres. Of the maximum number of dwelling units (240), no more than sixty-nine (69) dwelling units shall be single family detached residential units, and no more than one hundred seventy (170) dwelling units shall be single family attached residential units. 1.4 The construction of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) units per calendar year. • 1.5 In order to preserve the distinctive natural characteristics of the Property, the minimum amount of open space on the Property after development will be at least 32.5 acres or thirty eight percent (38%) of the Property. No more than fifty percent (50%) of this open space will be within lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. 1.6 In order to preserve the distinctive natural characteristics of the Property, the 100- year floodplain area for Sulphur Spring Run located on the Property and all wetlands and steep slopes (exceeding fifty percent (50%) slope grade) adjacent to Sulphur Spring Run located on the Property will be preserved as "community open space" as generally depicted on the GDP. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all areas of the Property on which the location of roadways or trail systems are depicted shall be specifically excluded from the terms of this proffer, and the right to install and maintain utility facilities, access rights of way and recreational facilities in and upon such areas is hereby reserved. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS 2.1 The Property shall be developed as a single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, design standards and this • Proffer Statement, as approved by the Board. -2- 0 3. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL; LINEAR PARK 3.1 The Applicant shall construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail ten feet (10') in width, and dedicate an easement twenty feet (20') in width encompassing said trail for the purpose of creating and maintaining the area as a linear park open to the general public along the banks of Sulphur Spring Run. In addition, the Applicant shall construct a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails along the public roadways generally depicted in the GDP submitted herewith connecting all the areas of open space and all of the residential areas of the Property by a continuous network of trails. These trails shall be ten feet (10') in width, located within an easement area twenty feet (20') in width dedicated to the Property Owner's Association for the development and included as "open space" in the development. The location of the trails is to be determined by the Applicant but shall be as generally depicted on the GDP submitted herewith as the "Proposed Trail' (in the designated "Proposed Sulphur Springs Greenway") and along the public roadways depicted therein. Construction of said trails by the Applicant shall be in accordance with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and in conformity with specifications imposed by the County. The trails shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the drawing labeled "bike trail typical" submitted herewith. The Applicant shall construct the trail in its entirety on or before the date on which the building permit for the one hundredth (100th) unit is issued. The area of the public linear park shall be maintained as open space by the Property Owner's Association but shall be dedicated to public use, not limited to use only by the property owners in the development. 3.2 The Applicant will construct a water feature in that area identified for the same in the "Community Open Space" set forth on the GDP submitted herewith. The water feature will consist of an impoundment of water ("pond") constructed in accordance with all applicable State and County statutes and ordinances. The water feature will be constructed and completed on or before such time the "Community Open Space" generally depicted on the GDP is conveyed to the Property Owner's Association in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 below. 4. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES 4.1 The Applicant will implement the following Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to the extent feasible after detailed engineering of the site development and within a hybrid design including both conventional and LID stormwater management techniques. Page references provided below refer to: The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Urban Manual for Low Impact Site Development by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission and Engineering Concepts, Inc. (October 2005): -3- 9 0 4.1.1 Conservation of resources: reservation of the area within the 100-year flood plain of Sulphur Spring Run, designated wetlands and adjacent steep slopes as community open space and the protection of woodlands located within same (including the planting of more or additional native species, as advisable) in order to provide a substantial buffer along Sulphur Spring Run (page 4-2); 4.1.2 Limitations on impervious surfaces (page 4-7); 4.1.2.1 Limitation of residential private driveway widths to nine (9) feet; 4.1.2.2 Minimization of building front setbacks to the extent permitted by the Zoning Ordinance in order to reduce residential private driveway lengths; 4.1.2.3 Use of private roads where possible; 4.1.3 Installation of bio-retention basins in conjunction with conventional stormwater management facilities, if determined feasible during site engineering (pages 3-4, 4-13, 6-1 through 6-7). 4.2 In addition to implementation of the low impact development techniques set forth above, stormwater management and best management practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, so that the highest order of stormwater control existing under Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility results. PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 5.1 The Applicant shall erect an appropriate historical marker or plaque identifying the site of the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop as identified in Section H of the Impact Analysis Statement. The Applicant shall preserve the site of the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop. FIRE & RESCUE 6.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $771 per single family detached residential unit for fire and rescue purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $568 per single family attached residential unit for fire and rescue purposes upon the issuance of a unit's • building permit. -4- 0 7. SCHOOLS 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $18,431 per single family detached residential unit for school purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $12,980 per single family attached residential unit for school purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $2,028 per single family detached residential unit for recreational purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit, subject to Section 8.3 below. 8.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,550 per single family attached residential unit for recreational purposes upon issuance of a unit's • building permit, subject to Section 8.3 below. 8.3 In consideration of the construction of the bike trail and dedication of the public linear park set forth in Section 3.1, the Applicant agrees to make the contributions set forth in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 subject to a credit in the total amount of $40,000 to be applied by reducing the amounts payable upon issuance of a unit's building permit in the amount of $166.67 per payment ($40,000 divided by 240 units equals $166.67 per unit [$40,000 / 240 = $166.67]). This amount ($40,000) reflects the estimate of the cost to install the trails submitted to the Applicant by its engineers and does not include the value of the land dedicated to public use. • 9. LIBRARIES 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $372 per single family detached residential unit for library purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 9.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $285 per single family attached residential unit for library purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit. -5- 10. PUBLIC SAFETY 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $875 per single family detached residential unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $669 per single family attached residential unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $650,000 toward the actual contracted cost of construction for the construction of an indoor shooting range to replace the currently existing outdoor shooting range, one of the last outdoor firing ranges owned by a city or county in the Commonwealth of Virginia, located on Tax Map Parcel No. 65-A-95 owned by the County, which adjoins the Property. The location of the indoor shooting range shall be determined by the County. The Applicant shall not be required to make the aforesaid contribution unless and until the County has approved a contract for the construction of the referenced indoor shooting range and given written notice to Applicant that the County will permanently discontinue the use of its property (Tax Map Parcel No. 65-A-95) as an outdoor shooting range upon the completion of the construction of the said indoor shooting range. The Applicant shall make this contribution within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written notice from the County but in no event shall the Applicant be liable for the contribution set forth in this Section 10.3 after that date which is ten (10) years from the date of final rezoning of the Property. In the event the County has not given the Applicant the written notice required under this Section 10.3 within ten (10) years from the date of final rezoning of the Property, this proffer shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. In the event the actual contracted cost of construction for the referenced indoor shooting range shall be less than $650,000, the Applicant shall only be liable for the total amount of the actual contracted cost of construction. 11. GENERAL GOVERNMENT 11.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $450 per single family detached residential unit to be used for general government administration upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 11.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $344 per single family attached residential unit to be used for general government administration upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 12. CREATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION 12.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a Property Owners' Association (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, -6- maintenance and repair of all community open space and other "common areas" not dedicated to the County or others, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development. In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall be responsible for refuse and recycling collection throughout the development. 12.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all community open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use; (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, including curbside refuse pick-up by a private refuse collection company; and (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12.3 After the establishment of the POA, upon the first sale of each lot on which a residential unit or units are located in the development, the POA will be entitled to collect an initial assessment in the amount of $200 per unit (in addition to the regular annual assessments imposed by the POA) to fiend the initial operations of the POA. 13. WATER & SEWER 13.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 14. TRANSPORTATION 14.1 The Applicant shall dedicate a right of way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and Charming Drive over those portions of the Property identified as "Extended and Improved Greenwood Road As Per Eastern Road Plan" and "Extended and Improved Charming Drive Per Eastern Road Plan," each as generally depicted on the GDP attached herewith. 14.2 The Applicant agrees not to construct houses on lots adjacent to existing Greenwood Road which will be accessed from existing Greenwood Road unless and until Greenwood Road is relocated and connected to proposed Channing Drive per the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan as set forth in its Eastern 0 Road Plan. After such time as Greenwood Road is relocated, the Applicant may -7- construct houses on lots which may be accessed from that road which corresponds to existing Greenwood Road. 14.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $180,000 to the County for the construction of a traffic signal and other associated improvements as required on Sulphur Springs Road by the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation at such time the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation determines such traffic signal and associated improvements become necessary to address measurable impacts to Sulphur Springs Road resulting from the development of the proposed Red Hawk Estates. 14.4 The Applicant agrees to construct the proposed Charming Drive as a four (4) lane, divided roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Charming Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation in that area of the Property dedicated to the County for the relocation of Channing Drive pursuant to Section 14.1 above. 14.5 The Applicant will construct on the property owned by Arcadia Development Co. (Frederick County Tax Map # 65-A-116) proposed Channing Drive as a two (2) lane roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Channing Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Applicant has entered a memorandum of understanding with Arcadia Development Co. whereby the parties agree to enter a definitive agreement providing that Arcadia Development Co., its successors and assigns, will allow the Applicant, its successors and assigns, access to the property to construct said roadway from the Property to U.S. Route 50 and Arcadia Development Co. will dedicate the right of way related to such roadway to the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation upon acceptance of the same after construction. The agreement between the Applicant and Arcadia Development Co. will be contingent upon the granting of this rezoning application as applied for by the Applicant. 14.6 The Applicant agrees to construct all improvements, including pedestrian improvements, located on the Property r elated to "Old Greenwood Road" as depicted in the GDP attached herewith and all improvements, including pedestrian improvements, located on the Property in that area of the Property dedicated to the County for the relocation of Greenwood Road pursuant to Section 14.1 above. Such improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Greenwood Road and "Old Greenwood Road" and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of • Transportation. WIN (461, 15. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 15.1 In the event the monetary contributions contemplated under this Proffer Statement are paid to the Board within thirty (30) months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after thirty (30) months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") reported by ' the United States Department of Labor such that, at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI- U from (i) the CPI-U as reported on that date which is twenty-four (24) months after the date of the final rezoning to (ii) the CPI-U as reported on the date of the most recently available CPI-U relative to the date on which the contributions are paid. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the amount of contributions be adjusted by a factor greater than six percent (6%) per year, simple interest. Respectfully submitted this day of2008, TURNER EN RI , LLC By: C1 0 J. T er, Manager / M mber STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: OIL The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day o , 2008, by R.J. Turner, as Manager for and a Member of Turner Enterprises, LLC. O ARY PUBLIC My commission expires: 4,g MAUREEN A. GRILLO NOTARY ID # 7123235 NOTARY PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DECEMSER 31, 2011 REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: PROFFER DATE: PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ# RA to RP 85.3 Acres Tax Map Parcels 65-A-86, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. R.J. Turner, Manager Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. Red Hawk Estates May 1, 2008, Revised July 14, 2008 The Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as identified above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' ("Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. The Applicant hereby proffers as follows: 2 LAND USE 1.1 Areas of development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Performance ("RP") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code. All residential development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be approved by Frederick County. 1.2 The Property shall be developed in conformity with the Generalized Development Plan ("GDP") dated April 16, 2008 submitted herewith with regard to the locations for residential dwelling units, open spaces, improvements and roadways as generally depicted on the GDP. 1.3 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum gross density of 2.81 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of two hundred forty (240) dwelling units on 85.3 acres. Of the maximum number of dwelling units (240), no more than sixty-nine (69) dwelling units shall be single family detached residential units, and no more than one hundred seventy (170) dwelling units shall be single family attached residential units. 1.4 The construction of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) units per calendar year. 1.5 In order to preserve the distinctive natural characteristics of the Property, the minimum amount of open space on the Property after development will be at least 32.5 acres or thirty eight percent (38%) of the Property. No more than fifty percent (50%) of this open space will be within lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. 1.6 In order to preserve the distinctive natural characteristics of the Property, the 100- year floodplain area for Sulphur Spring Run located on the Property and all wetlands and steep slopes (exceeding fifty percent (50%) slope grade) adjacent to Sulphur Spring Run located on the Property will be preserved as "community open space" as generally depicted on the GDP. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all areas of the Property on which the location of roadways or trail systems are depicted shall be specifically excluded from the terms of this proffer, and the right to install and maintain utility facilities, access rights of way and recreational facilities in and upon such areas is hereby reserved. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS 2.1 The Property shall be developed as a single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, design standards and this Proffer Statement, as approved by the Board. -2- 3. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL; LINEAR PARK 3.1 The Applicant shall construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail ten feet (10') in width, and dedicate an easement twenty feet (20') in width encompassing said trail for the purpose of creating and maintaining the area as a linear park open to the general public along the banks of Sulphur Spring Run. In addition, the Applicant shall construct a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails along the public roadways generally depicted in the GDP submitted herewith connecting all the areas of open space and all of the residential areas of the Property by a continuous network of trails. These trails shall be ten feet (10') in width, located within an easement area twenty feet (20') in width dedicated to the Property Owner's Association for the development and included as "open space" in the development. The location of the trails is to be determined by the Applicant but shall be as generally depicted on the GDP submitted herewith as the "Proposed Trail' (in the designated "Proposed Sulphur Springs Greenway") and along the public roadways depicted therein. Construction of said trails by the Applicant shall be in accordance with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and in conformity with specifications imposed by the County. The trails shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the drawing labeled "bike trail typical" submitted herewith. The Applicant shall construct the trail in its entirety on or before the date on which the building permit for the one hundredth (100"') unit is issued. The area of the public linear park shall be maintained as open space by the Property Owner's Association but shall be dedicated to public use, not limited to use only by the property owners in the development. 3.2 The Applicant will construct a water feature in that area identified for the same in the "Community Open Space" set forth on the GDP submitted herewith. The water feature will consist of an impoundment of water ("pond") constructed in accordance with all applicable State and County statutes and ordinances. The water feature will be constructed and completed on or before such time the "Community Open Space" generally depicted on the GDP is conveyed to the Property Owner's Association in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 below. 4. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES 4.1 The Applicant will implement the following Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to the extent feasible after detailed engineering of the site development and within a hybrid design including both conventional and LID stormwater management techniques. Page references provided below refer to: The Northern Shenandoah Malley Regional Urban Manual foi• Low Impact Site Develohnnent by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission and Engineering Concepts, Inc. (October 2005): - 3 - 4.1.1 Conservation of resources: reservation of the area within the 100-year flood plain of Sulphur Spring Rum, designated wetlands and adjacent steep slopes as community open space and the protection of woodlands located within same (including the planting of more or additional native species, as advisable) in order to provide a substantial buffer along Sulphur Spring Run (page 4-2); 4.1.2 Limitations on impervious surfaces (page 4-7); 4.1.2.1 Limitation of residential private driveway widths to nine (9) feet; 4.1.2.2 Minimization of building front setbacks to the extent permitted by the Zoning Ordinance in order to reduce residential private driveway lengths; 4.1.2.3 Use of private roads where possible; 4.1.3 Installation of bio-retention basins in conjunction with conventional stormwater management facilities, if determined feasible during site engineering (pages 3-4, 4-13, 6-1 through 6-7). 4.2 In addition to implementation of the low impact development techniques set forth above, stormwater management and best management practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, so that the highest order of stormwater control existing under Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility results. 5. PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 5.1 The Applicant shall erect an appropriate historical marker or plaque identifying the site of the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop as identified in Section H of the Impact Analysis Statement. The Applicant shall preserve the site of the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop. 6. DIRE & RESCUE 6.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $771 per single family detached residential unit for fire and rescue purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $568 per single family attached residential unit for fire and rescue purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. -4- 7. SCHOOLS 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $18,431 per single family detached residential unit for school purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $12,980 per single family attached residential unit for school purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $2,028 per single family detached residential unit for recreational purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit, subject to Section 8.3 below. 8.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,550 per single family attached residential unit for recreational purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit, subject to Section 8.3 below. 8.3 In consideration of the construction of the bike trail and dedication of the public linear park set forth in Section 3.1, the Applicant agrees to make the contributions set forth in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 subject to a credit in the total amount of $40,000 to be applied by reducing the amounts payable upon issuance of a unit's building permit in the amount of $166.67 per payment ($40,000 divided by 240 units equals $166.67 per unit [$40,000 / 240 = $166.67]). This amount ($40,000) reflects the estimate of the cost to install the trails submitted to the Applicant by its engineers and does not include the value of the land dedicated to public use. 9. LIBRARIES 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $372 per single family detached residential unit for library purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 9.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $285 per single family attached residential unit for library purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit. - 5 - 10. PUBLIC SAFETY 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $875 per single family detached residential unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $669 per single family attached residential unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $650,000 toward the actual contracted cost of construction for the construction of an indoor shooting range to replace the currently existing outdoor shooting range, one of the last outdoor firing ranges owned by a city or county in the Commonwealth of Virginia, located on Tax Map Parcel No. 65-A-95 owned by the County, which adjoins the Property. The location of the indoor shooting range shall be determined by the County. The Applicant shall not be required to make the aforesaid contribution unless and until the County has approved a contract for the construction of the referenced indoor shooting range and given written notice to Applicant that the County will permanently discontinue the use of its property (Tax Map Parcel No. 65-A-95) as an outdoor shooting range upon the completion of the construction of the said indoor shooting range. The Applicant shall make this contribution within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written notice from the County but in no event shall the Applicant be liable for the contribution set forth in this Section 10.3 after that date which is ten (10) years from the date of final rezoning of the Property. In the event the County has not given the Applicant the written notice required under this Section 10.3 within ten (10) years from the date of final rezoning of the Property, this proffer shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. In the event the actual contracted cost of construction for the referenced indoor shooting range shall be less than $650,000, the Applicant shall only be liable for the total amount of the actual contracted cost of construction. 11. GENERAL GOVERNMENT 11.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $450 per single family detached residential unit to be used for general government administration upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 11.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $344 per single family attached residential unit to be used for general government administration upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 12. CREATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION 12.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a Property Owners' Association (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, -6- maintenance and repair of all community open space and other "common areas" not dedicated to the County or others, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development. In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall be responsible for refuse and recycling collection throughout the development. 12.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all community open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use; (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, including curbside refuse pick-up by a private refuse collection company; and (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12.3 After the establishment of the POA, upon the first sale of each lot on which a residential unit or units are located in the development, the POA will be entitled to collect an initial assessment in the amount of $200 per unit (in addition to the regular amival assessments imposed by the POA) to fund the initial operations of the POA. 13. WATER & SEWER 13.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 14. TRANSPORTATION 14.1 The Applicant shall dedicate a right of way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and Chamling Drive over those portions of the Property identified as "Extended and Improved Greenwood Road As Per Eastern Road Plan" and "Extended and Improved Charming Drive Per Eastern Road Plan," each as generally depicted on the GDP attached herewith. 14.2 The Applicant agrees not to construct houses on lots adjacent to existing Greenwood Road which will be accessed from existing Greenwood Road unless and until Greenwood Road is relocated and connected to proposed Channing Drive per the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan as set forth in its Eastern Road Plan. After such time as Greenwood Road is relocated, the Applicant may -7- construct houses on lots which may be accessed from that road which corresponds to existing Greenwood Road. 14.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $180,000 to the County for the construction of a traffic signal and/or other associated improvements as required by the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation at such time the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation determines such traffic signal and/or associated improvements become necessary to address measurable impacts resulting from the development of the proposed Red Hawk Estates. 14.4 The Applicant agrees to construct the proposed Channing Drive as a four (4) lane, divided roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Channing Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation in that area of the Property dedicated to the County for the relocation of Channing Drive pursuant to Section 14.1 above. The Applicant will construct the improvements proffered in Section 14.5 below prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such towr-liouse units will be constructed. The Applicant will complete the construction of the proffered improvements set forth in this Section 14.4 upon the completion of eth construction of the last townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. 14.5 The Applicant will construct on the property owned by Arcadia Development Co. (Frederick County Tax Map # 65-A-116) proposed Channing Drive as a two (2) lane roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Channing Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Applicant has entered a memorandum of understanding with Arcadia Development Co. whereby the parties agree to enter a definitive agreement providing that Arcadia Development Co., its successors and assigns, will allow the Applicant, its successors and assigns, access to the property to construct said roadway from the Property to U.S. Route 50 and Arcadia Development Co. will dedicate the right of way related to such roadway to the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation upon acceptance of the same after construction. The agreement between the Applicant and Arcadia Development Co. will be contingent upon the granting of this rezoning application as applied for by the Applicant. 14.6 The Applicant agrees to construct all improvements, including pedestrian improvements, locat ed on the Property r elated to "Old Greenwood Road" as depicted in the GDP attached herewith and all improvements, including pedestrian improvements, located on the Property in that area of the Property 15 dedicated to the County for the relocation of Greenwood Road pursuant to Section 14.1 above. Such improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Greenwood Road and "Old Greenwood Road" and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 15.1 In the event the monetary contributions contemplated under this Proffer Statement are paid to the Board within thirty (30) months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after thirty (30) months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") reported by the United States Department of Labor such that, at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI- U from (i) the CPI-U as reported on that date which is twenty-four (24) months after the date of the final rezoning to (ii) the CPI-U as reported on the date of the most recently available CPI-U relative to the date on which the contributions are paid. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the amount of contributions be adjusted by a factor greater than six percent (6%) per year, simple interest. Respectfully submitted this day of %, 2008, TURNER ENTE RISES, LLC By: R.J. TtYkqDW, Manager / Mem STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of qxden 2008, by R.J. Turner, as Manager for and a Member of Turner Enterprises, LLC. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: MAUREEN A, GRILLO NOWN ID # 7123235 NOTARY PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DECEM0ER31,2011 x.^c•rmarz�croww �,:n-,cs.ec�+ciuR •u nc:,.�err�u.� .,-. _ . -9- HARRISON & JOHNST^ PLC 21 youth I a)udoun street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P.O. Box 809 «Vinchcster, Virginia 22604 'I'cleplione 540,667.1266 August 29, 2008 VIA EMAIL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 nu-uddy(&.co.frederick.va.Lis In Re: Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application 404-08 Dear Mike: Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Facsimile 540.667.1312 pettler uaiarrison-johnstoiz.com Mobile 540.664.5134 On behalf of my client, Turner Enterprises, LLC, t request that the above referenced rezoning application remain tabled ruitil the ilanning Commission meeting scheduled for November 19, 2008, or L ntil the next scheduled Planning Commission which may occur after that date. The applicant has made a number of revisions to the proposed proffer statement and is in the process of discussions with Arcadia Development Company to finalize the agreement to permit Turner Enterprises to construct proposed Chalnung Drive across the Arcadia Development Company parcel to conliect Red Hawk Estates to Route 50, Turner Enterprises and Arcadia Development Company net yesterday, August 28, 2008, and due to a number of site ptanlung and engineering issues which must be addressed by each parties' respective engineers, they have determined they can come to a final agreement to be submitted to the Planning Commission ifthe application is continued until late November. Accordingly, this letter serves as that request. If I can provide any fiu-ther information or assistance 7,ith regard to this application and the continuance of its being tabled; please do not hesitate to contact me. With best recrards, I am V el ai-; truly yours„ Ste 910t L. i'ettl , Jr. .. :J LE : k7.`i tiT Ente,-Pri�tis, I,(.' q19COUN of RICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 TO: Bob Mitchell FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Rezoning Application Proffer Statements DATE: August 16, 2006 Please find attached to this memorandum the proffer statement from a rezoning application that was submitted to the Office of Planning & Development earlier today. It would be appropriate at this time for your office to provide a formal comment on the form and content of the Proffer Statement. The rezoning application appears to be relatively close to being submitted, although it is not yet complete as I have highlighted many issues that have yet to be addressed by the applicant. The Proffer Statement from the following rezoning application is attached. Red Hawk Estates. Thank you for your continued assistance. cc: John Riley, Jr., County Administrator MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 REZONING APPLICATION 904-08 RED HAWK ESTATES Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: November 3, 2008 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE FOR THE 11/19/08 MEETING: On November 3, 2008 a letter dated October 30, 2008 was received from the Applicant which requested that the rezoning application be scheduled for an indefinite period. As the Commission is aware, this Application was tabled for 45 days by the Planning Commission at your August 6, 2008 meeting following a failed motion to deny this rezoning request. Subsequently, the Applicant, in a letter dated August 29, 2008 requested that this application be tabled until the Plaiming Commission meeting scheduled for November 19, 2008. The Plarming Corninission, at your September 17, 2008 meeting endorsed the Applicant's request which brings us to the November 19, 2008 meeting. Pursuant to the Commission's Bylaws, it is Staffs and the County Attorney's opinion that it is necessary for the Commission to take action upon this rezoning request at this time. The Commission first tabled the request pursuant to Article 8-3-9-1 of the Commission's bylaws, and then pursuant to Article 8-3-9-2 of your Bylaws the Commission acted upon the Applicant's request to table their application. This latest request for an indefinite tabling of the Application is unfortunate. It would appear as though there has been ample opportunity for the Applicant to present the Plaiming Conunission with a thorough and complete application. This application was first presented to the County for review in early 2005. The Application was submitted to the County on October 10, 2006. Since that time the Applicant had been working to provide the Commission with as complete of an application as possible. The result of this effort was presented at your August 6, 2008 meeting. Staff has not been provided any further changes to this Application since your August 6, 2008 meeting. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/19/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: It is necessary for the Commission to take action upon this rezoning request at this time. While the property is located in the UDA, many of the impacts associated with this rezoning request have not been mitigated by the Applicant. In particular, the impact to the adjacent Sheriff s shooting range facility. In addition, the transportation impacts associated with this request are not fully addressed, and the proffered transportation improvements aimed at mitigating the impacts are not sufficient to mitigate the anticipated impacts. Transportation improvements have not been provided in the same scale as the proposed development. Transportation issues remain a primary concern for the Commission. Of particular concern is the lack of agreement with the adjoining property owners to provide for a Charming Drive Connection and access to Route 50. HARRISON & JOHNS'7 O 9 PLC 21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P.O. Box 909 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Telephone 540.667.1266 October 30, 2008 VIA EMAIL Mr. Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Director The Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, 2nd Floor Winchester, VA 22601 In Re: Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application #04-08 Dear Mike: Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Facsimile 540.667.1312 pettler@harrison-johnston.com Mobile 540.664.5134 As you know, the Planning Commission, on its own motion, tabled consideration of the above referenced application at its August 6, 2008 meeting. By letter dated August 28, 2008, I, on behalf of my client, Turner Enterprises, LLC requested that the period during which the Planning Commission tabled the application be extended to November 19, 2008 to allow time for Turner Enterprises, LLC and Arcadia Development Company to elaborate on a number of items relating to the agreement between them for the construction of proposed Channing Drive by Turner Enterprises, LLC on the Arcadia property. The Planning Conunission graciously extended the tabling until November 19, 2008, and my client appreciates this. The discussions between Turner Enterprises, LLC and Arcadia have evolved considerably, however, they are not yet finalized. Accordingly, please consider this letter to be the request of Turner Enterprises, LLC to table the above referenced rezoning application currently scheduled for November 19, 2008 for an indefinite period. Turner Enterprises, LLC hereby waives the requirement that the Planning Commission review its application within ninety (90) days as required by the Frederick County zoning ordinance, § 165-10 of the Frederick County Code. Thank you for your courtesy and attention to my client's request. With kind regards, I am Vera truly L. Pettler Enclosures cc: Turner Enterprises, LLC John Lewis, Painter -Lewis Barry Carpenter, Sympoetica, LLC Mike Ruddy From: Grillo, Maureen [maureen@harrison-johnston.com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:55 PM To: Mike Ruddy Cc: J. Barry Carpenter; John Lewis; Pettler, Steve Subject: Red Hawk Estate Attachments: Letter to Mike Ruddy Re Red Hawk 081030.pdf Attached is a letter from Mr. Pettler in the above -referenced matter. Regards, Maureen A. Grillo Executive Assistant to Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Harrison & Johnston, PLC Telephone: 540.667.1266 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message from the law office of Harrison & Johnston, PLC is for the sole use of the intended recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Rezoning 404-08 — Red Hawk Estates November 3, 2008 Page 2 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 08/06/08 Recommended 45 day tabling (PC) Planning Commission: 09/17/08 Recommended tabling to l 1/19/08 (Applicant's Request) 11/19/08 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/10/08 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 655). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Residential and vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: B2 (Business General) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural Use: Vacant Use: Residential/Agricultural Use: Residential/Agricultural/ Frederick County PROPOSED USES: Up to 69 Single Family Homes and 170 Towi-liomes Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates November 3, 2008 Page 3 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: VirjZinia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 655, 656 and 50. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is NOT satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application dated January 15, 2008 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. VDOT offers the following comments: 1. The applicant has increased the financial contribution from $60,000 to $150,000 for potential off -site improvements along Sulphur Spring Road. While the increase is welcomed, it is far less (approximately $625 per unit) than many of the recent rezonings have provided. 2. The residence lots noted along existing Greenwood Road should not be constructed until such time as Greenwood Road thru traffic has been relocated to future Charming Drive as shown on the County's Eastern Road Plan. The existing roadway lacks sufficient sight distance to safely allow for ingress and egress to these residential sites. 3. VDOT suggests that the applicant look at the possibility of accessing the Town House portion of the development via Route 50 and the Arcadia parcel adjacent to the proposed development vs. constructing a crossing of the Sulphur Spring stream. VDOT is willing to meet with the applicant to review the above comments. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Co.: Needs to be some sort of guarantee as to not having full road closure for any period of time. Department of Inspections: No continents Department of Public Works: See attached. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments regarding changes, except those corments put forth on April 11, 2006 letter regarding water and sewer usage. 4/11/2006 - There are no flow projections given for water and sewer usage. The plan seems to indicate there are 232 dwelling units, which could be equated to around 50,000 gallons a day. The developer should verify water and sewer usage. Sanitation Authority Department: We should have sufficient sewer and water capacity to serve the development. Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates November 3, 2008 Page 4 Department of Parks & Recreation: The proffer statement, as it relates to trails, open space and parks and recreational amenities, includes so many generalities and contingencies it is difficult to understand the impact of the proffer. Staff recommends the developer connnit to specific offerings that are measurable today. Staff recommends the county proffer model be used in determining the impact this development will have on the capital facilities needs of the Parks and Recreation Department. Furthermore, the construction of the trails should be completed by the development and in accordance with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan, with no reduction in the cash proffer for Parks and Recreation capital facility development. The 100% hard surface trail system, on public easements, should then be turned over to the I-IOA. All trails should meet Frederick County Standards. Staff also reconnnends that more specific benchmarks be used when identifying when the development of amenities will be completed. Plan appears to provide the appropriate amount of usable open space, Plan should include a trails summary outlining locations, costs, typical sections, schedule for development and how, and by whom, trails will be maintained. Developer should determine whether all conditions necessary for the inclusion of the bicycle trail can be met and then complete the proffer accordingly. Construction of the trail system should take place as Red Hawk Estates is being developed. The schedule for trail construction should not be based on development of adjoining parcels. The area to be dedicated as community open space should be more clearly defined. The developer should provide a more concrete proposal pertaining to the offer of obtaining the "Community Wildlife Designation". It is not clear to staff if the information pertaining to Parks and Recreation in section 9 of this report constitutes an offer by the developer to include these amenities within this development. Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objection if public water and sewer are provided, and existing sewage disposal systems and water supplies are not affected. All required setbacks to the above must be maintained. Winchester Regional Airport: After review of the revised proffer for Red Hawk Estates for proposed residential performance, we did not see anything addressing our prior comment made in 2006 as follows: "The proposed site does lie within airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport and is in close proximity to the northeastern edge of the Airport Support Area. In order to protect growth and future operations of the Winchester Airport, residential occupants should be provided with disclosure statements about the close proximity of the site to the Airport and the possibility of experiencing noise from over flights of aircraft arriving to and departing from the Winchester Regional Airport." The center of the proposed residential development portion of the project with 239 residential units is less than 6,000 feet from the centerline of the runway at the Winchester Regional Airport. With twenty-four operations, jet traffic has steadily increased over the past several years and continues to grow with owners of larger jet aircraft housing their jets at Winchester. We are not opposing the rezoning request but we do feel it is important to protect the operations of the airport and request you include our request to make know to future homeowners that they are in close proximity to a regional airport through a disclosure statement and/or a covenant in their deed. Frederick County Public Schools: We offer the following comments: 1. The cumulative impact of this project and other projects in various stages of development in eastern Frederick County will necessitate future construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. We estimate that the 71 single family detached units and the 166 single family attached Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates November 3, 2008 Page 5 units that this development will contain will house 28 high school students, 25 middle school students and 49 elementary school students. In order to properly serve these 102 students, Frederick County Public Schools will outlay $3,583,000 in capital expenditures and $1,042,000 annually in operating costs. 2. The cash proffers for school construction total $3,463,000. This would defray most but not all of the resultant capital costs noted above. 3. The current intersection of Greenwood Road and Sulphur Spring Road is in an awkward and unsafe arrangement for school buses. Buses turning right momentarily block both lanes of traffic. Based on the Conceptual Plan contained in the Impact Analysis Statement, potentially two additional buses (one elementary and one middle/high) would travel through this intersection. Improvements to Greenwood Road and extension of Channing Drive per the Eastern Road Plan would improve safe transportation of students. We note the proffered dedication of right -of way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and the extension of Charming Drive and the proffered construction of a portion of Channing Drive. Unfortunately, relocating Greenwood Road and connecting it to Channing Drive will occur at a later date as neighboring parcels develop. 4. Please note there are two different Conceptual plans and two different Generalized Development plans in the packet submitted to us. Frederick County Public Schools is concerned about all land development applications. Both capital expenditures and annual operating costs are significantly increased by each approved residential development. Historic Resources Advisory Board: see attached Attorney Comments: see attached. Blue Ridae Forestry Consultants: No changes have been made with the application that will impact the fixture productivity, aesthetic or wildlife qualities of the forested acreage. Planning Department: Planning & Zonina: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public doewnent that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. Rezoning 904-08 — Red Hawk Estates November 3, 2008 Page 6 [Connpn•ehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The properties are located in the UDA and the SWSA. The Comprehensive Plan's Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan provides no specific guidance as to the future land use designations in this area. The use of adjacent land is a significant consideration in the evaluation of the appropriate future land use of this area. The property is in the vicinity of the Frederick County Landfill, the old Frederick County landfill which is currently being utilized by the Sherriff's Office, existing industrial businesses, property currently zoned B2, Business General, and scattered existing residential uses on individual health systems. It is recognized that the property is within the UDA; however, the proposed residential request should be carefully evaluated to ensure it is consistent with current or planned land uses in this area. The application should be reviewed based upon the current Comprehensive Plan. It is recognized that through the UDA Study this area was preliminarily identified as an opportune area for additional commercial and industrial land uses, and potentially a location for future recognition as an urban center. However, this is not presently a part of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the consideration of land uses supportive of the operations of the Frederick County Landfill and the Frederick County Sheriff who operates an outdoor shooting range on the property to the west of this site should continue to be a high priority. Transportation The County's Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of this project identifies improvements to Greenwood Road and the extension of Charming Drive. Both are identified as major collector roads. It is anticipated that the intersection of these two roads and Sulphur Springs Road would occur in the iminediate vicinity of this property. A solution to the convergence of these three roads should be identified and addressed in conjunction with this rezoning application. Subsequent planning efforts have elevated the improvement of Sulphur Springs Road to the top of the County's secondary Road Improvement Project list. VDOT is currently in the design phase for this project. This rezoning application should recognize the future improvements to Sulphur Springs Road. In addition, the alignment of Charming Drive through this project to Route 50 in the vicinity of Independence Drive has been reinforced through the eastern road plan. The construction of Charming Drive in this location was also recognized in the rezoning of the adjacent property to the Southeast in rezoning #06-90 of Kathryn M. Perry. This property is currently owned by Acadia. This old rezoning application proffered the construction of a four lane divided road through their property in support of their commercial rezoning. Site Access and design. The Application is generally divided into two sections by Sulphur Springs Road. Access to the property to the north is via Greenwood Road and access to the southern property is indirectly to Route 50. Additional access to the southern property is via improved Brimstone Lane. It is Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates November 3, 2008 Page 7 important to recognize that there are several properties located internal to the properties requested to be rezoned. A Generalized Development Plan further identifies the site access and design. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The properties are bisected by Sulphur Springs Run and its associated floodplain. This is key feature that has been addressed in the application. The property also contains several smaller tributaries that bisect the development area. In addition, several wetlands exist on the site. Other features of the property include areas of steep slopes and mature woodlands which should be a greater consideration with this request. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Anal The TIA prepared for this application does not effectively evaluate the transportation program proffered by the Applicant. However, it should be recognized that the modifications to the application and proffer statement more accurately depict the transportation network envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. The limited value of the conclusions of the TIA should be recognized. Transportation Program. The Applicant's transportation program is highlighted on the accompanying Generalized Development Plan and is further summarized as follows: • The dedication of right-of-way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and Charming Drive over their property. • A commitment not to construct houses on Greenwood Road until such time Greenwood Road is relocated to Charring Drive. • A contribution in the amount of $180,000 for the construction of a traffic signal or other transportation improvement. • The construction of a four lane divided section of Channing Drive across their property. • The construction of a two lane roadway across the adjacent Arcadia Development Company property to connect with Route 50. • Pedestrian improvements in association with the transportation improvements. Rezoning #04-08 — Red Iawk Estates November 3, 2008 Page 8 Several alternative trigger mechanisms are proposed in implementation of the Applicant's proffer Statement. Many of these are less than desirable and should be more specific. It is Staff s intent to ensure a Proffer Statement that can be effectively administered in the future. Additional comments from Mr. John Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Plamler are summarized as follows. 1. The transportation proffers as written have no time triggers. 2. Arcadia is committed to building two lanes to Route 50. If Red Hawk takes on that responsibility instead of building an additional two lanes, what has the County gained? You cannot offset your impact by offsetting someone else's impact instead. 3. Given item two, the signal proffer amount seems insufficient to offset the impacts of Red Hawk. 4. The signal proffer, as currently worded, is too restrictive and would be better if there was an option to use the cash in the general area. 5. It may be worth pointing out that it will be appropriate to cul de sac Greenwood Road upon the implementation of the new connection with Changing Dr. C. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services. The application recognizes these impacts. However, the latest version of the County's Development Impact Model should be used to ensure that these impacts are accurately mitigated. As noted previously, this project may have an impact on adjacent County owned facilities; the old Frederick County Landfill which is currently home to the Frederick County Sherriff s impound lot and outdoor Shooting Range, and potentially to the existing Frederick County Landfill. The impact to the existing residential land uses internal to this project should continue to be recognized. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated May 1, 2008, Revised July 14, 2008 A) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has proffered a generalized Development Plan which identifies access, areas of residential land use, types of residences, and area of open space preservation. B) Land Use The property shall contain a maximum of 240 residential units with no more than 69 single family detached units and no more than 170 single family attached residential units. It should be clarified that no multifamily units will be developed on this site. Rezoning 904-08 — Red Hawk Estates November 3, 2008 Page 9 The application provides for approximately 32.5 acres of open space. C) Transportation The dedication of right of way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and Chamling Drive over their property. A commitment not to construct houses on Greenwood Road until such time Greenwood Road is relocated to Charming Drive. A contribution in the amount of $180,000 for the construction of a traffic signal or other transportation improvennent. The construction of a four lane divided section of Channing Drive across their property. The construction of a two lane roadway across the adjacent Arcadia Development Company property to connect with Route 50. Pedestrian improvements in association with the transportation improvements. C) Community Facilities The Applicant has provided monetary contributions to offset the impacts to cormnunity facilities. This item should be updated to reflect the current impact model and should not include any credit calculations such as proposed for Parks and Recreation. With regards to Public Safety, the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution up to $650,000 toward the construction of a new indoor shooting range. This proffer should indicate the impact that placing a residential development adjacent to one of the few remaining outdoor shooting ranges would have on the operation of the range. A proffered contribution towards the construction of a new facility appears to be wholly inadequate. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/06/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: While the property is located in the UDA, the residential land use proposed in this rezoning should be carefully evaluated in consideration of the surrounding land uses. Many of the impacts associated with this rezoning request have not been mitigated by the Applicant. In particular, the impact to the adjacent Sheriff's shooting range facility. In addition, the transportation impacts associated with this request and the proffered transportation improvements aimed at mitigating the impacts may not be sufficient. Transportation improvements do not appear to have been provided in the same scale as the proposed development. Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates November 3, 2008 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 08/06/08 MEETING: One citizen spoke during the public comment portion of the hearing. This citizen, a resident along Greenwood Road, was concerned about roads and safety; he believed the priority should be focused on improving roads and constructing crossover roads between Route 7 and Route 50. Transportation issues were a primary concern for the Commission. Commissioners stressed the importance of completing road infrastructure improvements before the construction of housing, especially the Charming Drive connection through the applicant's property and the adjoining Arcadia property, in order to get the traffic out to Route 50. Without a written agreement between the owners of Red Hawk Estates and the Arcadia property regarding which party was responsible for their particular transportation component, members of the Commission believed there were no guarantees the road would be completed satisfactorily. In addition, they were not comfortable with tying the completion of the road to building permits and suggested the applicant use a date for completion or coincide it with the Sulphur Springs Road improvements. Commissioners said a number of presumptions were taking place by this applicant with regard to Arcadia, particularly, when Arcadia would develop and what type of development would take place. Commissioners also commented they had trouble visualizing this project as anything other than a typical residential subdivision because it seemed to be relying on the Arcadia proj ect for the commercial/business component of a new urbanism development. Furthermore, no improvements along Sulphur Springs Road or the intersection of Route 50 were planned by the applicant. Another issue of concern for the Commission involved the appropriateness of a residential development next to an outdoor shooting range and the need for a disclosure to firture home buyers. The monetary contribution by the applicant towards a new indoor facility appeared to be wholly inadequate. Commission members believed it was premature to send this application to the Board of Supervisors because so many of the underlying critical components of this project were not yet solidly in place. Members of the applicant's design and engineering team provided comments. A representative from VDOT, the Deputy Director -Transportation, and the Planning Staff were available to answer questions and to provide analysis. A motion was made and seconded to recommend denial of the rezoning; however, the motion was defeated by a majority vote. A new motion was made and seconded to table the rezoning for 45 days to allow the applicant additional time to coordinate with representatives of the Arcadia project and to work on the issues raised. This motion was passed by the following majority vote: YES (TO TABLE): Unger, Watt, Ambrogi, Wilmot, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Molui NO: Manuel, Oates (Note: Commissioners Ruckman, Triplett, and Kerr were absent from the meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE FOR THE 11/19/08 MEETING: On November 3, 2008 a letter dated October 30, 2008 was received from the Applicant which requested that the rezoning application be scheduled for an indefinite period. Rezoning #04-08 — Red Hawk Estates November 3, 2008 Page 11 As the Commission is aware, this Application was tabled for 45 days by the Planning Commission at your August 6, 2008 meeting following a failed motion to deny this rezoning request. Subsequently, the Applicant, in a letter dated August 29, 2008 requested that this application be tabled until the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for November 19, 2008. The Plaruiing Commission, at your September 17, 2008 meeting endorsed the Applicant's request which brings us to the November 19, 2008 meeting. Pursuant to the Commission's Bylaws, it is Staffs and the County Attorney's opinion that it is necessary for the Commission to take action upon this rezoning request at this time. The Commission first tabled the request pursuant to Article 8-3-9-1 of the Commission's bylaws, and then pursuant to Article 8-3-9-2 of your Bylaws the Commission acted upon the Applicant's request to table their application. This latest request for an indefinite tabling of the Application is unfortunate. It would appear as though there has been ample opportunity for the Applicant to present the Planning Commission with a thorough and complete application. This application was first presented to the County for review in early 2005. The Application was submitted to the County on October 10, 2006. Since that time the Applicant had been working to provide the Commission with as complete of an application as possible. The result of this effort was presented at your August 6, 2008 meeting. Staff has not been provided any further changes to this Application since your August 6, 2008 meeting. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/19/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: It is necessary for the Commission to take action upon this rezoning request at this time. While the property is located in the UDA, many of the impacts associated with this rezoning request have not been mitigated by the Applicant. In particular, the impact to the adjacent Sheriff's shooting range facility. In addition, the transportation impacts associated with this request are not frilly addressed, and the proffered transportation improvements aimed at mitigating the impacts are not sufficient to mitigate the anticipated impacts. Transportation improvements have not been provided in the same scale as the proposed development. Transportation issues remain a primary concern for the Commission. Of particular concern is the lack of agreement with the adjoining property owners to provide for a Channing Drive Connection and access to Route 50. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concernink this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Rezoning Application RZ904-08, Red Hawk Estates DATE: September 2, 2008 The Applicant for this rezoning application has requested that the application remain tabled until the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for November 19, 2008, or until the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting which may occur after that date. Please see the attached letter. As you will recall, the Planning Commission at your August 6, 2008 meeting and following the Public Hearing, tabled the rezoning request for 45 days to allow the applicant additional time to coordinate with representatives of the Arcadia project and to work on the issues raised during the Planning Commission meeting. This Rezoning Application was scheduled to return to the Commission at this meeting, September 17, 2008. This request from the Applicant would satisfy the Planning Commission Bylaw which states that the applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from a scheduled Planning Commission one time. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine if it is appropriate to satisfy the request of the Applicant. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. MTR/bad Attachments 107 North Kent Sheet, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 HARRISON & JOHNST^ PLC 21 5onth I a)udoun Street Winchestcr, Virb nia 22601 I'.o. Box 809 W inchcster, Virginia 226(A 'tole phone 540.667.1266 August 29, 2008 VIA EMAIL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 nu-uddX(&.co.f Federick.va.us In Re: Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application 404-08 Dear Mike: Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Facsimile -540.667.1312 pcttler`4..harrison johnstoii.com Mobile 540,664.5134 On behalf of my client, Turner Enterprises, LLC, I request that the above referenced rezoning applicatioli remain tabled until the 'Ylanni ng Commission meeting schedtued for November 19, 2008, or i- ntil the next scheduled Planning Commission which may occur after that date. The applicant has made a number of revisions to the proposed proffer statement and is in the process of discussions with Arcadia Development Company to finalize the agreement to permit Turner Enterprises to construct proposed Chaluung Drive across the Arcadia Development Company parcel to connect Red Hawk Estates to Route 50, Turner Enterprises and Arcadia Development Company met yesterday, August 28, 2008, and due to a number of site planning and engineering issues which must be addressed by each parties' respective engineers, they have determined they can come to a final agreement to be submitted to the Planning Commission ifthe application is continued unti I late November. Accordingly, this letter serves as that request. If I can provide any fw-ther information or assistance with regard to this application and the continuance of its being tabled; please do not hesitate to contact me. With best regards, I am Vcz Vtruly yours„ Ste�r- L. i ettl��, Jr. S Y CL: T 'W.Mer 77tE :`�1 i •ems, T f' i�Pie Buddy From: Sheriff Robert Williamson [rwilliam@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:38 PM To: mruddy@co.frederick.va.us Cc: pettler@harrison-johnston.com Subject: Proffer statement for Red Hawk Subdivision Dear Mr. Ruddy, I have reviewed the proffer statement for Red Hawk Subdivision as it pertains to the relocation of the existing Frederick County Sheriffs Office Range and Impound Lot. The proffer for the range of $650,000.00 is by no means sufficient to construct an indoor shooting range. However, it should be noted that the County's investment, in the current, range is significantly less than the proffer offer. It is noted in the proffer statement that this is one of the last outdoor ranges in Virginia. I'm not certain that this is accurate but the current trend is to build indoor ranges. With the growth that Frederick County has experienced, my staff has been for sometime discussing the need to look into the feasibility of replacing the current range with an indoor facility. This would provide some protection from civil liability as well as enhance training opportunities for our staff. There is currently no provision, in the proffer statement, for relocating the impound lot. I'm not certain that there is a need associated with this request to relocate the impound lot. Certainly the liability issues associated with the range are not present with the Impound lot. in summary, I am not opposed to the proffer of $650,000.00 for relocation of the range provided the County is able to provide acreage for such relocation. Sincerely, Sheriff Robert T. Williamson Frederick County Sheriffs Office 1080 Coverstone Dr. Winchester, Virginia 22602 540-662-6168 rwilliam ,co.frederick.va.us TO: R. J. Turner FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Preliminary Points — Red Hawk Estates Rezoning DATE: June 14, 2006 The following points are offered regarding the Red Hawk Estates Rezoning application. Please consider them as you continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. Red Hawk Estates — Preliminary Rezoning Notes. General. The Comprehensive Plan's Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan provides no specific guidance as to the future land use designations in this area. The use of adjacent land is a significant consideration in the evaluation of the appropriate future land use of this area. In the vicinity is the Frederick County Landfill, the old Frederick County landfill, existing industrial businesses, and scattered existing residential uses on individual health systems. It is difficult to consider the proposed residential request consistent with current or planned land uses in this area. The application is presently being reviewed based upon the current Comprehensive Plan. The evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan through the UDA Study preliminarily identifies this area as an opportune area for additional commercial and industrial land uses. The expansion of the commercial and industrial land uses that front and have access on Route 50 preliminarily appears to be more appropriate than the addition of residential land uses in a relatively isolated location. In addition, the consideration of a Landfill Support Area may provide guidance regarding desirable and undesirable land uses in this area. The pennitted density of the project could enable @ 5.5 units per acre. The application's discussion is based on 224 units. This discrepancy should be addressed and could be incorporated into the proffer statement. The impact statement should address the potential impacts to those properties internal and adjacent to those for which this rezoning is being requested. Particular consideration should be given to any operational impacts that may result on the longstanding industrial use to the south. Transportation. The County's Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of this project identifies improvements to Greenwood Road and the extension of Charming Drive. Both are identified as major collector roads. It is anticipated that the intersection of these two roads and Sulpher Springs Road would occur in the inu-nediate vicinity of this property. A solution to the convergence of these three roads should be identified and addressed in conjunction with this rezoning application. This rezoning application and its accompanying TIA should reflect the comprehensively planned road network and the adjacent road intersections. As presently presented, no TIA has been provided and the roads identified in the Comprehensive Plan have not been fully addressed ir, the application. The TIA should include an intersection analysis of the adjacent road system. The scope of which should be determined in conjunction with VDOT. The TIA should be based on the worst case scenario instead of the current approach which is based on an intensity less than that which would be permitted by the future zoning (5.5 units per acre / 2.3 units per acre).A proffered conunitment to the number of units could assist in the clarification of the impacts identified in a TIA. The desired typical section for a major collector road should be addressed and incorporated into this application. The location of Route 37 in the vicinity of this project should be included in the exhibits accompanying this application. Other. Preservation of riparian areas and buffers should be accomplished within the GDP and proffers. In particular, along the areas designated with a floodplain. Low Impact Development techniques should be identified and integrated into the application and Proffer Statement. The wetlands should be identified up front and mitigation techniques incorporated into the application. The areas of woodlands should be evaluated on the nature of the woodlands, not on the commercial value of the woodlands. Consideration of the description of woodlands in County planning documents and ordinances may be more appropriate. Provide an enhanced analysis of the water and sewer impacts associated with this request. This should include capacity analysis of the facilities that would be impacted by this rezoning request. Provide an enhanced analysis of the solid waste impacts associated with this request. This should include capacity analysis of the landfill and convenience site facilities that would be impacted by this rezoning request. Impacts to community facilities should be evaluated using the County's Development Impact Model rather than the old Fiscal Impact Model. Mitigation of the impacts should be considered further. The proffer statement should be in the appropriate legal form. It should be specific in nature, not descriptive. It should not include speculative offers but should include connnitments and mechanisms to ensure the commitments will be met in an appropriate time frame. A Generalized Development Plan should be utilized and incorporated into the proffer statement to better describe the scope of the application. Provide a plat of rezoning that includes a metes and bounds description of the properties for which the rezoning is being requested. Please provide an executed Limited Power of Attorney Form with the application. August 29, 2006 Mr. R. J. Turner Turner Enterprises, LLC 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Red Hawk Estates, Rezoning Application Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Turner: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning request for Red Hawk Estates dated August 16, 2006, and offer the following comments: l . Refer to A. Site Suitability, Page 2 of 12: The narrative indicates that development of the site will include connecting to current water and sevier through the Pere y parcel of iar�d (Tax Map #64-A-158). Indicate if these connections will occur within an existing easement or if a new easement agreement will be required. If the latter condition will be necessary; provide a copy of the agreement with the submission of the master development plan. 2. Refer to B. Surrounding Properties, Page 4 of 12: The discussion indicates that the proposed development on the south side of Sulphur Spring Road abuts the former (closed out) Frederick County Landfill. This closed out landfill comprises approximately 40 acres, not 25 acres as referenced. The discussion also indicates that the current uses of the closed out landfill property are compatible with the proposed development. Indicate how an outdoor shooting range and an impound lot are compatible with a high density residential development. The discussion indicates that the Perry Engineering Company, Inc. has moved their powder magazine and plans to move other operations to another location. Indicate what other operations they plan to relocate. 3. Refer to the Generalized Development Plan, Page 5 of 12: The proposed generalized • 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Red Hawk Rezoning Application Comments Page 2 August 29, 2006 development plan shows a realignment of Greenwood Road crossing through the landfill property plus bisecting the Perry property. Indicate if the owners of the Perry property have been consulted about this proposed realignment considering that it bisects their shop and part of their office building. Also, the proposed road alignment cannot be constructed over the closed out landfill unless the affected area is remediated in accordance with the Department of Environmental Quality's (D.E.Q.) requirements. This remediation would be very expensive. Likewise, any inter -parcel connectors crossing the landfill property would require remediation. Therefore, we recommend that any interparcel connectors except access drives to the impotuid area and other outparcels be removed from the development plan. 4. Refer to the Conceptual Plan, Page 7 of 12: The above comments made for the Generalized Development Plan also apply to the Conceptual Plan. 5. Refer to the Tabulation Summary on Page 8 of 12: The number of residential dwellings, 71 single family and 166 townhouses, conflicts with the numbers included in the rezoning • application, paragraph 11. Correct this discrepancy. 6.. Kr, or to C. Sewage Conveyance and D. Water Supply, Page 9 of 12: Refer tocomment number one to clarify the easement issue through the Perry property. 7. Refer to F. Drainage, Page 10 of 12: The discussion references Exhibit 4 for drainage and topographical information. Exhibit 4 illustrates the existing topography. However, there is no reference or delineation of drainage features. In fact, the contours are not labeled for future reference. Refer to F. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Determine the impact on solid waste facilities by calculating the anticipated solid waste generated by the proposed development. Also, indicate that the collection of solid waste will be provided by private hauler as indicated in the proffer statement (paragraph 12.2). 9. Refer to H. Community Facilities, Parks and Recreation, Page 11 of 12: The projected capital cost for public park facilities, $281,846, doe not match the amount shown in the table under I. Other Impacts, $446,150. Correct this discrepancy. Clarify the reference to Proffer Statement number seven. Proffer statement number seven references school impacts, not parks and recreational facilities. 0 10. Refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Page 2: Indicate why traffic counts were not • Red Hawk Rezoning Application Comments Page 3 August 29, 2006 included in the TIA at the intersection of Sulphur spring Road and Landfill Road. 11. Refer to Offer to Frederick County to Purchase Closed out Landfill: Previous offers to purchase the approximate 40 acre parcel of closed out landfill property have been rejected because the offer did not adequately relieve Frederick County from future liability. The new offer dated March 4, 2005, still does not indemnify Frederick County from future liability. The only way Frederick County can be indemnified from future liability is if the purchaser guarantees that the closed out will be remediated to the satisfaction of the D.E.Q. Also, the purchase offer indicates that the purchaser will pay an amount of $350,000 toward the construction of a new shooting facility. This offer conflicts with the proffered amount of $650,000 for the construction of an indoor shooting range. 12. Refer to the Arcadia Development Plan: This plan indicates residential development when the actual approved use is B-2 as indicated in the impact analysis, paragraph B. • Surrounding Properties, Page 4 of 12. This plan should be corrected or deleted from the application package. I can be reached at 722-8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Harvey trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Development file • CAPro ram TilesWordPerfect Office x3\Rhonda\TEMPCOMMENTS\REDHAWKREZCOM.w d COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX:540/665-6395 June 12, 2006 Turner Enterprises, LLC 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Red Hawk Estates Rezoning; PIN(S) 965-A-86, 98, 102 and 102A Dear Mr. Turner: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of May 16, 2006. The I IRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Re oorrt, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources as well as information provided by the applicant. The HRAB felt that the proffers associated with historic preservation and recognition were adequate and did not request any changes to the proposed rezoning. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, �f Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFE551CRAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 a 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEE5BURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAx 540-562-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON July 18, 2008 HAND -DELIVERED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Red Hawk Estates (Turner Enterprises, L.L.C.) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: JUL 18 = PLEASE REPLY TO'. P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 I have reviewed the above referenced Proposed Proffer Statement dated May 1, 2008. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. Proffer 1.1 does not seem to me to be a proffer. The Property is sought to be rezoned to the RP zoning district, and the proffer essentially says that the development shall be in conformity with the regulations of the RP zoning district. That is required in any event, and the clause at the end of the proffer, "or as may be approved by Frederick County", seems to suggest that Frederick County may approve developments that do not comply with the RP zoning district regulations. 2. In Proffer 1.2, it should be noted that the conformity with the GDP is limited to "locations for residential dwelling units, open spaces, improvements and roadways". Therefore, any other elements of the GDP, if any, would not be subject to this proffer. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Judy 18, 2008 Page 2 3. In Proffer 1.6, staff should note that the preservation of steep slopes is limited to slopes in excess of 50%, and that the Applicant reserves the right to install "recreational facilities" in the floodplain and steep slopes areas. 4. In Proffer 3.1, it is not clear to whom the 20-foot wide easement for the bicycle and pedestrian trails shall be dedicated. The use of the tern? "dedicate" would indicate that the easement will be conveyed to the County. With that assunlptiori, looking at the first and last sentences of this proffer, it appears that the easement would be dedicated to the County, but with the obligation of the property owners' association to maintain the easement. If that is what is being proposed, the first sentence of proffer 3.1 should indicate that the Applicant shall dedicate "to the County" the subject easement. If the foregoing is the proposal, then changes need to be made to proffers 12.1 and 12.2, which limit the property owners' association obligation for maintenance and repair to those areas "not dedicated to the County" or "not otherwise dedicated to public use". 5. In Proffer 8.3, I would recommend changing the word "in" in the fifth line to "by". 6. The County should note the time limit of ten years in Proffer 10.3 with regard to the proffer of $650,000.00 toward the construction of an indoor shooting range. 7. Changes may be called for in Proffers 12.1 and 12.2, as noted in paragraph 4 above. 8. I would recommend the Applicant adding a proffer as 12.4, which provides as follows: "The organizational documents of the POA and all deeds of dedication or declarations recorded for the development shall HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP July 18, 2008 Page 3 expressly provide that, and will be in a form so that, the POA is subject to the Property Owner's Association Act (Virginia Code §55-508, et seg.)" 9. Proffer 14.1 should include a timing factor as to when the right-of- way would be dedicated for Greenwood Road and Channing Drive. I would suggest that the dedication would occur within a specific period of time from notice by the County, perhaps 60 days. 10. I would recommend the Applicant reword the beginning of Proffer 14.3 to read as follows: "The Applicant shall contribute an amount up to $180,000.00 to the County for the cost of construction ..." 11. There should be a timing provision in § 14.4 as to the construction of Channing Drive. It is presumed that this proffer is addressed to the portion of Channing Drive located on the Applicant's Property, although that is not specifically stated in the proffer. 12. There is a significant legal question as to the enforceability of Proffer 14.5. The Applicant's proffer to construct the proposed Channing Drive on the property owned by Arcadia Development Co. is dependent upon a construction easement being granted from Arcadia Development Co. to the Applicant to go onto the property to construct the road, and further, is dependent upon Arcadia Development Co. agreeing to dedicate the road right-of-way to the County or VDOT. Arcadia Development Co. is not a signatory to this proffer statement, and even if it did join in this proffer statement for this purpose, it may not constitute legal notice to a subsequent purchaser of the Arcadia Development Co. property. It is further noted that the Applicant only represents that it has a "memorandum of understanding" with Arcadia to "agree to enter a definitive agreement". In order to make this proffer HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP July 18, 2008 Page 4 enforceable, the Applicant would need to have an executed declaration of restrictive covenant on the Arcadia property Colder which the temporary easement would be granted and the dedication agreed to be made, or, in the alternative, there would need to be a proffer to that effect on the Arcadia property. I assume that there is not a rezoning application pending for the Arcadia property, so the proffer option may not be feasible. Also, the dedication of the road right-of-way should occur before the construction of the road, not after. 13. The staff should note that while the GDP shows Sulphur Springs Road running across the Applicant's property, there are no proffers related to any improvements to or associated with Sulphur Springs Road. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. ery '- -uly yours, AL Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. RTM/glh HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL I A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540.662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX S40-562-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON January 29, 2007 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. A • HAND DELIVERED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Plamling & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Red Hawk Estates (Turner Enterprises, L.L.C.) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. The last sentence of the first paragraph must be deleted. If the Board were to deny this conditional rezoning application, and the Applicant appealed that denial to the Circuit Court, and if the Circuit Court overruled the Board and remanded the matter to the Board for reconsideration, the application which would be back before the Board by virtue of the remand from the Circuit Court would be this conditional rezoning with these proffers. If the Applicant did not wish the Board to go forward with the reconsideration with these proffers, the Applicant would have to withdraw the application at that time. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy January 29, 2007 Page 2 2. The Proffer Statement references a Generalized Development Plan. It should be noted that the GDP was not available to me in preparing this review. 3. In Proffer 3.1, the dedication should be to Frederick County as the proper entity to hold title to the easement. Further, it should be noted that the construction of the trail by the Applicant is subject to certain contingencies, including "limitations due to terrain and constriction considerations." 4. The staff should review Proffer 4 regarding low impact development techniques, to be sure that the techniques are appropriate for this development. In particular, the staff should determine the appropriateness of the proffer to install sidewalks on only one side of the street in this development which may contain 250 dwelling units. 5. The County should carefirllyreview Proffer 10.3 regarding the proffer to construct an indoor shooting range in return for the County permanently discontinuing the use of its outdoor shooting range. The proffer provides that the location of the indoor shooting range shall be determined by the County. If this proffer is acceptable to the County, the County should undertake to designate the location promptly after any approval of the rezoning application. 6. In Proffer 15.1, concerning the dedication of the right of way for the relocation of Greenwood Road, the staff should determine whether it is clear what is meant by the condition that the County or VDOT must "approve" the relocation within ten years. Further, the proffer should set forth when the dedication shall be made, such as within 60 days of a request by the County. 7. In Proffer 15.3, the staff should determine whether the road and roadway improvements are sufficiently identified. The proffer is to constrict those improvements which are "necessitated" by the development of the property. That is a bit vague. Are the proposed improvements shown on the MDP? HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy January 29, 2007 Page 3 It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Plaiuling Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing continents, please contact me. (� RTM/ks V truly yours, Robert T. Mi Red Hawk Estates ReZoning REZ 04 - 08 PIN: 65 - A - 86, 65 - A - 866, 65 - A - 98, A9; - A - 1n) Ar, - A - 107A QAppl,cahon Zoning M2(lodusmal. General District) -- Future Rt37 Bypass — BI (BusirKss. Neighborhood Duna) - MH I (Mobile Home Cotomunu) District) Urban [krclopmem A— - B2 (Business. Gerieral Drstnst) - MS (Medical Suppon District) _ %o S WSA - B3 (Business. Ind manal Tranauon District) — Ra (Residential Planned Commumry District) - EM (E<traanc Manufacturing District) • RS (Ratdenual Recreational Community DrslrtcO • HE (Higher Education Dime[) c. i RA (Rural Area Duuict) - MI (Indusmal. Light Dismal RP(11-dential Performame District) 0 250 500 1,000 Feet REZONING: PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ# 0 4 - 00 RA to RP PROPERTY: 85.3 Acres Tax Map Parcels 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A RECORD OWNER: Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. R.J. Turner, Manager APPLICANT: Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Red Hawk Estates PROFFER DATE: May 1, 2008, Revised July 14, 2008 The Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as identified above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' ("Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. The Applicant hereby proffers as follows: LAND USE 1.1 Areas of development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Performance ("RP") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code. All residential development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be approved by Frederick County. 1.2 The Property shall be developed in conformity with the Generalized Development Plan ("GDP") dated April 16, 2008 submitted herewith with regard to the locations for residential dwelling units, open spaces, improvements and roadways as generally depicted on the GDP. 1.3 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum gross density of 2.81 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of two hundred forty (240) dwelling units on 85.3 acres. Of the maximum number of dwelling units (240), no more than sixty-nine (69) dwelling units shall be single family detached residential units, and no more than one hundred seventy (170) dwelling units shall be single family attached residential units. 1.4 The construction of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) units per calendar year. 1.5 In order to preserve the distinctive natural characteristics of the Property, the minimum amount of open space on the Property after development will be at least 32.5 acres or thirty eight percent (38%) of the Property. No more than fifty percent (50%) of this open space will be within lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. 1.6 In order to preserve the distinctive natural characteristics of the Property, the 100- year floodplain area for Sulphur Spring Run located on the Property and all wetlands and steep slopes (exceeding fifty percent (50%) slope grade) adjacent to Sulphur Spring Run located on the Property will be preserved as "community open space" as generally depicted on the GDP. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all areas of the Property on which the location of roadways or trail systems are depicted shall be specifically excluded from the terms of this proffer, and the right to install and maintain utility facilities, access rights of way and recreational facilities in and upon such areas is hereby reserved. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS 2.1 The Property shall be developed as a single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, design standards and this Proffer Statement, as approved by the Board. -2- 3. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL; LINEAR PARK 3.1 The Applicant shall construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail ten feet (10') in width, and dedicate an easement twenty feet (20') in width encompassing said trail for the purpose of creating and maintaining the area as a linear park open to the general public along the banks of Sulphur Spring Run. In addition, the Applicant shall construct a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails along the public roadways generally depicted in the GDP submitted herewith connecting all the areas of open space and all of the residential areas of the Property by a continuous network of trails. These trails shall be ten feet (10') in width, located within an easement area twenty feet (20') in width dedicated to the Property Owner's Association for the development and included as "open space" in the development. The location of the trails is to be determined by the Applicant but shall be as generally depicted on the GDP submitted herewith as the "Proposed Trail' (in the designated "Proposed Sulphur Springs Greenway") and along the public roadways depicted therein. Construction of said trails by the Applicant shall be in accordance with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and in conformity with specifications imposed by the County. The trails shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the drawing labeled "bike trail typical" submitted herewith. The Applicant shall construct the trail in its entirety on or before the date on which the building permit for the one hundredth (I 00`") unit is issued. The area of the public linear park shall be maintained as open space by the Property Owner's Association but shall be dedicated to public use, not limited to use only by the property owners in the development. 3.2 The Applicant will construct a water feature in that area identified for the same in the "Community Open Space" set forth on the GDP submitted herewith. The water feature will consist of an impoundment of water ("pond") constructed in accordance with all applicable State and County statutes and ordinances. The water feature will be constructed and completed on or before such time the "Community Open Space" generally depicted on the GDP is conveyed to the Property Owner's Association in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 below. 4. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES 4.1 The Applicant will implement the following Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to the extent feasible after detailed engineering of the site development and within a hybrid design including both conventional and LID stormwater management techniques. Page references provided below refer to: The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Urban Manual for Low Impact Site Development by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission and Engineering Concepts, Inc. (October 2005): -3- 4.1.1 Conservation of resources: reservation of the area within the 100-year flood plain of Sulphur Spring Run, designated wetlands and adjacent steep slopes as community open space and the protection of woodlands located within same (including the planting of more or additional native species, as advisable) in order to provide a substantial buffer along Sulphur Spring Run (page 4-2); 4.1.2 Limitations on impervious surfaces (page 4-7); 4.1.2.1 Limitation of residential private driveway widths to nine (9) feet; 4.1.2.2 Minimization of building front setbacks to the extent permitted by the Zoning Ordinance in order to reduce residential private driveway lengths; 4.1.2.3 Use of private roads where possible; 4.1.3 Installation of bio-retention basins in conjunction with conventional stormwater management facilities, if determined feasible during site engineering (pages 3-4, 4-13, 6-1 through 6-7). 4.2 In addition to implementation of the low impact development techniques set forth above, stormwater management and best management practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, so that the highest order of stormwater control existing under Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility results. PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 5.1 The Applicant shall erect an appropriate historical marker or plaque identifying the site of the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop as identified in Section H of the Impact Analysis Statement. The Applicant shall preserve the site of the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop. 6. FIRE & RESCUE 6.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $771 per single family detached residential unit for fire and rescue purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $568 per single family attached residential unit for fire and rescue purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 7. SCHOOLS 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $18,431 per single family detached residential unit for school purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $12,980 per single family attached residential unit for school purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $2,028 per single family detached residential unit for recreational purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit, subject to Section 8.3 below. 8.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,550 per single family attached residential unit for recreational purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit, subject to Section 8.3 below. 8.3 In consideration of the construction of the bike trail and dedication of the public linear park set forth in Section 3.1, the Applicant agrees to make the contributions set forth in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 subject to a credit in the total amount of $40,000 to be applied by reducing the amounts payable upon issuance of a unit's building permit in the amount of $166.67 per payment ($40,000 divided by 240 units equals $166.67 per unit [$40,000 / 240 = $166.67]). This amount ($40,000) reflects the estimate of the cost to install the trails submitted to the Applicant by its engineers and does not include the value of the land dedicated to public use. 9. LIBRARIES 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $372 per single family detached residential unit for library purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 9.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $285 per single family attached residential unit for library purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit. - 5 - 10. PUBLIC SAFETY 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $875 per single family detached residential unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sutra of $669 per single family attached residential unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $650,000 toward the actual contracted cost of construction for the construction of an indoor shooting range to replace the currently existing outdoor shooting range, one of the last outdoor firing ranges owned by a city or county in the Commonwealth of Virginia, located on Tax Map Parcel No. 65-A-95 owned by the County, which adjoins the Property. The location of the indoor shooting range shall be determined by the County. The Applicant shall not be required to make the aforesaid contribution unless and until the County has approved a contract for the construction of the referenced indoor shooting range and given written notice to Applicant that the County will permanently discontinue the use of its property (Tax Map Parcel No. 65-A-95) as an outdoor shooting range upon the completion of the construction of the said indoor shooting range. The Applicant shall make this contribution within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written notice from the County but in no event shall the Applicant be liable for the contribution set forth in this Section 10.3 after that date which is ten (10) years from the date of final rezoning of the Property. In the event the County has not given the Applicant the written notice required under this Section 10.3 within ten (10) years from the date of final rezoning of the Property, this proffer shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. In the event the actual contracted cost of construction for the referenced indoor shooting range shall be less than $650,000, the Applicant shall only be liable for the total amount of the actual contracted cost of construction. 11. GENERAL GOVERNMENT 11.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $450 per single family detached residential unit to be used for general government administration upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 11.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $344 per single family attached residential unit to be used for general government administration upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 12. CREATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION 12.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a Property Owners' Association (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, M maintenance and repair of all community open space and other "common areas" not dedicated to the County or others, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development. In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall be responsible for refuse and recycling collection throughout the development. 12.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all community open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use; (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, including curbside refuse pick-up by a private refuse collection company; and (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12.3 After the establishment of the POA, upon the first sale of each lot on which a residential unit or units are located in the development, the POA will be entitled to collect an initial assessment in the amount of $200 per unit (in addition to the regular annual assessments imposed by the POA) to fund the initial operations of the POA. 13. WATER & SEWER 13.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 14. TRANSPORTATION 14.1 The Applicant shall dedicate a right of way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and Charming Drive over those portions of the Property identified as "Extended and Improved Greenwood Road As Per Eastern Road Plan" and "Extended and Improved Charming Drive Per Eastern Road Plan," each as generally depicted on the GDP attached herewith. 14.2 The Applicant agrees not to construct houses on lots adjacent to existing Greenwood Road which will be accessed from existing Greenwood Road unless and until Greenwood Road is relocated and connected to proposed Charming Drive per the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan as set forth in its Eastern Road Plan. After such time as Greenwood Road is relocated, the Applicant may -7- construct houses on lots which may be accessed from that road which corresponds to existing Greenwood Road. 14.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $180,000 to the County for the construction of a traffic signal and/or other associated improvements as required by the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation at such time the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation determines such traffic signal and/or associated improvements become necessary to address measurable impacts resulting from the development of the proposed Red Hawk Estates. 14.4 The Applicant agrees to construct the proposed Channing Drive as a four (4) lane, divided roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Channing Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation in that area of the Property dedicated to the County for the relocation of Channing Drive pursuant to Section 14.1 above. The Applicant will construct the improvements proffered in Section 14.5 below prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. The Applicant will complete the construction of the proffered improvements set forth in this Section 14.4 upon the completion of eth construction of the last townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. 14.5 The Applicant will construct on the property owned by Arcadia Development Co. (Frederick County Tax Map # 65-A-116) proposed Channing Drive as a two (2) lane roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Channing Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Applicant has entered a memorandum of understanding with Arcadia Development Co. whereby the parties agree to enter a definitive agreement providing that Arcadia Development Co., its successors and assigns, will allow the Applicant, its successors and assigns, access to the property to construct said roadway from the Property to U.S. Route 50 and Arcadia Development Co. will dedicate the right of way related to such roadway to the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation upon acceptance of the same after construction. The agreement between the Applicant and Arcadia Development Co. will be contingent upon the granting of this rezoning application as applied for by the Applicant. 14.6 The Applicant agrees to construct all improvements, including pedestrian improvements, locat ed on the Property r elated to "Old Greenwood Road" as depicted in the GDP attached herewith and all improvements, including pedestrian improvements, located on the Property in that area of the Property 15 dedicated to the County for the relocation of Greenwood Road pursuant to Section 14.1 above. Such improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Greenwood Road and "Old Greenwood Road" and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 15.1 In the event the monetary contributions contemplated under this Proffer Statement are paid to the Board within thirty (30) months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after thirty (30) months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") reported by the United States Department of Labor such that, at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI- U from (i) the CPI-U as reported on that date which is twenty-four (24) months after the date of the final rezoning to (ii) the CPI-U as reported on the date of the most recently available CPI-U relative to the date on which the contributions are paid. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the amount of contributions be adjusted by a factor greater than six percent (6%) per year, simple interest. Respectfully submitted this day of qatt4 , 2008, TURNER ENTE RISES, LLC By: ,l/r Y/o�� _�2__ R.J;. T , Manager / Mem STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _day of 2008, by R.J. Turner, as Manager for and a Member of Turner Enterprises, LLC. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: MAUREEN A. GRILLO NOTMN ID * 7123235 NOTARY PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DECEMDER 31, 2011 Per Eastern Road Plan TO ti n n k \: • Senseny Key: I f..-�Road t1 \ Isting "Old Greenwood Road" to t Single -Family - Single Family Rema(n as Local ResldenUal x ' Detached \ c - `.•.• - - _ Detached $V@@t J, f Ij-; i Cluster Homes \d .\�.`, « . l lt Extended & Improved Channing Drive ,u ! •j r,. \ ; .�, \ \ ,\ \ \ ju �. ti \ \ tPer EaeUm Road Wan i'qjEme g ncYAaess._ yr , & Interim Access to.... Shooting Range &:: k i"-�Exiaun out -Parcels;: ''� t ,•,\'.. �',, Townhomes Via Brimstone Lane. `Improved t p,' I ;r.Sulphur Springs Road _(8(Y R.O.W. With Community Community i i; suffe & $elbaks) r Open Space Op•nspac• �tP\ jt Community al s tnvlva (ry&d) Open Space t,. } ",\ dn• T�„� ..p.. B r_ APploxlmate Llmtts of ■ • .. • • ....... • • • . • . _ pfl RO ` __ •_ 106Yeer Fl000plaln �• •• • • •.• • h ad —.� u Springs reenk yx "` : ti . •mac: j 'y P t � r �y TAzt ,lease ism atmssrt�e ~ cj p Proposed Trail �• .T .� ,,.,,,...- t \ Fuwr• m ft q­ .0 be PnFn r.Counb ` d r/;�rM " \ `\ ♦ ib1•ritMI Fuw Ans6 PatMbn �+J+"'Sn�" _�-• .. lR']InbrysrtNDep•rmwa•P•ryadaar.-:>- Y.ii �i ti ca neuron Modem %" y ? c{ • 7 �„"it`rr r ..�; i _ �.� �\ VMICu4r —'e `_ •.` vrp'. 4"' x=' �,! 1 \, .p ■ . ^ Rounaaeoul •r._.,i`- ' _ t}ry Y.� Red H awk L ~ Estates mw9aaa �`��. �i�l'I' r! �{J �i t�.aw►... i 1� 1l tt. 11 '` 1 r7^ j l� "\ IC tlon `� MJ J f 1 r �� f' i- "._.• I R �1:> \ ` /4 f '' •� \ , \ '� � i Potenall FYtur• ,I t' C. a Generalized De,lanh m.. 1_40 WM�'f -- • � \ Development -- ="'• .r•w�l !:Potentlel FuWre$`.. 00 `IMerproM *r� / • ` ` \' 1,13 r . Inrer9•r�ei . utParcei, j '`.\c^C'!K+I°^ j fi0rrlmarllQr I 1 i con — open ! / • . 'J open 31— _ ii oulfsntel �. ,1YD,a.,, e„ Plan Ur,♦ . 1 *' • i ; . • i � tti F ! Frederick County, Virginia TurnerEnterprises. UA_ �/'! 1✓' �1 Extended & Improved _ - f Channin g Drive syrrpoetica , Q ? Per Eastern Road Plan , t o. e �rnl n, xoos copy a.enm Note: See Illustrative Cross —Section. _ .i,F - e.e o�o•o ems, m �• ^ - SO l� for Road Efficiency Buller Treatment ' Futurp r jl Y �--- At—Grader"t i ( /• - •\ ..._\\� -` • rro .00 sro Inteioodn Independence Drive , ' HARRISON & JOHNSTON, PLC 21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. P.O. Box 809 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Facsimile 540.667.1312 Telephone 540.667.1266 pettler@harrison johnston.com Mobile 540.664.5134 MEMORANDUM July 15, 2008 VIA EMAIL TO: Jerry Copp, VDOT; Matt Smith, VDOT; Jolun Bishop, Frederick County; John Callow, PHR&A; Barry Carpenter, Sympoetiea CC: R.J. Turner, Tuner Enterprises, LLC; John Lewis, Painter -Lewis, PLC; Mike Ruddy, Frederick County FROM: Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Re: Red Hawk Estates; VDOT Meeting held July 11, 2008 Gentlemen: Thank you all for your time on Friday. This memorandum serves to recap the points we discussed in the above referenced meeting. Please advise if I have missed anything or if you wish to elaborate on anything further. We generally discussed the changes to the proffer statement made by Turner Enterprises, LLC to address the comments of Lloyd Ingram received on March 12, 2008 by email. Subject to the additional comments addressed below, the changes to the proffers made in response to Mr. Ingram's comments were acknowledged to satisfy VDOT in regard to the comments made by Mr. Ingram. After a general discussion, it was agreed that the proposed future location of Route 37 in relation to the proposed intersection of Channing Drive extended at Route 50 and Independence Drive should not effect any of the proffers submitted by Turner Enterprises, LLC from the perspective of VDOT and Frederick County's transportation plan. Regarding Section 14.3 of the proposed proffer statement, VDOT and Mr. Bishop noted that the wording of the proffer limited the use of the proffered funds to signalization at the Route 50 / Sulphur Springs interchange. It was discussed that signalization may be required at Route 50 / Channing Drive extended or even at Channing Drive extended and Sulphur Springs Road. Turner Enterprises, LLC understands the concerns stated and has amended Section 14.3 of its proffer statement to reflect this change. A copy of the revised Section 14.3 is attached. Regarding Section 14.2 of the proposed proffer statement, VDOT and Mr. Bishop all pointed out that as drawn on the Concept plan for Red Hawk Estates, the lots fronting on Greenwood Road (as depicted therein) would probably not be approved by VDOT if submitted for site plan approval. This was acknowledged by Turner's representatives and it was communicated that the concept plan was not being proffered and the location of Greenwood Road, once actually determined and engineered, would ultimately determine the lay -out of lots within Red Hawk Estates fronting on Greenwood Road. Otherwise, the proffer as drafted addressed Mr. Ingrain's written comments. Regarding Section 14.4 of the proposed proffer statement, it was generally discussed that the proffer did not contain any language specifying the timing of construction of the proposed Channing Drive improvements. Turner Enterprises, LLC understands the concerns stated and has amended Section 14.4 of its proffer statement to reflect this change. A copy of the revised section 14.4 is attached. The TIA was generally discussed, particularly the fact a new TIA had not been generated for the property in light of the revised proffer to construct proposed Charming Drive extended across the Red Hawk property and across the Arcadia property to Route 50. It appeared obvious to all present that the proffer to construct an access to the Red Hawk property all the way through to Route 50 would alleviate concerns about traffic impact on Sulphur Spring Road. After discussion it was agreed that it would be helpful to VDOT to have a memorandum from PHR&A showing the trips generated from the property split between the property located north of Sulphur Spring Road versus the property located south of Sulphur Spring Road. PHR&A is preparing such a memorandum for your review in order to confirin that VDOT's concerns about traffic impacts to Sulphur Spring Road are adequately addressed in the rezoning application. The concept drawing of the streetscape for Charming Drive extended across the Red Hawk property was discussed in regard to the width of the right of way necessary to construct the street as depicted. It was acknowledged by the representatives of Turner that the drawing should be amended to reflect a Wright of way for proposed Charming Drive across the Red Hawk property and the Arcadia property. Barry Carpenter will be revising his drawing to reflect this and it will be submitted for your information after completion. The above referenced changes to the documents are being submitted to Frederick County for inclusion in the rezoning application to be presented to the Planning Commission on August 6, 2008. If any of you have any additional comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. 14.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $180,000 to the County for the construction of a traffic signal and/or other associated improvements as required by the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation at such time the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation detennines such traffic signal and/or associated improvements become necessary to address measurable impacts resulting from the development of the proposed Red Hawk Estates and so long as at least 100 dwelling units have been constructed on the Property. 14.4 The Applicant agrees to construct the proposed Charming Drive as a four- (4) lane, divided roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Channing Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation in that area of the Property dedicated to the County for the relocation of Charming Drive pursuant to Section 14.1 above. The Applicant will construct the improvements proffered in Section 14.5 below prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. The Applicant will complete the construction of the proffered improvements set forth in this Section 14.4 upon the completion of the construction of the last townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. 0 0 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT A PROPOSED REZONING for Red Hawk Estates Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia November 14, 2007 Prepared for: Mr. R.J. Turner Turner Enterprises, LLC Winchester, Virginia 22601 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540)662-5792 email: office@painterlewis.com Job Number: 0402015 IMPACT ANALYSIS OATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS section page i. INTRODUC T iON 3 A. SITE SUITABILITY 3 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES 4 C. TRAFFIC 7 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT 8 E. WATER SUPPLY 9 F. DRAINAGE 9 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES 9 H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES 9 I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 11 J. OTHER IMPACTS 11 APPENDIX 12 page 2 IMPACT ANALYSIS OATEMENT • RED HAWK ESTATES i. INTRODUCTION Turner Enterprises (the Applicant) proposes to rezone adjoining parcels of land along Sulphur Spring Road, VA Route 655, in Frederick County, VA. The parcels are currently zoned RA and are identified as TM#s 65-A-86, 65-A-98, 65-A-102, and 65-A-102A. It is the Applicant's desire to have these parcels rezoned to RP. The total area request is approximately 85 acres. Please refer to Exhibit 1. The applicant desires to rezone the total acreage of the subject parcels from RA to RP, Residential Performance District. The intended purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the owner to develop the land for residential purposes. A. SITE SUITABILITY The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan includes the subject parcels within the Rt. 50 East Corridor. The Rt. 50 East Corridor land use plan consists of nearly 3,000 acres that extends from the 1-81 interchange to the western edge of the Westview Business Park, a distance of 3.6 miles. The corridor also extends in the southern direction to include the Winchester Regional Airport, the Airport Business Park, and surrounding areas. There are three major concerns to consider when developing in this area: The first is the transportation system. Past traffic analysis and future traffic expectations show that a large volume of traffic travels through the section of Rt. 50 east between Rt. 522 and the Clarke County line. It will be important to take traffic volume and hindrance into consideration for any proposed project in this study area. The second major concern in this study plan area is stormwater management. Approximately 131 of the 3,000 acres in this study area lay in floodplain. The area adjacent to Sulphur Spring Run has had numerous flooding problems in the past. It is important that any future development not exacerbate this problem. The third major concern to consider when developing in this study plan area is the preservation of historic sites. The subject property in this rezoning request has an identified historical site on it, The Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop (44FK550). The subject parcel has significant frontage along Sulphur Spring Road, VA Route 655, which should allow for siting an entrance with adequate site distance in both directions. Sulphur Spring Road would funnel traffic to Route 50 for travel in the east and west directions and to Greenwood Road for travel in the north direction. Traffic from this area will have immediate access to the arterial road system. A portion of the property is located in the floodplain of Sulphur Spring Run. Considerations will be necessary to ensure that storm events are not going to increase peak discharge rates from the development area. The main branch of Sulphur Spring Run crosses through the property parallel to the road frontage. Several smaller tributary page 3 IMPACT ANALYSIS OATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES runs of Sulphur Spring Run bisect the development area. It is the intent of the developer to improve the subject properties in such a way as to not increase the runoff discharge rates to Sulphur Spring Run. The subject property lies completely within the Urban Development Area and the Sewer and Water Service Area. Water service will need to come from Millwood Pike and eventually from Greenwood Road. A sewer force main will need to discharge in the existing system in the Westview Business park. Utility lines will be run within the 70' future right-of-way through the Perry -Warner property (aka Arcadia). 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAW FIRM Community Panel Number 510063 0115 B shows that a portion of the subject property is in the floodplain. This is the portion of the land bisected by the main branch of Sulphur Spring Run and is adjacent to Sulphur Spring Rd., Rt. 655. WETLANDS ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC has delineated the wetlands on the site. There are two types of wetlands: (1) the streambed of Sulpur Spring Run and (2) a small area a palustrine forested wetland between Sulphur Spring Run and Sulphur Spring Road. Together these wetlands cover approximately one acre. Development of Red Hawk Estates will require the disturbance of about a 50 foot length of the streambed, or approximately 3000 square feet and approximately 0.07 acre of the existing wetlands area. This disturbance will likely occur during the construction of an entrance road to the subdivision. Otherwise, all other wetlands will remain undisturbed and protected in open space. The Applicant will seek the required wetland disturbance permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) when detailed engineering of the entrance road has been performed and the exact impact on the wetlands is determined. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be provided as required by USACE regulations. STEEP SLOPES The property generally slopes toward Sulphur Spring Run. There are several localized highpoints within the development area. The slopes range from 5-40% across the site. Steep slopes, as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, will generally remain undisturbed and protected in the open space areas proposed for the project. MATURE WOODLANDS Approximately 59 acres of the 85 acre site is wooded. This woodland is made up of a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees, including Virginia Pine, Chestnut Oak, White Oak, and Hickory. The property has been timbered in the past and has since grown up into a relatively poor quality stand of trees due to the droughty and acidic site soils. According to a site survey performed by Blue Ridge Forestry Consultants, there is no timber of commercial value on this site. The largest trees are found along Sulphur page 4 IMPACT ANALYSIS OATE M E NT RED HAWK ESTATES Spring Run and the adjacent slopes. These trees will generally be preserved in the open space associated with the project. SOILS According to the Soil Survey of Frederick County, the site contains the following soil types: • Berks: 1 B (2-7%) and 1 C (7-15%). These soils are generally moderately deep and well drained. This soil type is often found on broad valley uplands dissected by a drainageway. The unified soil classifications are GM, ML, GC, SC, and SM. • Wiekert: 41 C, 41 D, 41 E (7-65%). These soils are generally shallow and well drained. The Wiekert soils are very closely related to Berks soils and are fairly unproductive with limitations to depth of bedrock. The unified soil classifications are GM, ML, SM, and GP -GM. • Zoar: 44B (2-7%). These soils are generally very deep and moderately drained. Zoar soils are generally found on slightly concave terraces along larger rivers and streams and in upland depressions. The unified soil classifications are ML, CL, CL- ML, CH, and MH. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The subject parcels are bordered generally in all directions by parcels that are zoned RA. There are three adjacent properties that are not zoned RA. Two are to the south. The first is TM# 65-A-116, which is owned by Arcadia Development Co., and zoned B2. The second is TM# 64-A-158, which is owned by Perry Properties and zoned M1. Both of these parcels front along Rt. 50, Millwood Pike. The third parcel is located to the east along Sulphur Spring Road, VA Route 655. This parcel is identified as TM# 65-A-91, is owned by Helen V. Williams, and is currently zoned M2. All of the remaining adjoining parcels are zoned RA. These include TM#s 65-A-12, 65-A-13A, 65-A-13B, 65-A-80, 65- A-81, 65-A-81 A, 65-A-82, 65-A-83, 65-A-84, 65-A-85, 65-A-86A, 65-A-95, 65-A-96, 65- A-97, 65-A-99, 65-A-99A, 65-A-100, 65-A-100A, 65-A-101, 65-A-103A, 65-A-103B, 65- A-104, and 64-A-129. The location, zoning, uses, size, and owner of these parcels are shown on Exhibit 1. Red Hawk Estates has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding parcels. Existing Brimstone Lane will be improved as part of the development and this will provide better access to the adjacent, existing single family dwellings as well as other adjacent parcels in the UDA/SWSA. The Generalized Development Plan contained in Section 10, shows an open space buffer along the agricultural land and vacant land to the east of Red Hawk Estates. This land is not within the UDA/SWSA. The land to the northwest is generally vacant or large lot single family residential. To the west of a portion of the development, south of Sulphur Spring Road, is the former Frederick County landfill. This area of approximately 40 acres is used for a vehicle impound lot, outdoor shooting range, and a model airplane club. In the proffers associated with this application, the applicant offers a page 5 IMPACT ANALYSIS *ATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES significant monetary contribution toward the closure of the outdoor shooting range. See Section 8. To the south of Red Hawk Estates is the Perry property, identified as TM #64-A-158, and the Arcadia Development Company property, identified as TM #65-A-116. the Perry property is currently used for contractor equipment storage with contractor office space. The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan shows the property as industrial use. The Arcadia property is shown as general business use. The Generalized Development plan shows an open space buffer along these properties. CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR RED HAWK ESTATES AND THE SURROUNDING AREA Regarding future development within the UDA/SWSA, Frederick County has begun to consider promoting "new Urbanist" patterns of development as an alternative to the current standard subdivision. Such patterns are typified by the development of traditional neighborhood development within mixed use community centers. These centers exhibit the following design principles: • Mix and integrate a variety of uses; • Diverse housing types; • Community focal points; • Connectivity, walkability and mobility; • Integrated community facilities; • Open space; • Environmental sustainability; • Enhanced design and planning; • Creation of a sense of place. The applicant engaged Sympoetica to design and illustrate how Red Hawk Estates could fit within a new urbanist concept in the area bounded by Inverlee Way, U. S. Route 7, U. S. Route 50, and the future Route 37 corridor. The resultant Area Conceptual Plan is contained in Section 10. This plan illustrates a concept for the location of neighborhood mixed use community centers in areas previously identified by the county planning staff. These centers are connected to the existing road network by an improved, extended, and realigned Greenwood Road and Channing Drive. The plan shows how Red Hawk Estates could be part of an additional neighborhood center located adjacent to U. S. Route 50. Much of the area in the vicinity of this project is designated for residential, business, and industrial uses in the Comprehensive Plan. However, these uses are shown as isolated areas rather than integrated into a new urbanist pattern. The Area Concept Plan promotes business use along Route 50 and integrates this area with other properties in a more fine-grained, mixed use land pattern. The mixed use community center envisioned for the land between Route 50 and Greenwood Road (relocated) adheres to the design principles described above. It includes a mix of uses and housing types. The community has a primary focal point: the mixed use "mainstreet". This street runs from Route 50 and through Red Hawk Estates. The Route 50 neighborhood center offers page 6 IMPACT ANALYSIS OATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES density in townhouse areas adjacent to a mixed use core. The center is served by a modified grid of streets that provides vehicular and pedestrian connection and enhanced mobility. While public facilities have not been located, they could easily be integrated within the development pattern. Generously planned parks and open spaces are located along the area -wide stream valley, promoting environmental sustainability. More detailed design cannot be exhibited at an area -wide scale, however, the Area Concept Plan shows the potential to create identifiable neighborhood centers, each with a sense of place. The mixed use centers and their defining street grid reflect the new urbanist scale of development present in many neotraditional communities in the region and nationally. Sympoetica concludes that, the Red Hawk Estates plan is a fine example of and fits within a new urbanist concept of development in eastern Frederick County. C. TRAFFIC The Generalized Development Plan calls for the extension of Channing Drive along the alignment preferred by the Frederick County Planning Department. Initially, access to the site will also be provided via improved Brimstone Lane. Interparcel connectors shown will be constructed only in the event of off -site construction. Section 10 also contains a Conceptual Plan for Red Hawk Estates along with a program tabulation summary detailing the proposed density of the development. A Traffic Impact Analysis is contained in Section 7. The TIA as presented is based on a total build -out of 250 residential units in Red Hawk Estates. The actual number of units proposed with this application is limited to 239 units. The applicant recognizes that Red Hawk Estates will have traffic impacts most evident on the Route 50/Sulphur Spring Road and Sulphur Spring Road/Greenwood Road intersections. Manual traffic counts were preformed at these two intersections along with the Greenwood Road/Senseny Road and Sulphur Spring Road/Wood Rise Lane intersections. Using these counts, each intersection was assigned a Level of Service (LOS) for AM and PM peak hour turning movements using the current lane geometry. From the TIA the existing Levels of Service are as follows: No. INTX Description Levels of Service -All Directions 1 Route 50/Sul hur Spring Road B, C 2 Sulphur Spring Road/Greenwood Road B 3 Greenwood Road/Senseny Road A, B 4 Sulphur Spring Road/Wood Rise Lane A The TIA projected background traffic levels for the year 2010 using an annual multiplier and also taking into account "specific future developments", which are residential and commercial projects coming on-line. These future developments contribute enough page 7 IMPACT ANALYSIS OATEMENT • RED HAWK ESTATES traffic to Route 50, Greenwood Road, and Senseny Road to nearly double the number of trips currently using there roads. Without lane geometry improvements, the LOS falls below "C" for the Greenwood Road/Senseny Road intersection under these projected conditions. From the TIA the 2010 background traffic conditions Levels of Service are as follows: No. INTX Description Levels of Service -All Directions 1 Route 50/Sulphur Spring Road B, C 2 Sulphur Spring Road/Greenwood Road A, C 3 Greenwood Road/Senseny Road B, C, D, E 4 Sulphur Spring Road/Wood Rise Lane A The TIA added the trips generated by the development of Red Hawk Estates to the projected background traffic levels for the year 2010. Without improvements to the intersection, the LOS degrades again and fall further below "C" for the Greenwood Road/Senseny Road intersection. The resultant 2010 build -out traffic conditions Levels of Service are as follows: No. INTX Description Levels of Service -All Directions 1 Route 50/Sulphur Spring Road B, C 2 Sulphur Spring Road/Greenwood Road B, B 3 Greenwood Road/Senseny Road C, D, E, F 4 Sulphur Spring Road/Wood Rise Lane A 5 Site Driveway #1 Greenwood Road A, B, C 6 Site Driveway #2 Sulphur Spring Road A C D As stated in the TIA, improvements at the intersections will result in LOS "C" or above. These off -site improvements will likely occur as more development is proposed in the areas of the intersections. The applicant is proffering a monetary contribution to Frederick County for general improvements at the intersection of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road. The LOS at Site Driveway #2 will operate at "D" throughout the build -out conditions. The applicant is proffering to dedicate right-of-way for the future Channing Drive. Channing Drive is a planned, major collector road which will connect Senseny Road, Sulphur Spring Road, and Greenwood Road to Route 50 through the Arcadia property. Refer to the Generalized Development Plan. The construction of this road will result in significant, positive changes to the functionality of the major intersections listed above. It is anticipated that the LOS "D" at Site Driveway #2 will improve to a "C" or better with the operation of Channing Drive. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The site is inside the limits of the Frederick County UDA/SWSA line. The development would be serviced by the county sewer system. A sewage pump station would be constructed near Sulphur Spring Run to convey sewage to adjacent FCSA facilities. page 8 IMPACT ANALYSIS OATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES E. WATER SUPPLY The development would be serviced by the county water supply system. A likely method of connection would be to connect to the existing system in West View Business Park through the adjacent Arcadia Development Company property. F. DRAINAGE The portion of the site south of Route 655, Sulphur Spring Road, has several localized high points and generally drains to the north and east. All storm water runoff will discharge into Sulphur Spring Run. Storm Sewer improvements may be necessary to ensure runoff is able to get across Route 655, Sulphur Spring Road, upon development of the northern portion of the site. Any development on this site can be expected to increase stormwater runoff. It is assumed that with the existing site conditions and the propensity that Sulphur Spring Run has shown to flood, extensive stormwater management will be need to be provided to serve the proposed future development of this site. Please see Exhibit 4 for drainage and topographical information. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The nearest citizens' trash convenience facility is located near the proposed site on Landfill Road which intersects with Sulphur Spring Road approximately 1 mile east of the subject parcel. In general, the collection of solid waste from the proposed residential development will be accomplished by a private hauler. It is estimated that each household will generate approximately three tons of solid waste per year that will be transported to the landfill. Tipping fees are currently $45 per ton for commercial haulers. No additional solid waste disposal facilities will be required for the proposed development. It is estimated that $32,265 in tipping fees will be paid to dispose of 717 tons of solid waste. H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The Red Hawk assemblage contains three (3) historic/archeological sites identified in Frederick County and Virginia Department of Historic Resources records. None is on the National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks register. 1) An archeological site on the property has been fairly well documented. The Applicant obtained a September 2002 report by the firm of Skelly and Loy, Inc., which was contracted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to conduct archeological work at the former site of the Anthony Baecher pottery Shop (VDH #44FK550). The pottery shop site is located near Sulphur Spring Run generally as depicted on page 9 IMPACT ANALYSIS ATEMENT • RED HAWK ESTATES Conceptual Plan contained in Section 10. According to the Skelly and Loy report, Anthony Baecher established the earthenware shop ca. 1862 and continued its operation there through 1889. Mr. Baecher was a skilled ceramicist capable of producing exquisite art pieces, but found his niche producing and selling utilitarian earthenware pots of various types. No structure remains at the pottery shop site, but the archeologists were able to recover numerous pottery shards, as well as nails, brick fragments and pieces of kiln furniture, from their excavations. The study concludes that no further excavations are recommended for the site. 2) According to Skelly and Loy, "J.A. Baecher, grandson of Anthony Baecher, indicated that the shop and kiln were located between Sulphur Spring Road and Sulphur Spring Run, with a house, weii, and barn located on the other side of the road." The second historic/archeological site (VDH #34-1135) contains a barn and stone foundation located across Sulphur Spring Road from the pottery shop site. However, the survey form for the site indicates that the barn dates ca. 1890-1910, after Anthony Baecher closed his shop. The authors of the form indicated that there was probably once a dwelling associated with the barn. The barn today is in extremely poor condition, some walls having collapsed. 3) The third site is the Wilt -Dunn -Arnold House (VDH #34-1131), which sits on the bluff above Sulphur Spring Run. This vernacular Federal style house includes a front log portion dating from 1810 to 1830. It is speculated that the house was probably remodeled after the Civil War, when the rear two-story wing and Victorian trim were added. None of this site is located within any Civil War battlefield identified in the National Park Services, Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, published in 1992. The site contains no known historic sites or structures as listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register. According to the Comprehensive Policy Plan, there are several identified potentially significant sites as shown in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey that lie within a mile of the site. These include 1410- Fruit Hill Farm, 1411-Fruit Hill Tenant House, 558-Solenberger-Dove House, and 559- House-Route 679. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report lists several other structures within approximately one mile of the site, which were inventoried due to architecturally or historically significant sites or structures. Please refer to Exhibit 2. page 10 IMPACT ANALYSIS OATEMENT • RED HAWK ESTATES I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES EMERGENCY SERVICES Police protection is provided by the Frederick County Sheriffs Department. The nearest fire and rescue facility is the Millwood Fire and Rescue Station located on Weems Lane in the City of Winchester. No additional fire and rescue facilities will be required for the area proposed to be rezoned. The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates that the projected capital cost for emergency service facilities attributable to this development is $139,440.00. The owner recognizes the importance of emergency services, and proposes to proffer a monetary contribution to the local emergence responder. See the attached Proffer Statement. PARKS AND RECREATION The proffers contained in Section 8 detail the commitment from the applicant to create open space on the project and the construct pedestrian amenities particularly along a proposed "Sulphur Spring Greenway". Monetary contributions to offset fiscal impacts are listed below. J. OTHER IMPACTS. The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates the following additional fiscal impacts attributable to this development: Red Hawk Estates Community Facilities Fiscal Impact Proffers 69 Single Family Units at $23,290/unit and 170 Townhouse Units at $17,732/unit Capital Facilily Single Family Townhouse Total Fire & Rescue $49,680 $89,760 $139,440 General Government $22,080 $41,650 $63,730 Public Safety $45,402 $85,510 $130,912 Library $18,423 $34,680 $53,103 Parks & Recreation $147,384 $277,780 $425,164 page 11 IMPACT ANALYSIS *ATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES School Construction $1,324,041 $3,809,101 Total $1,607,010 $4,621,450 • $2,485,060 $3,014,440 page 12 IMPACT ANALYSIS OATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT APPENDIX item EXHIBIT 2 - HISTORIC STRUCTURES MAP EXHIBIT 3 - CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD MAP EXHIBIT 4 - DRAINAGE AND TOPO MAP E 3 2 page 13 IMPACT ANALYSIS*ATEMENT • RED HAWK ESTATES EXHIBIT 1 - PROPERTY MAP page 14 ° If I t scdo zeNING of �oi5 - � _ _ ♦ / � _ _ _ � - W a 2 0 0 REZONING LOTS - 65-A-13A Z C) RA (RESIDENTIAL h AGRICULTURAL) - - 65=A=12 _ - - - - - �: M2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) 1 (� NIy MI (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 65g� 1 Z 1J.0 � - B2 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) �� , �.� ♦ I �IX W WLi In W B q U J \` O 6A-A-129 65-A-86A / -O ♦♦ 1 /' 1 / 65-A-86 1 v _ V 65-A-8\ 0 1 6e1A ♦SYRAIG ROAD V�-,s�I+� ' \ 65-A-80 �..�..._..___ _ 11� CSTONEWALL 65-A-65 DIST. , c \ SHAWNEE ' W N DIST. 696A x SPRM7RUW W n d) C.'5i (o r d U - `2 / 65-A-97 0O 65-A-104 \\ / 65 A-102A65-A-98�� 0 1 �I ly bj ill 1 O �� ♦ 1 0/ -5 0 ♦ ♦ / Z Cl l 65-A-103B ♦ / / ♦ SURVEY: C.I.: JJ � GA ^� \ \♦ //1 NA NONE ♦� '/\" �\ - \ - 65-A 102 ° DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: RD ih 64-A-158 ♦ / \ ♦ /0 500�I 1000 SCALE: DATE: ♦ J0 \\ \ 65-A-103A (♦ / SHEET: �,/� \ ,4\\\ 65-A-116 / \ Scale = 500 F Ex.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS PATEIVIENT RED HAWK ESTATES EXHIBIT 2 - HISTORIC STRUCTURES MAP page 15 0417 1 • E 1 SIT 1130 GREEW*= HEIGHTS 1131 TE 1 > Q HISTORICAL PROPERTY KEY w }}. 329 - FORD HOUSE Q I- 415 - BAKER HOUSE F— Z O 416 - GAYLORD DAWSON HOUSE V) Q Q 1153 1129 - CARPER-WYNN HOUSE** Lv W Q 1130 - CARPER - CUNNINGHAM HOUSE Y CL U 1131 - WILT- DUNN-ARNOLD HOUSE ** ._J 1132 - HOUSE, ROUTE 655 Y 1133 - FULLER-CHAPMAN HOUSE** = U U 1135 - ABANDONED BARN - ROUTE 655 Fx W 1136 - KEYSER-EDMONSON HOUSE** Q Lj E- 0 1151 - FORD- BRAITHWAITE 1Y V) uj 1174 - HOUSE ROUTE 50/17 1382 - FINCHAM HOUSE w = Li 1383 - MAUDE LOY HOUSE o cr a - U NOTE: ** INDICATES A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT SITE AS DENOTED BY THE RURAL LANDMARKS SURVEY REPORT OF FREDERICK COUNTY J 1133 0. E O O � � U o I` m Y/ n N jT 3 I t � N � O •C � (D W3 In 5 y1 c aC� o CE In y L C O ' 382 W ` a n p U 0 U C y D O Zw Q a In � Z JW W Z0 Z SURVEY: I NA N/A DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: R m OM 1200 0 1200 SEM 0402015 SCALE: DATE: 1 1"=1200' 08/23/05 �a Scate 1' = 1200 ft SHEET: / I IMPACT ANALYSIS SPATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES EXHIBIT 3 - CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD MAP page 16 CIVIL WAR SITES C•• W Frederick County Plonnlnp 5 Development I Civil War Battlefields and Sites Vinchestar, Virelnia (As Defined by the ATS Shenan oah Valley Civil War Sites Study) 12-10-97 1 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES EXHIB IT 4 - DRAINAGE AND TOPO page 17 • A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of the Red Hawk Estates Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Turner Enterprises, LLC R. J. Turner, Manager 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.271 1 PIPA F 304.264.3671 • August 2, 2006 0 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Red Hawk Estates located along Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655), east of Millwood Pike (U.S. Route 50), in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to be comprised of 37 single-family detached residential units to the north of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655), 38 single-family detached residential units and 175 townhouse units to the south of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) with access to be provided via two (2) site -driveways along Greenwood Road (VA Route 656) and Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655), respectively. The project is to be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Red Hawk Estates with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Red Hawk Estates were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the study area, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Red Hawk Estates, • Distribution and assignment of the Red Hawk Estates development -generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity analysis software (HCS+), for existing and future conditions. • PNR�n A Traf is Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 1 • r� u EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the following intersections: • Millwood Pike (Route 50) / Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655), • Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) / Greenwood Road (VA Route 656), • Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) / Wood Rise Lane and • Senseny Road (VA Route 657) / Greenwood Road (VA Route 656). Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 9.5%, based on the published Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing Average Daily Trips (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3 illustrates the respective existing lane geometry and levels of service. All traffic count data and highway capacity analysis software (HCS+) levels of service worksheets areincluded in the Appendix section of this report. PHRn A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 2 WA I* No Scale u 5 ry7gPny kd M � - �' ye u U cc ¢�gveny Rd t��O� � O a �i °4 Rlyd O p Ti y r� u � v 5 h •t°? gl n 3 a dnio.., Q - a Rd `j SITE ` a Suip"- SI"Mr, Rd p` ? {v7 SITE m a 1 b'Jmchester T Regio`nal� �� Airport's — Pr TR+n Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Red Hawk Estates in Frederick County, Virginia A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 3 • • No Scale • `-1JHl�L t Figure 2 • P R+A H DailyAverage AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 4 0 0 • No Scale Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PR+AH A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 5 L.J • • 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data within the vicinity of the site, PHR+A applied an annual growth rate of 5 % per year to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2010 base conditions. Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 71h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Tra cc Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 1465 8-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 6 0 • Table 1 2010 "Other Developments" Trio Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Ravens Subdivision 210 Single -Family Detached 315 units 57 172 230 193 109 302 3,150 Total 57 172 230 193 109 302 3,150 Butcher Property 210 Single -Family Detached 65 units 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Total 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Fieldstone 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 40 54 45 25 71 630 230 Townhouse 207 units 15 76 91 75 37 112 1,801 Total 29 116 145 120 62 183 2,431 Lambert -Ward Property 210 Single -Family Detached 145 units 28 83 111 94 55 150 1,450 230 Townhouse/Condo 140 units 11 56 68 53 26 79 1,218 Total 39 139 179 147 82 229 2,668 Abrams Pointe 210 Single -Family Detached 225 units 42 125 167 140 82 222 2250 Total 42 125 167 140 82 222 2250 Brainvood III 210 Single -Family Detached 69 units 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Misc Other Developments along Channing Drive* 210 Single -Family Detached 320 units* 58 175 233 192 113 305 3,200 230 Townhouse/Condo 130 units 11 53 64 50 25 75 1,131 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 Total 176 296 472 581 505 1086 11976 Orrick Paramount 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 75 units 8 14 22 24 16 40 424 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 4 8 7 4 11 348 565 Day Care 6,000 SF 41 36 77 32 36 68 476 710 Office 25,000 SF 54 7 62 18 89 107 459 820 Retail 80,200 SF 84 53 137 260 281 541 5,884 881 Pharmacy w/ DT 15,000 SF 23 17 40 63 66 129 1,322 912 Drive-in Bank 6,000 SF 41 33 74 137 137 274 1,351 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 Total 327 231 558 622 680 1,302 11789 Carpers Valley - Phase 1 220 Apartment 487 units 48 194 242 186 100 286 3,077 230 Townhouse/Condo 263 units 19 93 112 89 44 133 2,288 Total 67 287 354 275 144 418 5,365 Russell Farm 230 Townhouse/Condo 294 units 21 102 122 98 48 146 2,558 820 Retail 440,450 SF 232 149 381 799 866 1,666 17,802 710 Office 264,000 SF 359 49 408 64 311 374 2,817 Total 612 299 911 1 961 1,225 2,186 1 23,177 * Includes Giles I•arm, Toll Brothers, Coventry Court and miscellaneous residential units at an absorbtion rate of 80 units/year. • PHR1� A Tra(fc Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 7 0 • • • No Scale :�.. C�Er N C7, W4waR124(129) +A"°438(555) e-151(240) (269)113 590 289 1 r (69)64 O �O V1 N �O N �~ V N r- CD � w ^ N N p O n b (n O 135(118) w♦� �c7 66(78) (601)304 � col 656 (141)82-mm► \W ��^;`ab`�61 SITE rz� ti� 5��:� ° r Sulpur h Spring Road j oc� �1(2) C t 655 �Ip3 S� q �► n �av, •- (5)3 (118) - egC�,,;� ✓ N,� (114)105�� t SITE -E- ,6 141� Average Daily Trips , AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 8 • i • • No Scale Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(C) EB- 4", Leg WB - 1 Left _n JULea it (C) fr 50 0 656 Signalized Intersection LOS=B(E) A C(E) J� (E)B%4 r A P. SITE �� e` Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=C(C) NB & SB -1 Left U U 1� B(�) � SensenyRoad o a U 657 655 Sulphur Spring Road j d, <i *(A)A.4 t� N� SITE Denotes stop sign control ® Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Tr•aCfic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 9 i • is TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Red Hawk Estates. Table 2 Proposed Development: Red Hawk Estates Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount `°'M Peak Hour In Out Total PM Peak Hour In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 37 units 9 27 35 28 16 44 370 210 Single -Family Detached 38 units 9 27 36 29 16 45 380 230 Townhouse/Condo 175 units 14 67 81 64 31 95 1,523 Total 32 121 152 121 63 184 2,273 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Red Hawk Estates. Figure 7 shows the respective development -generated AM and PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Red Hawk Estates assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area roadway network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PHIZ n A TrgEic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 10 0 • No Scale .19 Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page I 0 0 • • No Scale -f- AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 7 Development -Generated 'Trip Assignments PH�n A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 12 0 • • • No Scale -I - Figure 8 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions Daily Average AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) PH A Tra(tc bnpact Analysis of ecthe Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 13 0 • • • No Scale 656 Signalized Intersection LOS=C(F W V j C(F) SITE Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=C(C) EB- 411 Leg WB -I Left �C(C) �Ttt cn V. -i- SIT Signalized I "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(C) NB & SB -1 Left U B(C> i enses Road (C)B� : � oP� 657 W, �d Road Uns ig n alized Intersection Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 14 0 0 • CONCLUSION • The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Red Hawk Estates are acceptable and manageable. Assuming suggested improvements, all of the study area intersections, except Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) / Site -Driveway #2, would maintain overall intersection levels of service "C" or better during 2010 background and build -out conditions. The intersection of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) / Site -Driveway #2 will maintain levels of service "D" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. The improvements suggested for the study area intersections would be necessary with or without the proposed development. The following describes the recommended roadway improvements as well as the associated HCS+ intersection levels of service: • Millwood Pike (U.S. Route 50) / Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655): An additional westbound left -turn lane, eastbound left -turn lane and eastbound thru- right lane will be required to maintain an overall intersection level of service "C" or better during 2010 background and build -out conditions. • Senseny Road (VA Route 657) / Greenwood Road (VA Route 656): An additional southbound left -turn lane and northbound left -turn lane will be required to maintain overall intersection level of service "C" or better during 2010 background and build -out conditions. p han A Traffic bnpact Analysis of the Red Hawk Estates Project Number: 14658-1-0 August 2, 2006 Page 15 Extended & Improved Greenwood Road `� r Per Eastern Road Plan - ,h.' • , i _ _���� ' To f D Senseny , ,, rar— m/ :Road i- _ 'Al ,Existing .•t "Old Greenwood Road" to+ -"� Ily ✓ ' Remain as Local Residential °• ( I eched om�r, l t ^; Street Extended & Improved Charming Drive IPer Eastern Road Plan Emergency Access1 rit & Interim Access to I [.�. .•0 C J Shooting Range&�:':e.)t'— ✓ ,� '^^•i. •. I `��1`' � [j3� r :f - t'%.. yJt]:i ♦ j(Existing Out-Par«Is ' - .• • • .,•�.�_ i i i . + E i'. /. ! •' I '�lla Brimstone Lane Community s• J 'I Improved Open Space`' u ' �1 Sulphur Springs Road z_ _ . _— ..'�.3Y..,a.�->•� I frwlran C \� '.�.^,c: • .'r (80R.O.W. With (fit 't r� �t, °u �� fad' ♦ -- >Stll� L T . 1 r C �3'•`V � _ � i ..� .� �'� ' S.r..i4n "� MWo><Imate tJmlta of •t __ _• ��3 _ f - SOPVeer Floodplaln '�� _ `,4 J'/'• �„ W tt.. yp, r16f _ _.c +,y`^ ,.a„+:•?.mac;, Rere ntal. L r Beecher Pottery Shop InterpretiveSite q Proposed Trail ranee awldgWpoee .� • :i Y' ~" 1 r Y �, • �f t 4 / /' 3 _uW �1 G r dA2. "tj • '�F"E: tnV to oe mww.W %.St f 1' + r '* _ -, i. n/ _.t ! / c Pountlu Futon t f " Pena 6 a.r,..tran ,w i / _ Ine oanrt tytJ. :. /; „ MFeron"ra apeaeeeuar �..--,"„ e !� y+�,l.. •�,J �••' . 0% Vl '/�' i ,.•: <']�' /� r t i y W a tl Modem .'Whiculer eye .��',7,�•a' !r/r!a! !.+ �f r "� '' . a� • ,t�.�. '� /� ., L" �r \ �� \ 'Roundabout '01y - �--' ` �. % + ' 3\X, /P..Aal Future `-� •�� I /i t l-�. ��i.�� \, •t ,Y lull / lr+ �O ^� _ rl i• t l I I .'• �a+' i '� •r/ 1 Ir�wanoel � 1 �t r // I '�!i/l' - >>ti �' I �1 see �I I ,j r I yell t'� _�I6 iv,/ ('C �y I r . J/, / G'r n .rpe yi l Ss I vae,Nei F b mail m'°F°°'o % � `-- �_.'t 'I •;t �'' ��•.., \• ` ji;� Intlr9elo0 Oul-0er0111 SYur 'tom 1 h (MkW) 'j ♦ i MenegarMnt Pond i •( "�yt ' t+ yam, +_ r ' 1 i a. �'•(. O(1ylrnll i Icel _ I 7 m '. Red Hawk Common .. ` a` • % . ,. r. Trail (Typical) f• �,`T.�,�;• 1-' opens = Estate s 5s awl�en ..: <�Q Extended&Improved ;, _ Conceptual Plan yG''r �,A ! '. Channing Drive I Per Eastern R«tl Plan, ' I _- -�"-� Frederick County, Virginia •� ; _ (j ! "` Nelgnbornood I -•S/ Note: See Illustrative Cross -Section / : Green Turner Enterprises, LLC for Road Efficiency Buffer Treatment P,ey.roa by location of / V ' r�/rh �` ` �.., Illtlatrativa _ - .ti syrrpoetica iL - 'Future Cross -Section / �i II/ I ''`� De: APr0IQ 2WB At -Grade (.oD.mluvry Plrma¢r a: Deryoerr � - -Grae i for C a B ing t �! ! �• .�\ ti' / •."l. Z'•` Nate: Intersection Independence � Fow is Wcw pupo.r ml.. Drive (Eastbound) Future Improved Sulphur Springs Road (Public Right -Of -Way) Note: For illustrative purposes only; not for construction. Scale in Feet 0 10 Date: April 18, 2008 Prepared by: synpoetica Community Planners & Designers www.sympoetica.net 20' Trail Easement v! Sulphur o Springs o• Run C Ui(D . aj Proposed ;, I Sulphur Springs W Greenway I Proposed Bike Trail (Typical) Illustrative Cross -Section (Trail to be constructed per Frederick County 4K Parks & Recreation Dept. specifications.) Red Hawk Estates Illustration in Support of the Conceptual Plan Frederick County, Virginia Turner Enterprises, LLC 4. A'&U 10, 5• i 4' µpu or Hedge Mu1T� m ` i Sidew�k or H41ge I l II +i Varies 40'7.5 22622' 17.511 7.540' :10' I Varies' _._ Oo Front Front o Yard NYard 2.5' 2.5' EntryEnr I Zone Streetscape Easement Travel Landscaped Travel Streetscape Easement Zone Lanes Median Lanes on Building Building E Setback Setback Line Public Right -Of -Way Line MEN I Residentia Lot 80' ' Resi ential Lot I i width l Note: For illustrative purposes only; not for construction. Scale in Feet Channing Drive Extended �` Illustrative Street Cross -Section o io 20 At Build -Out Red Hawk Estates Date: April 18, 2008 Illustration in Support of the Conceptual Plan Prepared by: syr poetip Frederick County, Virginia Community Planners & Designers Turner Enterprises, LLC www.syrnpoetica.net • • REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA be completed by Planning Stnf: Ling Amendment Number Hearing Date Fee Amount Paid $ O . Ck) Date Received G /q /o BOS Hearing Date The following inforination shall be rr-ovided 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: f is�s LJ,� Name: rk a. e, PfWAee� Address: 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone:(540 7.1a-9000 Telephone: Name: t k IJ Telephone: 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this applicatioin. Location map_ Agency Cormnents Plat � Fees Deed to property Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid _� Proffer Statement 10 • 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: LLC' i it F2jb [A) W , L-6-11 44 NO AR 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE 1a '- A : 02 Ac-14:514CE- 1962-s "T4cG5 F&7ns 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): no ti 0 '11 • 0 0 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : Number of Units Pro Pol sed Single Family homes: Townhome: IqD Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Office: Retail: Restaurant: 10. Signature: Square Footage of Proposed Uses _ Service Station: Manufacturing: _ Warehouse: Other: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia, I (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 Plaruling Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Owner(s): 12 Date: (/pi Date: Date: Date: • • • Property Id Number Owner's Name Mailing Address city Zip Acreage Zone Physical Address Physical Street 64 A 129 AMBROSE, SANDRA ANNE CARPER 1690 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602 107.6 RA 231 SULPHUR SPRING 65 A 12 SAGER, JUAREZ C 1376 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602 1.0 RA 1374 GREENWOOD RD 65 A 13B CUNNINGHAM, WALTER C & WANDA M 1366 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 6.9 RA 0 65 A 86A MCKEE, DONNA M 1384 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 5.0 RA 1384 GREENWOOD RD 65 A 104 YEATRAS, GEORGE S & PETER S 126 N BRADDOCK ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601 56.0 RA 674 SULPHUR SPRING RD 65 A 97 ARNOLD, THELMA I PO BOX 3165 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 43.0 RA 193 BRIMSTONE LN 65 A 96 FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF 107 N KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VA. 22601 0.3 RA 160 BRIMSTONE LN 65 A 103E ROBINSON, DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 33.0 RA 0 64 A 158 PERRY PROPERTIES 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602 45.0 M1 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE 65 A 103A ROBINSON, DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 16.0 RA 315 SHAFFER LN 65 A 116 ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95110 59.1 B2 0 65 A 95 FREDERICK, COUNTY OF 107 N KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VA 22601 20.2 RA 164 BRIMSTONE LNMW 65 A 91 WILLIAMS, HELEN V 44 FERGUSON LN I NEWPORT NEWS,VA 23601 3.2 M2 336 SULPHUR SPRING RD Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue Office Page 1 2/7/2006 Owner's Name: Pin #: Zoned: Use: Acreage: Sager, Juarez 65—A-12 RA Single Family Residential 1.0 Shuman, John A. 65—A-13A RA Single Family Residential 17.19 Cunningham, Walter C. & Wanda. M. 65—A-138 RA Single Family Residential 6.89 EFG Investments LLC 65—A-80 RA Single Family Residential 20.07 McAboy, Wilco L Jr. 65—A-81 RA Single Family Residential 0.91 Whirley, George & Price, Leonna 65—A-81A RA Single Family Residential 0.92 EFG Investments, LLC 65—A-82 RA Single Family Residential 4.00 Malone, Charles R. & Judith K. 65—A-83 RA Single Family Residential 1.22 Parlette, Joanne 65—A-84 RA Single Family Residential 0.65 Shuman, John E 65—A-85 RA Single Family Residential 1.10 *Lehman H. Harold & Carrot A. 65—A-86 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 36.00 McKee, Kenneth F. Jr. 65—A-86A RA Single Family Residential 5.00 Williams, Helen V. 65—A-91 M2 Single Family Residential 3.20 Frederick County Ofc. 65—A-95 RA Regional/Lbo l Government 20.15 Frederick Co. Board 65—A-96 RA Regional/Local Government 0.28 Arnold, Thelma I. 65—A-97 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 43.00 *Wilkins, Bradley & Michelle 65—A-98 RA Single Family Residential 14.52 Boyce, Robert C. Sr. & Elmo 65—A-99 RA Single Family Residential 0.64 Williams, Raymond & Kathleen 65—A-99A RA Single Family Residential 1.00 Seal, Robert A. 65—A-100 RA Single Family Residential 1.00 Boyce, Robert C. Sr. & Elmo 65—A-100A RA Single Family Residential 1.43 Seal, Robert A. & Jennifer M. 65—A-101 RA Single Family Residential 1.08 *Moulden, Donald W. Sr. 65—A-102 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 27.00 *Moulden, Donald W. Sr. 65—A-102A RA Single Family Residential 5.00 Robinson, David C. & Carol A. 65—A-103A RA Single Family Residential 16.00 Robinson, David C. & Carol A. 65—A-1038 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 33.00 Yeatros, George, Peter & Chris 65—A-104 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 56.00 Arcadia Development Co. 65—A-116 82 Commercial & Industrial 59.06 Ambrose, Sandre Anne Campbell 64—A-129 PA Agricultural/ Undeveloped 107,56 Perry Properties 64—A-158 M1 Commercial & Industrial 44.97 * denotes subject parcels Z> D N o * Z N D < PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. PROJECT: 1n Z m 116 South Stewart Street RED HAWK ESTATES j � Winchester, Virginia 22601 PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION o Telephone (540)662-5792 R FREDERICf< COUNTY, VIRGINIA ��n o z z c� Facsimile (540)662-5793 CONSULTING 0 0 0 0 0 AMBROSE SANDRA 9NNECARPER TEES OF THE JJJAMES PEYMN 1O Acres 118i lint PERRY ENpWEFRMq Cfi fIC LS ]i11411[^� ) Q & DON WC 4-83 Acres �c EFO INI TJ UMAS CONSTANCE L ETALS 1 64-A-82 65.03 Acres / C WRK EY TER IIj�I}; NI.LL PM LLC L 0 �:IhE LL Ma L —.F WM ITTER C s u., GLAf���O Lc 13.6 rw �j01 W ESTER O X 1) RK CORP / IJ/ 1 Y2 a \ / \ HILL H 64- ;RUSTEE ' �� TN.— PERRY PROPERTIES 64-A-158 44.97 Acres H OJ-A-14 100.24 Acres INVESTMENTS LLC 6 -1-C 32.76 Acres EFG INVEST 65-A- MENTS LLC 104.01 Acres SNI /WEAN 7D a k77ns LLC y��5g,��.�rE�� EFG INVES�T(VjNTS LLC ORG .]:ll h:,, OR(: EVO 4 r LU.. L 6 A i3s j� `p1� ._i.__ 73.49 Acres �--Pnar SPrinq Rd-- ARNO�hEfLNAI res YEATRAS GEORGE g & PETER S T E COUNTY OF FREDERICK ISES LLC g5 A-104 g5 A-105 56 Acres 41.34 Acres / tOBNSON DAVID C3CAROL 65-A-103 Acres` DAVID03 CAROLA N�\ \ 6 A-103A 6 Acres 64A59ELC EF., 16.21 tree °3 FINCHU JOHN R JR la P R i • REDHAWK PARCEL ASSEMBLAGE Date Acquired Previous Owner Map ID Acres 2/23/05 Donald W. Moulden, Sr. and 65-A-102 31.1684 Melvina M. Moulden 65-A-102A 2/28/05 Carol A. Lelunan & H. Harold Lehman 65-A-86 10.6330 Carol A. Lelunan Revocable Trust portion of 4/18/05 Bradley D. Wilkins & Michelle D. Wilkins 65-A-98 14.5230 3/8/06 Carol A. Lehman & H. Harold Lelunan 65-A-86 28.9740 Carol A. Lehman Revocable Trust portion of TOTAL 85.2984 /'"J /utj0 17: Z)0 04U4DU,":Z,75 PAGE 02 TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC 28.9740 ACRES `7 � � 1 / I r / 1 �1lF/NAt awfm RW R7E, On 65-00-86 TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC 10.W ACRES 65—{(A))—s9 / COUNrt OF fREDERICK f THELMA i. ARNOLD • 65-((A))-102A TURNER ENTERPRISES. LLC 4.9922 ACRES _ 14.4745 ACRES- LLC 65-((A))-102 ♦ TURNER ENTERPRISES. LLC DAVID C_ ac CAROL A. 26.1762 ACRES ROBINSON PERRY PROPERTIES 65—((A))-103A AVID C. & CAROL. A. � / �' ♦ ROENNSON ` i ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO- i TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC TOTAL AREA = a 5.1797 ACRES EMBIT AMENDMENT FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE Planning commission Approval on August 8, 1990 Board of Supervisors Approval on September 26 1990 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP #006-90 of KATHRYN M. PERRY WHEREAS, Rezoning application #006-90 of Kathryn M. Perry to rezone 56.386 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) and 2.251 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial) and 1.489 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) to B2 (Business General) located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of Winchester on Route 50 and designated as Parcel 116 on Tax Map 65 (65000-A00-0000-0000- 0116-0) in the Shawnee District, was referred to the Planning Commission on July 18, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on July 18, 1990; and received a draft statement of conditions proffered prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this application on August 8, 1990; and received a signed statement of conditions proffered prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, convenience and good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: Page 2 Rezoning #006-90 Kathryn M. Perry That Chapter 21 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 56.386 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) and 2.251 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial) and 1.489 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) to B2 (Business General) located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of Winchester on Route 50, and designated as Parcel 116 on Tax Map 65 in the Shawnee Magisterial District and described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and property owner as follows: PROFFER PERRY PROPERTY REZONING REQUEST CASE NO. 006-90 Revised 9/14/90 I, the undersigned, KATHRYN M. PERRY, sole owner of the land to be rezoned under zoning request number 006-90, referred to as the Perry property rezoning, and the applicant for said rezoning, hereby voluntarily proffer the following conditions. The conditions proffered shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest of the undersigned. In the event the Frederick Countv Board of Supervisors grants said rezoning to B-2 and accepts these conditions, the following proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code: 1. As shown on the attached plat, access to the property to be developed will be by a 4 lane divided road entering Route 50 from the north side of Route 50 at a point opposite the existing entrance to Westview Business Center. upon rezoning approval and upon development, the owner will transfer to the Virginia Department of Highways or to the County of Frederick, as designated by the County of Frederick, by deed in such form as directed, the seventy foot (70') fee simple as shown on said plat as running from Route 50 to the lands of Donald W. and Melvina M. Moulden. 2. The undersigned -vvill cause to be built, upon development of the rezoned property, the highway as shown on the Generalized Development Plan from points A to B. 3. The undersigned will construct concurrently with the construction described in the preceding paragraph the deceleration lane and entrance shown on said Generalized Development Plan on the northeast side of Route 50 at the entrance of the road to be constructed. 4. All construction in as provided in Paragraphs 2 and 3, above shall be at no cost to the Countv of Frederick and State of Virginia, and shall be contingent upon rezoning approval. 5. A two lane road section for acceptance by VDOT from B to C shown on the generalized development plan will be constructed by the owner of the land in question. This construction will be at the expense of the applicant/property owner. The said road connection from B to C will be constructed in associationwith any subdivision or site plan development within the development phase containing said road connection as shown on the approved master development plan. 6. Normal usage electrical and telephone systems required within the development area for service to the individual uses, will be placed underground. The development area is the area bounded by the limits of this proposed rezoning and ad}acent rights -of -way. 7. The applicant desires to donate $5,000.00, in cash, at the time of transfer of the first building lot or issuance of the first grading permit and an additional $5,000.00, in cash, at the time of the second building lot or issuance of the second grading permit to the Greenwood Fire Company in order to provide for the expanded commercial zoning fire needs. Should the entire site be transferred one parcel, the Appliant will make a $10,000.00, in cash, donation to the Greenwood Fire Company to be used for their needs. Kathryn W. Perry This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Passed this 26th day of September, I990. A Copy Taste John R} Rile�tJl. Frederick County Administrator Cl • LEGEND ZONING OF LOTS REZONING LOTS RA RESIDENTIAL & AGRICULTURAL) M2 SINGLE—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) M1 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) 82 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) -_j _ � J' , N • • 65—A-13B \\ \ 6A—A-129 64—A-158 11 65—A-13A ' s , t7 1 � 1 O' 65-A-86A / 0 / 65-A-86 d \ 1 o_ 65-A-80 � 1 65 A -81 • 1 \ I I 1 i DIST_ L � % SH 65—A-98/ , AWNEE DIST. -1r \ SULPHUR X SPRING RUN / 65—A-97 0 Om 6598A z `" 65—A-104 102A % 65-A 6S �p -99004 1 osA S q\0. 994 4�� le ' \ q� / ' 65-A-103B • 65-A-102 /0 50,/ 1000 65-A-103A ♦ -_ f 65-A-116 ROAD� VA RT 65-A-86 1 11 65-A-80 STONEWALL i W �CL00� wa o 26 3g Y Z l �d � 12 u W W jX W 0 W � ■ U J cD O) ( N 0 cn U)3 I I a� L N N � Co O 0 0 � cfl C o c 'o W .� a- 'r a J N���® � O C U W�D -CT�.. .— U C O � W ZW Q a LUMIL7 � zly- �w J W �Z Z lu ❑ W SURVEY: C.I.: NA NONE DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: RD 0403007 SCALE: DATE: 1"=50, 08/23/05 SHEET: Ex. 1 417 1 MILE IIUS FRC OF SITE 9 1130 Pf, E�� so 1 GREENWOOD HEIGHTS - HISTORICAL PROPERTY KEY V) Q / W Q 329 — FORD HOUSE O 415 — BAKER HOUSE I- Z � 1 BURNING 416 — GAYLORD DAWSON HOUSE � W 1153 1129 — CARPER—WYNN HOUSE** O Q_ 1130 — CARPER — CUNNINGHAM HOUSE U Y 5 1131 — WILT— DUNN—ARNOLD HOUSE ** J 1 132 — HOUSE, ROUTE 655 Q Q Y 1 133 — FULLER—CHAPMAN HOUSE** = U 0 1135 — ABANDONED BARN — ROUTE 655Of 1 136 — KEYSER—EDMONSON HOUSE** 00 W 1151 — FORD—BRAITHWAITE W ~ W N 416 1174 _ HOUSE ROUTE 50/17 Ld 2 1382 FINCHAM HOUSE w LrL. 1383 — MAUDE LOY HOUSE o Of a_ NOTE: ** INDICATES A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ' V SITE AS DENOTED BY THE RURAL LANDMARKS SURVEY REPORT OF FREDERICK COUNTY J t. 655 1132 1133 ' a41 �� m 1131 "poo �Q)0�°'" �`�`4��6 3: SITE "Cq -2 3•= ^� c rn oo s Lid °= o ° J v' ' v 1 +L" ° O O U U 362 O can O E w N a)a '�n ° W�uQ)U- 3 �mm_§��E Zw Q a JW W OW 1174 SURVEY: • ` NA N/A w•yR�, DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: 1 M � RADIUS OM CE 1200 0 1200 SEM 0402015 -�I m m SCALE: DATE: �[ 1"=1200' 08/23/05 SHEET � y C 1 °j• Scale 1' = 1200 ft : Z.�� 1 / 1 7 D 0 n P ro cn 0 II o LA 0 0 'h r O O O Mo �N P Lp r— o < c Z co o. M X M O BE 0 • N O m a o zo U, on CONSULTING cn !' cn . - ENGINEERS O 0 of 0 o I W&M M o■ AINTER-LEWIS, P. L.C. PROJECT: 116 South Stewart Street DRAINAGE AND Winchester, Virginia 22601 TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Telephone (540)662-5792 RED HAWK ESTATES Facsimile (540)662-5793 Email offfie@painterlewis.com FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA I (Eastbound) 20' j Trail Easement i Future Improved U Sulphur o Springs o : Run C Ui 0 al Proposed ;, Sulphur Springs Road Sulphur Springs .i. (Public Right -Of -Way) i Greenway Note: For illustrative purposes only; not for construction. Scale in Feet 0 10 Date: April 18, 2008 Prepared by: syrrpoetica Proposed Bike Trail (Typical) Illustrative Cross -Section (Trail to be constructed per Frederick County Parks & Recreation Dept. specifications.) Red Hawk Estates Illustration in Support of the Conceptual Plan Frederick County, Virginia Community Planners & Designers www.sympoetica.net Turner Enterprises, LLC 10, 5, or $edge Mul ipuurlpose j Sidewor 1141g e Trai 11 Varies 10' 40' 17.522' 16' 22' TO 40' 10' Front j i Front I Yard Yard Entry ; 2.5' 2.5' Entry Zone Streetscape Easement Travel Landscaped Travel Streetscape Easement : zone i Lanes Median Lanes j Building Building Setback 50 woad Efficiency Buffer 150 Road Efficiency Buffer Setback Line Public Right -Of -Way j„; Line Residentia Lot $0' Residential Lot Width Note: For illustrative purposes only; not for construction. Scale in Feet 0 10 20 Date: April 18, 2008 Prepared by: • syrypoetic,a Community Planners & Designers www.sympoetica.net Channing Drive Extended Illustrative Street Cross -Section At Build -Out Varies O 0 0 N 3 a) 0 a 0 Red Hawk Estates Illustration in Support of the Conceptual Plan Frederick County, Virginia Turner Enterprises, LLC Owner's Name: Pin #: Zoned: Use: Acreage: Sager, Juarez 65—A-12 RA Single Family Residential 1.0 Shuman, John A. 65—A-13A RA Single Family Residential 17.19 Cunningham, Walter C. & Wanda. M. 65—A-13B RA Single Family Residential 6.89 EFG Investments LLC 65—A-80 RA Single Family Residential 20.07 McAboy, Wilco L. Jr. 65—A-81 RA Single Family Residential 0.91 Whirley, George & Price, Leanno 65—A-81A RA Single Family Residential 0.92 EFG Investments, LLC 65—A-82 RA Single Family Residential 4.00 Malone, Charles R. & Judith K. 65—A-83 RA Single Family Residential 1.22 Parlette, Joanne 65—A-84 RA Single Family Residential 0.65 Shuman, John E 65—A-85 RA Single Family Residential 1.10 *Lehman H. Harold & Carrol A. 65—A-86 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 36.00 McKee, Kenneth F. Jr. 65—A-86A RA Single Family Residential 5.00 Williams, Helen V. 65—A-91 M2 Single Family Residential 3.20 Frederick County Ofc. RA Regional/Local Government 20.15 Frederick Co. Board 65—A-96 RA Regional/Local Government 0.28 Arnold, Thelma I. 65—A-97 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 43.00 *Wilkins, Bradley & Michelle 65—A-98 RA Single Family Residential 14.52 Boyce, Robert C. Sr. & Elmo 65—A-99 RA Single Family Residential 0.64 Williams, Raymond & Kathleen 65—A-99A RA Single Family Residential 1.00 Seal, Robert A. 65—A-100 RA Single Family Residential 1.00 Boyce, Robert C. Sr. & Elmo 65—A-100A RA Single Family Residential 1.43 Seal, Robert A. & Jennifer M. 65—A-101 RA Single Family Residential 1.08 *Moulden, Donald W. Sr. 65—A-102 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 27.00 *Moulden, Donald W. Sr. 65—A-102A RA Single Family Residential 5.00 Robinson, David C. & Carol A. 65—A-103A RA Single Family Residential 16.00 Robinson, David C. & Carol A. 65—A-103B RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 33.00 Yeatras, George, Peter & Chris 65—A-104 RA Agricultural/Undeveloped 56.00 Arcadia Development Co. 65—A-116 B2 Commercial & Industrial 59.06 Ambrose-, Sondre Anne Cam;nbell 64—A,-129 PA Agricultural/Undeveloped 1C7.5o Perry Properties 64—A-158 M1 Commercial & Industrial 44.97 Lf)ZU)C/)o _ \ n m ;u m D D K > Z 00 N °1 � o tV O 03 * denotes subject parcels zC P D Z n CONSULTING AINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. PROJECT: 116 south Stewart Street I RED HAWK ESTATES Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone (540)662-5792 Facsimile (540)662-5793 P-mnil nfffj, ( nnin+crInXA1;0 rnm PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA u � V p �. ... � �.. ,,-s i t��di1 Kid .. p � yp r, � .,•r- O'!_ r rs -a �J1 i''� 0 4 , . 'Zl�,'C wM4 �; ` - I���i�•_�' n orJ. - � i , ,ram R! !r. ae �,. /►„� 7,' •a �i•�: �.;... Y Q C■ p/ � �.�.�—� � �� v ��`� ' 0 �QQ 0 ' � �il•r � v� Q.�,•f4� i7+'Vw'tQ1�yi�'a�' !:!,gQQ��.,aA �f0 q ~��t�1�V Qa�- • O�,,A�►� �.. O©� l Cf�► s 4p ��� �O t� �q : `:�*ESL i �,t►•�Q u� �'�� © L�J�+ / '���"©�' �� !1 � � G f 1 �` V��� ��..,.� � t'�QiLr 6�!'ijOjCs ��i%y �•Y ag Up r, Flit WK. I 11, 1 � eee �� ��� ice.—.•;_ I AF � 0214 o a may . _-_ ;'_ � • , •;fie ��,:�oc Q y`..,'�'�y,© h���`.`�r ;'� i _. • �. \� G�" ®t',�p�d�A ��r�� wigs:...��` - - _ _ �- __. _ _ ��j - .- FA 1 —M ON n&VMS" • •: :e 1 • - mu RIM ok nim 4• _ J � ���j�rQCCppp•- L � •' I �w.� �1 -,.,r� an ``±s�,•. _p' QpE����►flq "Bea BCD oCC�a / y� HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFE-95IONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) 7 6 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAx 540-662-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.mm STEVEN F. JACKSON July 18, 2008 HAND -DELIVERED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Red Hawk Estates (Turner Enterprises, L.L.C.) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: JUL 18 M PLEASE REPLY TO P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 I have reviewed the above referenced Proposed Proffer Statement dated May 1, 2008. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. Proffer 1.1 does not seem to me to be a proffer. The Property is sought to be rezoned to the RP zoning district, and the proffer essentially says that the development shall be in conformity with the regulations of the RP zoning district. That is required in any event, and the clause at the end of the proffer, "or as may be approved by Frederick County", seems to suggest that Frederick County may approve developments that do not comply with the RP zoning district regulations. 2. In Proffer 1.2, it should be noted that the conformity with the GDP is limited to "locations for residential dwelling units, open spaces, improvements and roadways". Therefore, any other elements of the GDP, if any, would not be subject to this proffer. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP July 18, 2008 Page 2 3. In Proffer 1.6, staff should note that the preservation of steep slopes is limited to slopes in excess of 50%, and that the Applicant reserves the right to install "recreational facilities" in the floodplain and steep slopes areas. 4. In Proffer 3.1, it is not clear to whom the 20-foot wide easement for the bicycle and pedestrian trails shall be dedicated. The use of the term "dedicate" would indicate that the easement will be conveyed to the County. With that assumption, looking at the first and last sentences of this proffer, it appears that the easement would be dedicated to the County, but with the obligation of the property owners' association to maintain the easement. If that is what is being proposed, the first sentence of proffer 3.1 should indicate that the Applicant shall dedicate "to the County" the subject easement. If the foregoing is the proposal, then changes need to be made to proffers 12.1 and 12.2, which limit the property owners' association obligation for maintenance and repair to those areas "not dedicated to the County" or "not otherwise dedicated to public use". 5. In Proffer 8.3, I would recommend changing the word "in" in the fifth line to "by". 6. The County should note the time limit of ten years in Proffer 10.3 with regard to the proffer of $650,000.00 toward the construction of an indoor shooting range. 7. Changes may be called for in Proffers 12.1 and 12.2, as noted in paragraph 4 above. 8. I would recommend the Applicant adding a proffer as 12.4, which provides as follows: "The organizational documents of the POA and all deeds of dedication or declarations recorded for the development shall , HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP .July 18, 2008 Page 3 expressly provide that, and will be in a form so that, the POA is subject to the Property Owner's Association Act (Virginia Code §55-508, et seg.)" 9. Proffer 14.1 should include a timing factor as to when the right-of- way would be dedicated for Greenwood Road and Channing Drive. I would suggest that the dedication would occur within a specific period of time from notice by the County, perhaps 60 days. 10. I would recommend the Applicant reword the beginning of Proffer 14.3 to read as follows: "The Applicant shall contribute an amount up to $180,000.00 to the County for the cost of construction ..." 11. There should be a timing provision in 514.4 as to the construction of Channing Drive. It is presumed that this proffer is addressed to the portion of Channing Drive located on the Applicant's Property, although that is not specifically stated in the proffer. 12. There is a significant legal question as to the enforceability of Proffer 14.5. The Applicant's proffer to construct the proposed Channing Drive on the property owned by Arcadia Development Co. is dependent upon a construction easement being granted from Arcadia Development Co. to the Applicant to go onto the property to construct the road, and further, is dependent upon Arcadia Development Co. agreeing to dedicate the road right-of-way to the County or VDOT. Arcadia Development Co. is not a signatory to this proffer statement, and even if it did join in this proffer statement for this purpose, it may not constitute legal notice to a subsequent purchaser of the Arcadia Development Co. property. It is further noted that the Applicant only represents that it has a "memorandum of understanding" with Arcadia to "agree to enter a definitive agreement". In order to make this proffer MONAHAN, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP July 18, 2008 enforceable, the Applicant would need to have an executed declaration of restrictive covenant on the Arcadia property under which the temporary easement would be granted and the dedication agreed to be made, or, in the alternative, there would need to be a proffer to that effect on the Arcadia property. I assume that there is not a rezoning application pending for the Arcadia property, so the proffer option may not be feasible. Also, the dedication of the road right-of-way should occur before the construction of the road, not after. 13. The staff should note that while the GDP shows Sulphur Springs Road running across the Applicant's property, there are no proffers related to any improvements to or associated with Sulphur Springs Road. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact ery Illy yours, Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. Red Hawk Rezoning Page 1 of 2 Pettler, Steve From: Hottle, Cathy [Cathy.Hottle@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd. Ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, MarcYi -12, 2008 9:22 AM To: Pettler, Steve Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; mruddy@co.frederick.va.us; Funkhouser, Rhonda Subject: Red Hawk Rezoning The documentation within' the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 655, 656 and 50. These Routes are the VDOT roadway's which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is Not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Red Hawk Estates rezoning application dated January 15, 2008 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. VDOT offers the following comments: The applicant has increased the financial contribution from $60,000 to $150,000 for potential off -site improvements along Sulphur Springs Road. While the increase is welcomed, it is far less (approx $625 per unit) than many of the recent rezonings have provided. The residence lots noted along existing Greenwood road should not be constructed until such time as Greenwood road thru traffic has been relocated to future Channing Drive as shown on the County's Eastern Road Plan. The existing roadway lacks sufficient sight distance to safely allow for ingress and egress to these residential sites. VDOT suggests that the applicant look at the possibility of accessing the Town House portion of the development via Route 50 and the Arcadia parcel adjacent to the proposed development vs., constructing a crossing of the Sulphur Spring stream. VDOT is willing to meet with the applicant to review the above comments. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingram 3/12/2008 Red Hawk Rezoning Page 2 of 2 10 49, Transportation Engineer VDOT N Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) 3/12/2008 0 0 RJ Turner From: 'Ingram, Lloyd"<Lloyd.Ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov> To: <rjturner@turnerre.com> Cc: 'Ingram, Lloyd"<Lloyd.Ingram@VDOT.Virgin ia.gov> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:09 PM Attach: SCN_20060425130724_001.pdf Subject: Red Hawk Estates - Rezoning Application Mr. Turner, After reviewing your rezoning application, it has been determined the Traffic Impact Statement you have provided is not sufficient to allow us to make an adequate response to your request. We are asking the Traffic Impact Analysis be conducted meeting the criteria stated in the attached. «SC N_20060425130724_001. pdf>> Due to the complexity of the growth in this particular area, as well as the volumes of traffic that currently utilize the road, this additional information will be required prior to VDOT making final comments on the rezoning application. Once you have selected a consultant to conduct this investigation, please have them contact us so we can determine the limits of the scope required for this traffic impact analysis. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) 4/26/2006 Control number Date received Date reviewed Date Revised RZ06-0006 4/4/2006 .4/25/2006 Project Name Applicant Red Hawk Estate Turner Enterprises Address City State Zip Applicant Phone 2971 Valley Ave. Winchester VA 22601 540-722-2200 Type Application Tax ID Number Fire District Rescue District Rezoning 65-A-98,102 18 18 Current Zoning Election District RA Recommendations Shawnee Automatic Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm System Residential Sprinkler System No No No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Siamese Location Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Plan approved as submitted. Requirements Hydrant Location Roadway/Aisleway Width Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature �p Yes J• Neal Title E Rezoning Continents Fire and Rescue Company Name of Fite & Rescu N Com zany. i �I ,e. Attn: Fire Chief or Assistant l" ire Chien 0 Add►i-ess�&Phonve Applicant: Please till out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Firc and Rescue Squad xvith their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and ally, other• pe►-tinent information. Applicant's Name: Turner Enterprises, LLC Telephone: 722-2200 ivlailing Address: --29-7-L Valley Avenue _._W.nchester, VA 22601 Location of property: North and South of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Rte 655) East of Greenwood Road (VA Rte 656) including Brimstone Lane; Shawnee Magisterial District Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 85.2 Fire and Rescue Company's Comments: - -0 4&10 L��ut�/1(L - JaL ew Fire & Res ie Company's , Signature & Date: Notice to Fire & Rescue Company Please Return This Form to the Applicant WX VAR 10 `�l?' Rezoning CommOs 0 Fire and Rescue Company CComments on rezoning§ will be needed from the fire and rescue company serving the location in • question. Please fill in the attached comment sheet with the name of the fire and rescue squad serving the location and obtain the comment from that squad. A list of the County Fire and Rescue Company follows the comment sheet. Fire and Rescue Company Name of Fire & Rescue Company: Address & Phone !� 0 Greenwood Fire & Rescue Applicant's Name: Turner Enterprisers, LLC Telephone: 722-2200 Mailing Address: 2971 VA l l e y Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: North and South of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) East of Greenwood Road Route inc uding Brimstone Lane; awnee ages eria istrict Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 85. 2 ?a `e�7ri�kiltesc e'`Cx'm111b 'sSomYxie t's�``." '`''r ; r�,1 'z- 4 p�}},��'P •i..�,?'!}.�: ,Xjjy j' ..jNrt>•.. • F �'y'yJl�- i` �7, .1."''Cr 1!s�:a;�•'.'tr; �'� ,7 ` a._�ai•..'Z�u"it �r�.t 'L�K'3•G ••'}. � 'M U��� I .5., i�,'Si? �{i Y4'�'-. •� `�•.��Ti' ^ I��IY ��.;t Y -y,. {.'\f � „��°. ,; y,l,�'y,,f�)J;/' s ?'.-s'x..✓.?..•.�. y.'` 9<. •@•-: �.�.r•1�?'�•., , -)�Swi... ( 4 '1 L• .i 1a W) t•� y � ffi G� ��� •' � r,'1-�� � F. .�i FiJ P'f t S �.''.5"f h � t + d E'4 't��fr e^ Y � x� �• 'S (< � f ! ��/t< +S.i ,� � a_<y.t iJ' 1 C 1' n r 3 '4� � �'� �•rfb, "L +usi�kw :. tY F( •� f4 1 '3 �5 s F 4 1fS k 5 es''�a' �t•F.% t� 1 f�Si-'� < f SY>r F SS z a t a ' ' t T. 5 � y - � 5��. f 'O�• S�{fYy-� �� .v�s �" t`�' <i, tdl Y v�- �{. f i 'j�4�rf�..11 �`�15+�.�`'i$, k` "Y� ;:�aS�"eF�2'4 ;Fttff:r � s-k hYfiY�; t5 • 1 Y Y? \ � bkY!v. Y� kh l 1 < 5 t- i L �A fS.. •Gl - *"'l K L, tfi�1 i `I � � � �^kS i5 i b i[ {:S.?+. <it;,['y^z y .y�vaz -�• , 1 � a . � r< / 1?� z� � �'! 2`<f'_ � ,�9y��tnc.�\ c° .G.� 1 •, bra° � i i,�ky ;L� t , t � . - < r ,, �. � $ _ f` ,� 1. 1t e`,8; ecue Company/'s: �iia`t7i z.,l i '� _ ti 1'i !Y t i-13,zr l o ounce Lo rire m Kescue %-ompany - riease tceturn '1'his V'orm to the Applicant 31 0 0 nine Co Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Turner Enterprises, LLC Telephone: 7 2 2 — 2 2 0 0 Mailing Address: 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester VA 22601 Location of property: North and South of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) East of Greenwoo oa (VA_Route 656) including Brimstone Lane: awnee agisteria is ric Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R P Sanitation Authority Comments: 1'r lI Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: v" Acreage: 8 5 - 2 Notice to Sanitation Authority - Please Return This Form to the Applicant (' 6 24 FREDERICK COUN, SANITATION AUTHORITY P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604-8377 ROBERT P. MOWERY, C.P.A., Chairman JOHN STEVENS, Vice-chairman RICHARD A. RUCKMAN, P.E., Sec -treasurer J. STANLEY CROCKETT DARWIN S. BRADEN January 25, 2008 Harrison & Johnston, PLC Mr. Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. 21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application of January 2008 Dear Mr. Pettler: Wellington H. Jones, P.E. Engineer -Director Ph. - (540) 868-1061 Fax - (540) 868-1429 We should have sufficient sewer and water capacity to serve this development. All Respectfully, John G. Whitacre Senior Engineer 8 WATER AT YOUR SERVICE Rezoning Comments Frederick -Winchester Service Authority 'Mail to: I'rcc1-Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse NV. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 722-3579 C� Hand deliver to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffctt 107 North Kent Strcet Winchcster, Virginia Applicant: PIL:?SC fell oLlt th('. lnf=r�!'!1)at'•on %ls'7CCL!!'atelyas posSlhte In ordel'to ::ss!st the ]"•feel --Wilk Se!'\rice ALltllorit), \a itli their revic\\7. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. ;applicant's Name: Turner En e__rpr Ge. , LLC "helephone: 772-27nn Mailing Address: 2971 Valley Road ----.- Location of property: North and South of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Rte 655) East of Greenwood Road (VA Rte 656) including Brimstone nP; Shawnee Magisterial District Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: I1 etl-��i11C e f�,ntj3nt 't�'s Comments: 4e! • :s Acreage: 85.2 r � r �i �s o• 1006 1 et re'gcL �' q ux�er c�,nJ serer u5age . Fred -`Vine Service Authority`S� Signature & Date: _ — ----- --- 2 ----- Notice to bred -Wine Service Authority - Please Return Form to Applicant 31 Aederick-Winchester Servi a Authorit y Post Office Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 COffice: 107 North Kent Street County Office Complex Winchester, Virginia 22601 1-540-722-3579 April 11, 2006 Turner Enterprisers, LLC 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Gentlemen: SUBJECT: COMMENTS — RED HAWK ESTATES There are no flow projections given for water and sewer usage. The plan seems to indicate there are 232 dwelling units, which could be equated to around 50,000 gallons a day. The developer should verify water and sewer usage. Sic ely, Jesse W. Moffett Executive Director Frederick -Winchester Service Authority JWM:ncg 0 * *AtWmfaiodm and Pro olJ Me V q � Mq aEaas of ilia ComNttwity fRroagR BNvlrohmaNfaE StawardsliJp" ` • • IR-6D�-/ Frederick -Winchester Health Department Mail to: Frederick -'Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 722-3480 17JA Hand deliver to: Frederick -Winchester Health Department Attu: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Suite 201 Winchester, Virginia 11,1'li�ant: Please Gill out the information GIs accurately _�s possible in order to assist the Frederick-Mlinchester I Iealth Department with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location nnap, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. A) ljcantls'Name: Tnrnar Entarnri QaC _ Telephone: 722-2200 Madhig Address: 2971 Valley Avenue ,_.._--- __._...._-.._..___..—__ Winchester VA......29&0.1 Location of'property: North and South of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Rte 655) East of Greenwood Road (VA RtE 656) inclticling Rrimctnna Tana• Shawnee Magisterial District Current ronirng: _ RA Zoning requested: rctlerick-Wiinc:nester H.Calth De1,:11'tnnent's �Cooninjents: _/ 2t v J— Health Dept. Signature & Date: RP 1i Acreage: ....85, 2 _ Notice to Health Depa•tnnent - Please izeturn 'nis Form to the Applicant 24 (0 • `I Rezoning Comme is Frederick -Winchester Health Department Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick -Winchester Health Department Frederick- Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Suite 201 (540) 722-3480 Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Turner Enterprisers, LLC Telephone: 722_2200 Mailing Address: 2971 V A l l e y Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: North and South of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) East of Greenwood Road Route 5 including Brimstone Lane; Shawnee Magisterial District Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 85 - 2 f rexKeck Wmcheser He�ith Dertment)'s`Comments: x ;' `E r '� } ky�{ 3� � '`; .� i x c"rc r _ s'c �- .. ni �� ajr`'w�nXAf?j. Y' r T'.s � � �,m��.C. � �'Ll<2��tra_�rc s ' � y � Y_- £ � 7) ♦ _c 1 ' SC ' � t r g [ Kf y 7�8 2 w �%�t %.Tf: & ;tx:n ,}•..4Yj ltt s, `F. Z,at e� C y� }. c a, 7 G� fat 'vi S> s> i.. c Notice to Health Department - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 26 Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation mail to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5678 Iq {Nv G Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia FApp-licant: Please till out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the part�rent ol'Parks & Recreatio�i with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent Applicant's Name: Turner Enterprises, LLC Telephone: 722-2200_._____. Mailing Address: _ 2971 Valley Avenue —. Location of property: North and South of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Rte 655) East of Greenwood Road (VA Rte 656) including Brimstone Lane;_ Shawnee Magisterial District Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: _ Rp Acreage: R 5 2 Department of Parlcs & Recreation Continents: See Attached Comments Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: See Attached Notice to Department of Parks & Recreation - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 21 Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Comments January 30, 2008 The proffer statement, as it relates to trails, open space and parks and recreational amenities, includes so many generalities and contingencies it is difficult to understand the impact of the proffer. Staff recommends the developer commit to specific offerings that are measurable today. Staff recommends the county proffer model be used in determining the impact this development will have on the capital facilities needs of the Parks and Recreation Department. Furthermore, the construction of the trails should be completed by the developer and in accordance with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan, with no reduction in the cash proffer for Parks and Recreation capital facility development. The 100 % hard surface trail system, on public easements, should then be turned over to the HOA. All trails should meet Frederick County Standards. Staff also recommends that more specific benchmarks be used when identifying when the development of amenities will be completed. Plan appears to provide the appropriate amount of usable open space. Plan should include a trails summary outlining locations, costs, typical sections, schedule for development and how, and by whom, trails will be maintained. Developer should determine whether all conditions necessary for the inclusion of the bicycle trail can be met and then complete the proffer accordingly. Construction of the trail system should take place as Red Hawk Estates is being developed. The schedule for trail construction should not be based on development of adjoining parcels. The area to be dedicated as community open space should be more clearly defined. The developer should provide a more concrete proposal pertaining to the offer of obtaining the "Community Wildlife Designation". It is not clear to staff if the information pertaining to Parks and Recreation in section 9 of this report constitutes an offer by the developer to include these amenities within this development. M. Doran, Director and Recreation c0 • Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation MAil w. Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5678 Nand deliver tg; Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Parks & Recreation with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent Applicant'sNarne: Turner Enterprisers, LLC Telephone: 722-2200 .' Mailing Address: 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: Nnrth and South of Sulphur Springs Road (VA Route 655) East of Greenwood Road (VA Route 656) including Brimstone Lane; Shawnee Magister a1 District Current zoning: RA- Zoning requested: R P _ Acreage: 8 5.2 Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: See attached comments Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: Notice to Department of arks & Recreation - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 22 D RED HAWK REZONING COMMENTS C • Staff recommends plan include a hard surface trail system plan meeting FCPRD standards, providing connectivity within the development and to existing and future development. • The proposed monetary proffer does not appear adequate to address the impact this development will have on this department's capital facility needs. According to the county proffer model, it appears the capital facility impact of this development would be $395,123. • The soccer complex entrance road should be designed to meet VDOT standards for hard surfaced roadways. • Plan does not appear to include a timeline for development of soccer complex. • There is a discrepancy in the rezoning package as to whether there are three or four soccer fields included in the project. • All proposed recreational facilities should meet Frederick County standards and be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. (� • The plan does not appear to provide a summary of usable open space included with the development. No more than 50% of required open space can be within lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. • Plan should indicate the proposed use of the land purchased from the county that is located west of the soccer fields. • The proposed 20 ft. wide macadam surface trail/path along the south side of Sulphur Spring Road is six feet wider than it needs to be. All hard surface trails should meet FCPRD standards. This trail should link to the entrance road to the development and continue as part of the hard surface trail system throughout the development. Specifications for soccer field construction should have to be approved by the county. • In section 9 of the rezoning package, The Contract of Sale states that if the property is found to be unsuitable for the desired purposes, the contract can be terminated. If the developer exercises this option, other considerations should be required to meet the recreational demands of the residents of this development. r. Fredfrick County Pubic Schools ... to ensure all students an excellent education K. Wayne Lee, Jr. CZA . Coordinator of Planning and Development . leew@frederick.k12.va.us February 25, 2008 Mr. Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Harrison & Johnston, PLC 21 South Loudoun Street P.O. Box 809 Winchester, VA 22604 Re: Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Dear Mr. Pettler, Frederick County Public Schools has reviewed the Red Hawk Estates rezoning package submitted to us on January 24, 2008. We offer the following comments: 1. The cumulative impact of this project and other projects in various stages of development in eastern Frederick County will necessitate future construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. We estimate that the 71 single-family detached units and the 166 single-family attached units that this development will contain will house 28 high school students, 25 middle school students, and 49 elementary school students. In order to properly serve these 102 students, Frederick County Public Schools will outlay $3,583,000 in capital expenditures and $1,042,000 annually in operating costs. You will find, enclosed with this letter, a more detailed assessment of the impact of the Red Hawk Estates development on FCPS. 2. The cash proffers for school construction total $3,463,000. This would defray most but not all of the resultant capital costs noted above. The current intersection of Greenwood Road and Sulphur Springs Road is in an awkward and unsafe arrangement for school buses. Buses turning right momentarily block both lanes of traffic. Based on the Conceptual Plan contained in the Impact Analysis Statement, potentially two additional buses (one elementary and one middle/high) would travel through this intersection. Improvements to Greenwood Road and extension of Channing Drive per the Eastern Road Plan would improve safe transportation of students. We note the proffered dedication of right-of-way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and the extension of Channing Drive and the proffered construction of a portion of Channing Drive. Unfortunately, relocating Greenwood Road and connecting it to Channing Drive will occur at a later date as neighboring parcels develop. 1415 Amherst Street P.O. Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 www.frederickAl2.va.us 540-662-3889 Ext. 88249 540-662-4237fax SCANNED C G D D 7 )nno 0 0 Page 2 of 2 4. Please note there are two different Conceptual plans and two different Generalized Development plans in the packet submitted to us (under tabs 6 and 10). Frederick County Public Schools is concerned about all land development applications. Both capital expenditures and annual operating costs are significantly increased by each approved residential development, as is illustrated above and in the attached development assessment. Please feel free to contact me at leew@frederick.kl2.va.us or 540-662-3888 x88249 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, K. Wayne e, Jr., CZA Coordinator of Planning and Development enclosure Cc: Mrs. Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools Mr. Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Project Name: Red Hawk Estates Assessment Date: February 25, 2008 Housing Type Single-family detached Single-family attached Multifamily Totals Frederick County Public Schools Development Assessment Student Generation Housing Units 71 166 237 School Cost Capacity Per Student Cost Students Generated by this Development This Development's Impact on FCPS Capital Costs Elementary School Student Generation 17 32 0 49 Capital Costs Elementary School Cost (2008 CIP) $19,900,000 750 $26,533 49 $1,300,000 Middle School Student Generation 9 16 0 25 Middle School Cost (2008 CIP) 35,542,000 850 $41,814 25 $1,045,000 High School Student Generation 12 16 0 28 High School Cost (2008 CIP) 55,250,000 1250 $44,200 28 $1 Total Student Generation 38 64 0 102 Total Capital Costs i 0 Annual Oaerational Costs on FCPS Operational Costs 2007-08 School Attendance Zone* September 15, 2007 Student Enrollment 2007-08 Program Capacity FY 2008 Budgeted Cost Total Student Per Student Generation Annual $10,215 102 $1,04 School Facility Information * - School Attendance Zones are subject to change. Elementary School (Grades K-5) Evendale 695 644 Middle School (Grades 6-8) Richard E. Byrd 810 850 High School (Grades 9-12) Millbrook 1,278 1,250 9 i 0 �J Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Mr. R. J. Turner Turner Real Estate, LLC 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Turner: • Frederick County Public Schools RE: Red Hawk Estate Rezoning Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us April 24, 2006 e-mail: kapocsis®frederick.k12.va.us This letter is in response to your request for comments regarding the rezoning application for the proposed Red Hawk Estate rezoning project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 58 single-family homes will yield 10 high school students, 8 middle school ! students, and 23 elementary school students. The proposed 166 townhouses will yield 18 high school (• students, 20 middle school students, and 51 elementary school students for a total of 130 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Respectfully yours, Stephen M. Kapocsi Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent SMK:dkr cc: William C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools A] Omdorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Charles Puglisi, Director of Transportation 540-662-3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-662-3890 `'�WdenGs AnF c P C H a Frederick County Public Schools Administrative Assistant to Visit us at www.frederick.k12va.us the Superintendent November 4, 2005 Mr. R.J. Turner, M.B.A., M.S. Turner Enterprises, LLC 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Turner: e-mail: kapocsis@frederickk1Zva.us I would like to thank your for meeting with Mr. Orndorff and talking with me per telephone regarding the assemblage of properties (proposed RedHawk Estate subdivision) on Sulphur Springs Road in the Shawnee Magisterial District as a possible school site. At this time, Frederick County Public Schools have no interest for land in the specific area. I would also like to thank you for your commitment to continue to work with Frederick County Public Schools in acquiring suitable school sites. If I can be of any further service, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, L c Stephe M. Kapos Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent SMK: dkr 0 540-662-3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-662-3890 • 0 Rezoning Comments Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 662-2422 Winchester Regional Airport Hand deliver to: ` NVinchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road (Rt. 645, off of Rt. 522 South) Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please lill OLIt the R-it"or llatlon as iicuuratcly as possible In order to assist the Winchester Regional Airport Nvlth their revim. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Appllcallt's N,iiiie: Tnrner_._Entex4 ri sPs, T.T.0 Telephone: 722_2200 mallillg Address: 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 -- -... ........__...._.... _............ .... Location of property: North and South of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Rte 655) East of Greenwood Road (VA Rte 656) including Brimstone Lane; Shawnee Magisterial District Current zoning: ___ RA Zoning requested: Winchester Regional Airport's Comments- J ( \ -_-_a- Winclicster Regional Airport's Signature & Date: RP Acreage: 85.2 Notice to Winchester Regional Airport - Please Return Form to Applicant :: • 0 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662-2422 March 4, 2008 Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Harrison & Johnston, PLC Post Office Box 809 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Re: Rezoning Comment — Red Hawk Estates Revised Proffer Statement Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Pettler: After review of the revised proffer statement regarding the rezoning request for Red Hawk Estates for proposed residential performance we did not see anything addressing our prior comment made in 2006 as follows: "The proposed site does lie within airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport and is in close proximity to the northeastern edge of the Airport Support Area. In order to protect growth and future operations of the Winchester Airport, residential occupants should be provided with disclosure statements, about the close proximity of the site to the Airport and the possibility of experiencing noise from over flights of aircraft arriving to and departing from the Winchester Regional Airport." The center of the proposed residential development portion of the project with 239 residential units is less than 6,000 feet from the centerline of the runway at the Winchester Regional Airport. With twenty-four operations, jet traffic has steadily increased over the past several years and continues to grow with owners of larger jet aircraft housing their jets at Winchester. We are not opposing the rezoning request but we do feel it is important to protect the operations of the airport and request you include our request to make known to future homeowners that they are in close proximity to a regional airport through a disclosure statement and/or a covenant in their deed. We appreciate the opportunity to review these plans and your cooperation in ensuring the continuing operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, K 0-b,4 cam_ Serena R. Manuel Executive Director MAR - 5 2008 Rezoning Comments C Winchester P Regional Airport g Mail to: Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 (Rt. 645, off of Rt. 522 South) (540) 662-2422 Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Turner Enterprisers, LLC Telephone: 722-2200 Mailing Address: 2971 VA l l e y Avenue Winches ter—, Location of property: North and South of Sulphur Spring Road (VA Route 655) East of Greenwood Road (VA Route 656) including Brimstone Lane; Shawnee Magisterial District Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 85.2 Notice to Winchester Regional Airport - Please Return Form to Applicant lm • • WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA / April 17, 2006 Turner Enterprises, LLC 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, Virginia 22601 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Re: Rezoning Comment — Red Hawk Estates 59 iai�vnce Magisterial District Dear Mr. Turner: After review of the proposed rezoning request for Red Hawk Estates for proposed residential performance, we offer the following comment: The proposed site does lie within airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport and is in close proximity to the northeastern edge of the Airport Support Area. In order to protect growth and future operations of the Winchester Airport, residential occupants should be provided with disclosure statements, about the close proximity of the site to the Airport and the possibility of experiencing noise from over flights of aircraft arriving to and departing from the Winchester Regional Airport. We appreciate the opportunity to review these plans and your cooperation in ensuring the continuing operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, S. R. Manuel Executive Director • a • Rezoning Comments Nhtil to: Blue Ridge Forestry Consultants, Inc. Consulting Forester It 171 Hume Road Hume, VA 22630 Hand deliver to: Blue Ridge Forestry Consultants, Inc. Consulting Forester 11171 Hume Road Hume, VA 22630 A1)I)llcallt: Please fill out the IIYlormatlon as accurately as possible In order to assist the 1)epartmellt of Public 'Works `-vith their revim. Attach a copy of your applieatiorl form, location snap, proffer statement, impact .ui:-tlysis, and any other pertinent information. Apl)licant's \aisle: Turner Enterprises, LLC Telephone Ylailin- ;Address: 2971_ Va11ey_-Avenue WinrhoSter, VA 72601 _._—.._.....__.... Location of pi-operty: North and South of Sulfur Sprinsr Road (VA Rte 655) East of Greenwood Road (VA Rte 656) including Brimstone Lane; Shawnee Magisterial District 722-2200 Current Zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP AcreaLpe: 85.2 _ ks Comments: )DAI] V - I'Uhhl-- a Si` -nature & Date: i(s - Please Return This Fol•In to tile ApplicaIlt Blue Ridge Forestry 19 Consulting, Ina Jeremy A. Clem P.O. Box M Flint Hill, VA 22627 • 0 BLUE RIDGE FORESTRY CONSULTING, INC. "COMPLETE FORESTRY SERVICES" JEREMY A. CLEM GARY A. YOUNKIN CONSULTING FORESTERS PHONE: (540) 636-7956 Mr. Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Harrison & Johnston, PLC; P. O. Box 809 Winchester, VA 22604 Dear Mr. Pettler, PO BOX 665 FLINT HILL, VA February 12, 2008 FAX: (540) 636-9-917070 E-MAIL: JCLEM-BRFC@COMCASTNET Enclosed please find the comment form for the Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application. There were no changes to the plan that will affect the overall forest productivity, aesthetics or wildlife qualities of the forest. If you have any questions concerning my comments or if you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Jerem A. Clem, A.C.F. Consulting Forester TIMBER SALES . TIMBER APPRAISALS • TIMBER STAND IMPROVEMENT • FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS • WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLANS • WILDLIFE PLANTING MEMBER: ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING FORESTERS AND SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS F E 0 14 208 0 • GARY A. YOUNM JEREMY A. CLEF' CONSULTING FOF:_ PHONE: t540) 364 �. ... • • Mr. RJ Turner Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. 2971 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Turner, March 14, 2006 I recently had an opportunity to evaluate your 85 acre property located east of Winchester on Sulphur Spring Road in Frederick County, Virginia. The forest consists of a variety of hardwood and softwood timber species. Virginia pine, chestnut oak, scarlet oak, white oak and hickory are the predominant species present. Both the growth rates and tree quality in the present stand are poor due to the site conditions. The soil in that area is a droughty and acidic soil, which is not productive for growing commercial timber species. Because of these conditions, very little can be done to improve the health and vigor of the current stand. The best recommendation for this type of site is to clear cut and reforest with loblolly pine. The growth rate of these trees will be slow as well but the pine species are better suited for an acidic site. contact me. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to Very truly yours, Jeremy A.Clem, A.C.F. Consulting Forester S338 0, 670 .may, ; • �--'`4 � ri It �; `. , r • ' : �+� -.� � �r-`/�'�-,,•�-_..,.I.1,��t •, 5t �. �.•• .'t`'.. ' 1 f • t - ti f� # \' . '�`• ` i t `1 j,!' �! '� i / ' � t) � . � '.u. ��_1 r �'�. � `` :'f \ ° ��y_. - �� ^�. i�� 11 ! .5� i. S }T'�i' f "� t~l • � � f �� ,t ,,it � j[�.4 ����. �1 '',. • 1 ,%. a `„ ��=�• ,`,1'. ; 1� \ � �- �` Ax 0000 FEET (1 c ,.... • ti"� �' � 1 ,` � 'fir � �. ''r _ / f INS 4336 Nk 67 - `.` I • • . In J..' ,' �`���. .,' .�� ti• `. —j may. ame: STEPHENSON Location: 039. 08' 50.30" N 078. 06' 48.22" W Date: 3/14/2006 Caption: Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet Prep. By Blue Ridge Forestry Consultants, Inc. lb 0 APPENDIX • • HCS+ Work Sheets 0 • war TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information lyst PHR+A nc /Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0712612006 nalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalysis Year )ring & Greenwood VA Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Greenwood Road North/South Street: Route 656 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 162 74 60 122 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 170 77 0 0 63 128 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ume (veh/h) 45 209 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 47 0 220 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 170 267 C (m) (veh/h) 1383 773 v/c 0.12 0.35 95% queue length 0.42 1.55 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 12.1 ' S A 8 roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 12.1 pproach LOS -- -- 8 opyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:15 PM Vw'TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMIARY General Information Site Information lyst PHR+A nc /Co. PHR+A e Performed Ina 0712612006 lysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Greenwood Road Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 284 128 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 298 134 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT U stream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T lume (veh/h) 20 ak-Hour Factor, PHF lHourly 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate, HFR eh/h) 21 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT v (veh/h) 298 C (m) (veh/h) 1388 v/c 0.21 95% queue length 0.82 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 OS A Ppproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- proach LOS -- -- Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year South Street: Route 656 Period (hrs): 0.25 9 R 154 0.95 162 2 )ring & Greenwood VA Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:17 PM r_l All HCS+W DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information lyst PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 07/25/2006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Sulphur Spring Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, Virginia Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Red Hawk Estates Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 2 1 0 0 Lane Group L T T R LR Volume, V (vph) 141 651 374 95 113 156 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 4 1 9 9 4 4 1 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 iftrking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Maneuvers, Nm 7rking Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 18.0 G= 37.0 G= G= G= 23.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 148 685 394 100 283 Lane Group Capacity, c 347 2028 1364 638 421 v/c Ratio, X 0.43 0.34 0.29 10.16 10.67 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.20 0.61 0.41 0.41 0.26 Uniform Delay, di 31.5 8.6 17.7 16.7 30.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.24 [Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.2 al Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #ntrolDelay 32.3 8.7 17.8 16.8 34.3 Lane Group LOS C A B B C Approach Delay 12.9 17.6 34.3 Aft F-1 Approach LOS MR g I w C Intersection Delay 18.1 Xc = 0.44 Intersection LOS g 40 © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:17 PM 0 r F-1 MW HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information lyst PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0712512006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Sulphur Spring Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, Virginia Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Red Hawk Estates Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 2 1 0 0 Lane Group L T T R LR Volume, V (vph) 257 602 1 721 155 80 145 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 4 1 9 9 4 4 1 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 1 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 dftrking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N rking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing 1Y= G= 20.0 G= 35.0 G= G= G= 23.0 G= G= G= 0 Y= 6 Y= I Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 271 634 759 163 237 Lane Group Capacity, c 386 2028 1291 604 419 v/c Ratio, X 0.70 0.31 0.59 0.27 0.57 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.22 0.61 0.39 0.39 0.26 Uniform Delay, di 32.3 8.4 21.8 18.8 29.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.27 0.11 0.18 10.11 10.16 Incremental Delay, d2 5.6 0.1 0.7 0.2 1.8 itial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ntrol Delay 37.9 8.5 22.5 19.0 30.9 Lane Group LOS D A C B C Approach Delay 17.3 21.9 30.9 Alk Approach LOS C # C Intersection Delay 20.9 XC = 0.61 Intersection LOS C 0ight © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • 0 HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:17 PM i AM HCS+'m DETAILED REPORT' F�Generai Information Site Information nalyst PHR+A .ncy or Co. PHR+A e Performed 0712612006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Red Hawk Estates Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Lane Group L TR L TR LT R LT R Volume, V (vph) 84 140 58 33 229 79 45 180 59 55 163 123 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Adllwrkin Maneuvers, Nm ses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 40.0 G= G= G= G= 40.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 92.0 Lane Grou Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 88 208 35 324 236 62 230 129 Lane Group Capacity, c 395 774 498 779 727 688 700 688 v/c Ratio, X 0.22 0.27 0.07 0.42 0.32 0.09 0.33 0.19 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 Uniform Delay, di 16.3 16.6 15.2 17.9 17.1 15.3 17.1 16.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ntrol Delay 16.6 16.8 15.2 18.3 17.4 15.4 17.4 16.1 ne Group LOS g B B B B B B B Approach Delay 16.7 18.0 17.0 17.0 r r Approach LOS w B w B B Intersection Delay 97.2 XC = 0.37 Intersection LOS B nght © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:18 PM 40 r-1 HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Oalyst PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A ate Performed 0712612006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Red Hawk Estates Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Lane Group L TR L TR LT R LT R Volume, V (vph) 189 222 63 24 221 71 129 217 45 58 87 220 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N rking Maneuvers, Nm ses Stopping, NB 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 L 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 39.0 G= G= G= I G= 41.0 G= G= G= 776 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 92.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 199 300 25 308 364 47 153 232 Lane Group Capacity, c 395 763 402 761 675 705 618 705 v/c Ratio, X 0.50 0.39 1 0.06 0.40 0.54 0.07 0.25 0.33 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Uniform Delay, di 19.4 18.3 15.7 18.4 18.6 14.6 15.9 16.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.3 InitMle Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ay 20.5 18.7 15.7 18.8 19.5 14.6 16.1 16.8 ane Group LOS C g g g B g B g Approach Delay 19.4 18.6 18.9 16.5 Alk Approach LOS w g W g g Intersection Delay 18.4 XC = 0.52 Intersection LOS 8 �yright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:21 PM • 0 —TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMUARY General Information Isite Information lyst PHR+A ncy/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0712612006 nalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Droject Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Woodrise Lane Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 3 95 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0,95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 3 100 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T ume (veh/h) 2 Peak-Hour Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT v (veh/h) 3 C (m) (veh/h) 1494 v/c 0.00 95% queue length 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 S A roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- Approach LOS -- -- Intersection Woodrise Lane & Greenwood Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions orth/South Street: Route 656 tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:22 PM "TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMWARY General Information Site Information lyst PHR+A nc /Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0712612006 nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Woodrise Lane Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 5 103 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 108 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T eh/h) 2 IPeafflk-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 urly Flow Rate, HFR2 veh/h) 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT v (veh/h) 5 C (m) (veh/h) 1475 v/c 0.00 95% queue length 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 OS A roach Delay (s/veh) Fpproach -- -- LOS -- -- Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year South Street: Route 656 Period (hrs): 0.25 Woodrise Lane & Greenwood Frederick, VA Existing Conditions Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:22 PM r_I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information yst PHR+A Intersection nc /Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Performed I 0712612006 nal sis Year 2010 Background Conditions ysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Greenwood Road North/South Street: Route 656 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 304 82 60 135 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 320 86 0 0 63 142 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR U stream Signal 0 0 or Street Eon Eastbound Westbound ement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ume (veh/h) ?,Ppiak-Hour 35 396 Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 36 0 416 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration ILR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 320 452 C (m) (veh/h) 1366 755 v/c 0.23 0.60 % queue length 0.91 4.04 i95s ntrol Delay (s/veh) 8.4 16.6 A C Delay (s/veh) -- -- 16.6 rroach roach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:40 PM `TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information alyst PHR+A nc /Co. PHR+A ate Performed 0712612006 nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Greenwood Road Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 601 141 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 632 148 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 Wu —me L T (veh/h) 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 10 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT v (veh/h) 632 C (m) (veh/h) 1375 V/c 0.46 95% queue length 2.49 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.8 ' OS A Vpproroach Delay (s/veh)ch LOS -- -- Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year South Street: Route 656 Period (hrs): 0.25 I• I• 9 R 431 0.95 453 2 Westbound MaM Iphur Spring & Greenwood )derick, VA 10 Background Conditions Southbound 5 6 T R 71 118 0.95 0.95 74 124 Eastbound 10 11 12 LR 463 720 0.64 4.71 18.6 C 18.6 C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:40 PM lL/CS+ General Information Site Information lyst PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 07/26/2006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection R�ute 50 &Sulphur Spring Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, Virginia Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID Red Hawk Estates Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 155 825 30 34 499 216 129 14 143 286 3 172 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 3 9 3 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped /Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N arking Maneuvers, Nm 7king Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= 30.0 G= G= G= 13.0 G= 20.0 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Con I Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 163 868 32 36 525 227 136 123 301 184 Lane Group Capacity, c 472 1660 784 201 1106 854 263 356 460 576 v/c Ratio, X 0.35 0.52 0.04 0.18 0.47 0.27 0.52 0.35 0.65 0.32 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.54 0.22 0.22 0.37 0.37 Uniform Delay, d, 13.2 15.2 11.5 21.3 23.8 10.9 30.8 29.5 22.0 20.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.23 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 3.3 0.3 ' ial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ntrol Delay 13.7 15.5 11.5 21.7 24.1 11.1 r2.5 30.1 25.3 20.8 Lane Group LOS B 8 B C C 8 C C C '" DETAILED REPORT r-I Approach Delay 1w1 20.2 31.4 23.6 Approach LOS 8 C C C Agoersection Delay 19.9 Xc = 0.65 Intersection LOS 8 Wright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • l� u HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:40 PM a r HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information lyst PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0712612006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Sulphur Spring Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, Virginia Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID Red Hawk Estates Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 283 835 124 137 978 452 65 7 72 336 14 160 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 3 1 9 3 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 Unit Extension, LIE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 king / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N arking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 iy= G= 30.0 G= G= G= 15.0 G= 18.0 G= G= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 298 879 131 144 1029 476 68 83 354 183 Lane Group Capacity, c 374 1660 784 199 1106 889 237 318 501 583 v/c Ratio, X 0.80 0.53 0.17 0.72 0.93 0.54 0.29 0.26 0.71 0.31 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.57 0.20 0.20 0.37 0.37 Uniform Delay, di 21.2 15.3 12.3 26.4 29.0 12.1 30.6 30.4 22.7 20.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.34 0.13 0.11 0.28 0.45 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 11.5 0.3 0.1 12.3 13.5 0.6 0.7 0.4 4.5 0.3 ial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ontrol Delay 32.6 15.6 12.4 38.6 42.5 12.8 31.2 30.8 27.2 20.7 Lane Group LOS C B B D D B C C C C r Approach Delay qW2 33.6 31.0 25.0 Approach LOS 8 C C C ersection Delay 27.0 XC = 0.88 Intersection LOS C Wright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • • HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:41 PM r--1� Am HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information ' alyst PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A ate Performed 07/26/2006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID Red Hawk Estates Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Lane Group L TR L TR LT R LT R Volume, V (vph) 113 289 64 151 438 124 50 226 163 94 231 190 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Oarking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N rking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 40.0 G= G= G= G= 40.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 119 371 159 592 291 172 342 200 Lane Group Capacity, c 187 805 358 800 731 704 635 704 v/c Ratio, X 0.64 0.46 0.44 0.74 0.40 0.24 0.54 0.28 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Uniform Delay, di 19.4 17.5 17.3 20.7 16.9 15.6 18.3 15.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 7.0 0.4 0.9 3.7 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ntrol Delay 26.4 17.9 18.2 24.4 17.2 15.8 19.2 16.1 ne Group LOS 7Ap C B B C B B B B proachh Delay 19.9 23.1 16.7 18.1 r Approach LOS q C W 8 e Intersection Delay 19.9 XC = 0.64 Intersection LOS 8 0ight © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:41 PM rr1 HCS+" DETAILED REPOR General Information Site Information alyst PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0712612006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID Red Hawk Estates Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Lane Group L TR L TR LT R LT R Volume, V (vph) 269 590 69 240 555 129 142 302 275 117 144 281 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 rking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N rking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 8.5 G= 31.3 G= G= G= 30.2 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 6 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 82.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 283 694 253 720 467 289 275 296 Lane Group Capacity, c 274 700 274 691 482 583 265 583 v/c Ratio, X 1.03 0.99 0.92 1.04 0.97 0.50 11.04 0.51 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.49 0.38 0.49 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Uniform Delay, d, 20.7 25.2 19.0 25.4 25.4 20.0 25.9 20.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.49 0.44 0.50 0.48 0.11 0.50 0.12 Incremental Delay, d2 63.1 31.8 34.7 45.6 33.0 0.7 65.4 0.7 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 ntrol Delay 83.8 57.0 53.8 71.0 58.4 20.7 91.3 20.9 Lane Group LOS F E D E E C F C Approach Delay 64.8 66.5 44.0 54.8 Ah Approach LOS I E W D D Intersection Delay 58.8 XC = 1.06 Intersection LOS E ght © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:41 PM E 0 i r HCS+,M DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Ilyst PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0712612006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick, VA 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Year Project ID Red hawk Estatest - Suggested Improvement Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L TR L TR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 113 289 64 151 438 124 50 226 163 94 231 190 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 rking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N arking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing 1Y= G= 12.0 G= 42.0 G= G= I G= 24.0 G= G= G= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 119 371 159 592 53 238 172 99 243 200 Lane Group Capacity, c 404 846 566 840 248 497 739 252 497 739 v/c Ratio, X 0.29 0.44 0.28 0.70 0.21 0.48 0.23 0.39 0.49 0.27 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.60 0.47 0.60 0.47 0.27 0.27 0.47 0.27 0.27 0.47 Uniform Delay, d, 11.3 16.1 8.9 19.1 25.7 27.7 14.4 27.0 27.8 14.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, dZ 0.4 0.4 0.3 2.7 0.4 0.7 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.2 &al Queue Delay, d30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 nrol Delay 11.7 16.5 9.2 21.8 26.1 28.5 14.5 28.0 28.6 14.8 Lane Group LOS B B A C C C B C C B r-I Approach Delay 73 19.1 W23.0 23.4 Approach LOS 8 8 C C rsection Delay 20.1 Xc = 0.69 Intersection LOS C Wight © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:41 PM • 0 i rr-1 HCS+` DETAILED REPOR General Information Site Information lyst PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0712612006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick, VA 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Year Project ID Red hawk Estatest - Suggested Improvement Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L TR L TR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 269 590 69 240 555 129 142 302 275 117 144 281 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 fiWkina / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N rking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 12.0 G= 42.0 G= G= G= 24.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 283 694 253 720 149 318 289 123 152 296 Lane Group Capacity, c 319 855 334 845 327 497 739 186 497 739 v/c Ratio, X 0.89 0.81 0.76 0.85 0.46 0.64 0.39 0.66 0.31 0.40 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.60 0.47 0.60 0.47 0.27 0.27 0.47 0.27 0.27 0.47 Uniform Delay, di 24.7 20.6 19.2 21.2 27.5 29.2 15.7 29.4 26.3 15.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.41 0.35 0.31 0.38 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.24 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 24.6 6.0 9.6 8.4 1.0 2.8 0.3 8.4 0.4 0.4 tial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ntrol Delay 49.3 26.6 28.8 29.6 28.6 32.0 16.0 37.8 26.7 16.1 Lane Group LOS D C C C C C B D C B A& Approach Delay T'2 29.4 •25.2 23.6 Approach LOS C C C C ,ftFersection Delay 28.5 X c = 0.88 Intersection LOS C Wight © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:42 PM is 0 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information alyst PHR+A nc /Co. PHR+A ate Performed 0712612006 nalysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Woodrise Lane Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 3 105 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 3 110 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T ume (veh/h) 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT v (veh/h) 3 C (m) (veh/h) 1480 v/c 0.00 95% queue length 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 OS A Broach Delay (s/veh) -- -- pproach LOS -- -- Intersection Woodrise Lane & Greenwood Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year 2010 BK Conditions orth/South Street: Route 656 tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 I• I• Westbound MaM Southbound 5 6 T R 103 2 0.95 0.95 108 2 Eastbound 10 11 12 LR 3 814 0.00 0.01 9.4 A 9.4 A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:42 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information alyst PHR+A nc /Co. PHR+A ate Performed 0712612006 nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour ?roject Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Woodrise Lane Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 5 114 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 120 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T bu—me (veh/h) 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT v (veh/h) 5 C (m) (veh/h) 1460 v/c 0.00 95% queue length 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 ' OS A roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- pproach LOS -- -- Intersection Woodrise Lane & Greenwood Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year 2010 BK Conditions orth/South Street: Route 656 tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Eastbound 10 11 12 LR 3 786 0.00 0.01 9.6 A 9.6 A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:42 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information lyst PHR+A nc /Co. PHR+A Performed Iti 0712612006 lysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Greenwood Road Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 334 82 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 351 86 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T lume (veh/h) 35 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 136 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT v (veh/h) 351 C (m) (veh/h) 1366 v/c 0.26 95% queue length 1.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 ' S A roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- pproach LOS -- -- Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year South Street: Route 656 Period (hrs): 0.25 I I• 9 R 421 0.95 443 2 ur Spring & Greenwood rick, VA ur Sndna Road Eastbound 10 11 12 LR 479 742 0.65 4.77 18.2 C 18.2 C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:42 PM I —TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUIVWARY General Information ISite Information nalyst PHR+A nc /Co. PHR+A ate ate Performed 0712612006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Greenwood Road Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 634 141 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 667 148 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T ume (veh/h) 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 1 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT (veh/h) 667 C (m) (veh/h) 1375 V/c 0.49 95% queue length 2.74 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.1 ' OS B roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- proach LOS -- -- Intersection Sulphur Spring & Greenwood Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year Sulphur Spring Road South Street: Route 656 Period (hrs): 0.25 Southbound 5 T 71 0.95 74 10 0 a Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:43 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information lyst PHR+A ency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0712612006 nalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Greenwood Road Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 334 82 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 351 86 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal 0 or Street Eastbound vement 7 8 io L T ume (veh/h) 35 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 36 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT v (veh/h) 351 C (m) (veh/h) 1366 V/c 0.26 95% queue length 1.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 S A proach Delay (s/veh) -- -- ppro ach LOS -- -- Intersection Sulphur Spring & Greenwood Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year Sulphur Spring Road South Street: Route 656 Period (hrs): 0.25 Southbound 5 6 T R 60 135 0.95 0.95 63 142 Eastbound 10 11 12 LR 479 742 0.65 4.77 18.2 C 18.2 C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:56 PM a r-I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information lyst PHR+A Intersection Sulphur Spring & Greenwood nc /Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Date Performed 0712612006 Analysis Year Sulphur Spring Road nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Greenwood Road North/South Street: Route 656 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 634 141 71 118 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 667 148 0 0 74 124 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R lume (veh/h) 10 466 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 10 0 490 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 667 500 C (m) (veh/h) 1375 708 v/c 0.49 0.71 95% queue length 2.74 5.88 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.1 21.3 S 8 C roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 21.3 pproach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:56 PM r-I HCS+" DETAILED REPOR General Information Site Information alyst PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A late Performed 07/26/2006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Sulphur Spring Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, Virginia Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Red Hawk Estates Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 184 825 30 34 499 235 129 14 143 359 3 281 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 3 9 3 3 9 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 rking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N rking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= 30.0 G= G= G= 13.0 G= 20.0 G= G= Y= 0 IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Confro/ Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 194 868 32 36 525 247 136 123 378 299 Lane Group Capacity, c 472 1660 784 201 1106 854 237 356 460 576 v/c Ratio, X 0.41 0.52 0.04 0.18 0.47 0.29 0.57 0.35 0.82 0.52 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.54 0.22 0.22 0.37 0.37 Uniform Delay, di 13.5 15.2 11.5 21.3 23.8 11.1 31.2 29.5 26.5 22.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.36 0.12 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 3.4 0.6 11.4 0.8 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ntrol Delay 14.1 15.5 11.5 21.7 24.1 11.3 34.6 30.1 37.9 23.1 Lane Group LOS B B B C C B C C D C Approach Delay 15.2 20.1 1 32.4 31.4 Ah HCS+'" DETAILED REPOR General Information Site Information nalyst PHR+A latency or Co. PHR+A Performed 07/26/2006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Sulphur Spring Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, Virginia Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Red Hawk Estates Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 392 835 124 137 978 524 65 7 72 374 14 217 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 3 9 3 3 9 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 arking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N rking Maneuvers, Nm uses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 18.5 G= 30.0 G= G= G= 15.5 G= 14.0 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 413 879 131 144 1029 552 68 56 394 243 Lane Group Capacity, c 442 1789 845 199 1106 897 174 249 473 520 v/c Ratio, X 0.93 0.49 0.16 0.72 0.93 0.62 0.39 0.22 0.83 0.47 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.33 0.33 0.57 0.16 0.16 0.33 0.33 Uniform Delay, di 24.7 13.0 10.4 26.4 29.0 12.7 34.2 33.3 28.2 24.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.45 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.37 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 27.1 0.2 0.1 12.3 13.5 1 1.3 1.5 0.5 12.1 1 0.7 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ntrol Delay 51.8 13.2 10.5 38.6 42.5 14.0 35.6 33.7 40.3 24.7 Lane Group LOS D B B D D B D C D C Approach Delay 24.2 33.1 34.8 34.3 HCS+'m DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A limatelyPsterformed07/26/2006 e Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Red Hawk Estates Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Lane Group L TR L TR LT R LT R Volume, V (vph) 113 289 64 151 438 124 50 256 163 94 239 190 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N rking Maneuvers, Nm ses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing T Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 JSB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 G= 38.0 G= G= G= 10.0 G= 32.0 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 99.0 Lane Grou Ca acit , Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 119 371 159 592 322 172 351 200 Lane Group Capacity, c 200 696 350 691 529 720 446 879 v/c Ratio, X 0.60 0.53 0.45 0.86 1 0.61 0.24 10.79 0.23 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.45 0.38 0.45 0.38 0.32 0.45 0.42 0.56 Uniform Delay, d, 21.0 23.6 17.7 28.0 28.2 16.5 24.6 11.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.39 0.19 0.11 0.33 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 0.8 0.9 10.4 2.0 0.2 9.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i6ntrol Delay 25.7 24.4 18.6 38.4 30.3 16.7 33.7 11.3 ane Group LOS C C B D C B C B Approach Delay 24.7 34.2 25.5 25.6 r-I r1 Approach LOS C w C C Intersection Delay 28.2 X c = 0.86 Intersection LOS C right © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:57 PM • 4 Ak AM HCS+" DETAILED REPORIW General Information Site Information analyst PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A e Performed 0712612006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Red Hawk Estates Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Lane Group L TR L TR LT R LT R Volume, V (vph) 269 590 69 240 555 129 142 318 275 117 174 281 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N gftrking Maneuvers, Nm ses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Ex 1. Left EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 12.4 ly= G= 40.9 G= G= I G= 6.2 G= 42.5 G= G= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 114.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 283 694 253 720 484 289 306 296 Lane Group Capacity, c 258 658 258 649 530 590 275 676 v/c Ratio, X 1.10 1.05 0.98 1.11 0.91 0.49 1.11 0.44 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.47 0.36 0.47 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.43 0.43 Uniform Delay, d, 33.4 36.5 32.9 36.5 34.0 27.4 32.7 23.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.50 0.43 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 84.4 50.4 50.5 69.2 20.3 0.6 88.0 0.5 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 " ntrol Delay 117.8 86.9 83.4 105.8 54.3 28.1 120.6 23.5 ne Group LOS F F F F D C F C Approach Delay 95.9 99.9 44.5 72.9 r11 r-1 Approach LOS �F F w D E Intersection Delay 81.0 XC = 1.23 Intersection LOS F 0 fight © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 0 HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:57 PM r'I HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information lyst PHR+A ncy or Co. PHR+A ot�Performed 0712612006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID Red hawk Estatest - Suggested Improvement Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L TR L TR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 113 289 64 1 151 438 124 50 256 163 94 239 190 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N king Maneuvers, Nm uses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing 1Y= G= 10.0 G= 38.0 G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 119 371 159 592 53 269 172 99 252 200 Lane Group Capacity, c 400 861 562 855 228 466 712 214 466 712 v/c Ratio, X 0.30 0.43 0.28 0.69 0.23 0.58 0.24 0.46 0.54 0.28 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.60 0.47 0.60 0.47 0.25 0.25 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.45 Uniform Delay, d, 10.0 13.9 7.9 16.4 23.9 26.3 13.6 25.4 26.0 13.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.26 1 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.4 0.5 1.8 0.2 1.6 1.3 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ntrol Delay 10.4 14.2 8.2 18.9 24.4 28.1 13.8 27.0 27.3 14.1 Lane Group LOS B B A 8 C C B C C B Approach Delay 13.3 16.6 22.7 22.4 i r Approach LOS 8 8 C C Intersection Delay 18.6 Xc = 0.73 Intersection LOS 8 Is ight © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • • HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:57 PM HCS+` DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information analyst PHR+A tncy or Co. PHR+A to Performed 0712612006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID Red hawk Estatest - Suggested Improvement Volume and Timin Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L TR L TR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 269 590 69 240 555 129 142 318 275 117 174 281 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N king Maneuvers, Nm uses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 10.0 G= 38.0 G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacitty, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 283 694 253 720 149 335 289 123 183 296 Lane Group Capacity, c 314 871 330 860 287 466 712 160 466 712 v/c Ratio, X 0.90 0.80 0.77 0.84 0.52 10.72 0.41 0.77 0.39 0.42 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.60 0.47 0.60 0.47 0.25 0.25 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.45 Uniform Delay, di 20.7 17.7 15.7 18.3 25.9 27.4 14.8 27.9 24.9 14.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.42 0.34 0.32 0.37 0.12 0.28 0.11 0.32 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, dZ 27.4 5.2 10.4 7.3 1.7 5.3 0.4 20.0 0.5 0.4 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ntrol Delay 48.1 23.0 26.1 25.6 27.5 32.8 15.2 47.9 25.5 15.3 Mane Group LOS D C C C C C B D C B Approach Delay 30.3 25.7 25.2 25.1 Ah r� Approach LOS �C C mw C C Intersection Delay 26.8 Xc = 0.92 Intersection LOS C fight © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:57 PM is 0 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SU ARY General Information Site Information alyst PHR+A nc /Co. PHR+A e Performed Ial 0712612006 ysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year Greenwood & Site Drive 1 Frederick, VA 2010 Buildout Conditions Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North/South Street: Greenwood Road Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 7 462 451 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 7 486 0 0 474 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 AlIft L T R L T R ume (veh/h) 7 20 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 7 0 21 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 7 28 C (m) (veh/h) 1086 460 V/c 0.01 0.06 95% queue length 0.02 0.99 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 13.3 i.OS A B Broach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.3 pproach LOS -- -- B :opyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:58 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY lGeneral Information (Site Information yst PHR+A Intersection Greenwood & Site Drive 1 nc /Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Performed Ilysis 0712612006 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North/South Street: Greenwood Road Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 21 731 476 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 22 769 0 0 501 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R lume (veh/h) 4 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 4 0 12 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 22 96 C (m) (veh/h) 1057 358 V/c 0.02 0.04 95% queue length 0.06 0.14 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 15.5 Ak-s- A C roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 15.5 pproach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:58 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUIMARY General Information Site Information Intersection Sulphur Springs & Site Drive 2 I st PHR+A enc /Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Date Performed 07/26/2006 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions11 nal sis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Site Drive #2 North/South Street: Sulphur Springs Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 392 17 6 482 Peak -Hoar Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 412 17 6 507 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 71 24 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 74 0 25 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N Y Storage 1 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 6 99 C (m) (veh/h) 1130 389 v/c 0.01 0.25 95% queue length 0.02 1.00 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 18.9 S A C proach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 18.9 pproach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:58 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Isite Information lyst PHR+A nc /Co. PHR+A e Performed t 0712612006 lysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Site Drive #2 Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 763 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 803 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T ume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF I(veh/h) 0.95 0,95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 1 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT v (veh/h) 24 C (m) (veh/h) 771 /c 0.03 95% queue length 0.10 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.8 r.OS A roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- pproach LOS -- -- Intersection Sulphur Spring & Site Drive 2 Jurisdiction Frederick, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions South Street: SuIT Period (hrs): 0.25 Southbound 1 Undivided Westbound I Eastbound 10 1 11 12 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:58 PM "TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information alyst PHR+A nc /Co. PHR+A ate Performed 0712612006 nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Red Hawk Estates East/West Street: Woodrise Lane Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 5 114 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 120 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 Aft L T ume (veh/h) 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT v (veh/h) 5 C (m) (veh/h) 1460 vlc 0.00 95% queue length 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 'OS A roach Delay (s/veh) -- -- [Approach LOS -- -- Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year orth/South Street: Route 656 tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 I' I• Woodrise Lane & Greenwood Frederick, VA 2010 BO Conditions Southbound 5 T 118 0.95 124 10 G C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 8/2/2006 2:59 PM • 0 '• • • Traffic Counts 0 0 Intersection: E-W: SENSENY RD Weather Dry File Namel N-S: Greenwood Rd Count By 7dP Input By JJP Location Winchester^ Count Date 6/21/2006 15 Minute EB: SENSENY RD WB: SENSENY RD NB: GREENWOOD SB: GREENWOOD 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 13 19 8 40 5 21 12 38 5 19 7 31 8 28 16 52 161 7:00 7:15 16 24 10 50 6 27 17 50 9 17 12 38 12 30 19 61 199 7:15 7:30 18 35 11 64 5 33 16 54 11 22 14 47 14 35 22 71 236 7:30 7:45 22 30 14 66 8 45 22 75 12 24 14 50 16 39 25 80 271 7:45 8:00 23 36 16 75 9 54 23 86 15 47 16 78 17 43 33 93 332 8:00 8:15 24 35 17 76 8 60 18 86 15 43 19 77 12 44 34 90 329 8:15 8:30 19 36 14 69 7 66 19 92 12 66 18 96 13 38 30 81 338 8:30 8:45 19 33 11 63 9 49 19 77 13 54 16 83 13 38 26 77 300 8:45 A.M. Total 154 248 101 503 57 355 146 558 92 292 116 500 105 295 205 605 2166 A.M. Total 16:00 31 42 14 87 4 33 12 49 17 37 5 59 11 17 40 68 263 16:00 16:15 38 46 17 101 2 35 14 51 22 40 5 67 9 17 46 72 291 16:15 16:30 44 54 12 110 5 49 17 71 24 43 7 74 13 20 52 85 340 16:30 16:45 49 55 16 120 6 54 17 77 29 45 9 83 13 21 54 88 368 16:45 17:00 47 59 21 127 6 56 21 83 33 51 11 95 15 22 59 96 401 17:00 17:15 45 62 15 122 7 60 18 85 35 53 12 100 18 24 60 102 409 17:15 17:30 48 46 11 105 5 51 15 71 32 46 13 91 12 20 47 79 346 17:30 17:45 47 40 7 94 5 42 12 59 24 40 12 76 1 9 18 38 65 294 17:45 P.M. Total 349 404 113 866 40 380 126 546 216 355 74 645 1 100 159 396 655 2712 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: SENSENY RD WB: SENSENY RD NB: Greenwood Rd SB: Greenwood Rd I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 00 69 108 43 220 24 126 67 217 37 82 47 166 50 132 82 264 867 7:00 :15 79 125 51 255 28 159 78 265 47 I10 56 213 59 147 99 305 1038 7:15 730 87 136 58 281 30 192 79 301 53 136 63 252 59 161 114 334 1168 7:30 7:45 88 137 61 286 32 225 82 339 54 180 67 301 58 164 122 344 1270 7:45 8:00 85 140 58 283 33 229 79 341 55 210 69 334 55 163 123 341 1299 8:00 16:00 162 197 59 418 17 171 60 248 92 165 26 283 46 75 192 313 1262 16:00 16:15 178 214 66 458 19 194 69 282 108 179 32 319 50 80 211 341 1400 16:15 16:30 185 230 64 479 24 219 73 316 121 192 39 352 59 87 225 371 1518 16:30 16:45 189 222 63 474 24 221 71 316 129 195 45 369 58 87 220 365 1524 16:45 17:00 187 207 54 448 23 209 66 298 124 190 48 362 54 84 204 342 1450 17:00 1 Hour EB: SENSENY RD WB: SENSENY RD NB: Greenwood Rd SB: Greenwood Rd 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 8:00 85 140 58 283 33 229 79 341 55 210 69 334 55 163 123 341 1299 8:00 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.93 PI -IF = 0.93 PHF = 0.87 PHF = 0.92 0.96 A.M. Peak 16:45 189 222 63 474 24 221 71 316 1 129 195 45 369 58 87 220 365 1524 16:45 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.93 PHF = 0.93 PHF = 0.92 PHF = 0.89 0.93 11P.M. Peak 1 • 0 section: E-W: ROUTE 50 Weather Dry File Namel N-S: ROUTE 655 Count By JJP Input By JJP Location winchester,va Count Date 6/20/2006 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 50 WB: ROUTE 50 NB: SB: SULPHER SPRINGS 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 17 135 0 152 0 80 14 94 0 0 0 0 27 0 23 50 296 7:00 7:15 29 182 0 211 0 94 12 106 0 0 0 0 24 0 30 54 371 7:15 7:30 23 181 0 204 0 82 16 98 0 0 0 0 19 0 54 73 375 7:30 7:45 28 137 0 165 0 105 14 119 0 0 0 0 35 0 38 73 357 7:45 8:00 26 151 0 177 0 93 12 105 0 0 0 0 23 0 34 57 339 8:00 8:15 21 134 0 155 0 81 12 93 0 0 0 0 25 0 36 61 309 8:15 8:30 20 112 0 132 0 86 7 93 0 0 0 0 28 0 31 59 284 8:30 8:45 11 23 127 0 150 0 109 15 124 0 0 0 0 29 0 32 61 335 8:45 A.M. Total F 18 11159 0 1346 0 730 102 832 0 0 0 0 210 0 278 488 2666 1 A.M. Total 16:00 50 122 0 172 0 180 35 215 0 0 0 0 18 0 49 67 454 16:00 16:15 43 116 0 159 0 177 42 219 0 0 0 0 18 0 47 65 443 16:15 16:30 47 127 0 174 0 210 39 249 0 0 0 0 13 0 36 49 472 16:30 16:45 46 128 0 174 0 199 40 239 0 0 0 0 13 0 45 58 471 16:45 17:00 59 109 0 168 0 199 62 261 0 0 0 0 23 0 36 59 488 17:00 17:15 109 124 0 233 0 189 55 244 0 0 0 0 15 0 46 61 538 17:15 17:30 101 134 0 235 0 188 54 242 0 0 0 0 18 0 41 59 536 17:30 17:45 100 123 0 223 0 145 44 189 0 0 0 0 24 0 52 76 488 17:45 P.M. Total 555 983 0 1538 0 1487 371 1858 0 0 0 0 142 0 352 494 3890 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 50 WB: ROUTE 50 NB: SB: ROUTE 655 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 00 97 635 0 732 0 361 56 417 0 0 0 0 105 0 145 250 1399 7:00 :15 106 651 0 757 0 374 54 428 0 0 0 0 101 0 156 257 1442 7:15 7:30 98 603 0 701 0 361 54 415 0 0 0 0 102 0 162 264 1380 7:30 7:45 95 534 0 629 0 365 45 410 0 0 0 0 111 0 139 250 1289 7:45 8:00 90 524 0 614 0 369 46 415 0 0 0 0 105 0 133 239 1267 8:00 16:00 186 493 0 679 0 766 156 922 0 0 0 0 62 0 177 239 1840 16:00 16:15 195 480 0 675 0 785 183 968 0 0 0 0 67 0 164 231 1874 16:15 16:30 261 488 0 749 0 797 196 993 0 0 0 0 64 0 163 227 1969 16:30 16:45 315 495 0 810 0 775 211 986 0 0 0 0 69 0 168 237 2033 16:45 17:00 369 490 0 859 0 721 215 936 0 0 0 0 80 0 175 255 2050 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 50 WB: ROUTE 50 NB: SB: ROUTE 655 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:15 106 651 0 757 0 374 54 428 0 0 0 0 101 0 156 257 1442 7:15 A.M. Peak PI -IF = 0.90 PHF = 0.90 PI -IF = PHF = 0.88 0.96 A.M. Peak 17:00 369 490 0 859 0 721 215 936 0 0 0 0 80 0 175 255 2050 1 17:00 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.91 PHF = 0.90 PHF = PHF = 0.84 0.95 1P.M. Peak 0 0 Intersection: E-GREENWOOD RD N-S: SULPHUR SPRINGS RD Location winchester,va Weather Dry File Name Count By JJP Input By I JJP Count Date 6/21/2006 15 Minute EB: GREENWOOD RD WB: NB: SULPHUR SPRINGS RE SB: SULPHUR SPRINGS RD 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 4 0 49 53 0 0 0 0 16 14 0 30 0 7 7 14 97 7:00 7:15 4 0 36 40 0 0 0 0 14 14 0 28 0 18 8 26 94 7:15 7:30 12 0 48 60 0 0 0 0 12 14 0 26 0 14 10 24 110 7:30 7:45 6 0 49 55 0 0 0 0 12 20 0 32 0 28 14 42 129 7:45 8:00 11 6 0 39 45 0 0 0 0 13 21 0 34 0 12 21 33 112 8:00 8:15 11 0 34 45 0 0 0 0 15 19 0 34 0 6 29 35 114 8:15 8:30 2 0 32 34 0 0 0 0 13 27 0 40 0 6 24 30 104 8:30 8:45 4 0 29 33 0 0 0 0 14 23 0 37 0 8 21 29 99 8:45 A.M. Total 49 0 316 365 0 0 0 0 109 152 0 261 0 99 134 233 859 A.M. Total 16:00 9 0 29 38 0 0 0 0 46 17 0 63 0 39 9 48 149 16:00 16:15 2 0 38 40 0 0 0 0 52 17 0 69 0 27 7 34 143 16:15 16:30 2 0 34 36 0 0 0 0 44 15 0 59 0 22 6 28 123 16:30 16:45 3 0 35 38 0 0 0 0 52 17 0 69 0 16 4 20 127 16:45 17:00 1 0 28 29 0 0 0 0 79 28 0 107 0 15 1 16 152 17:00 17:15 4 0 37 41 0 0 0 0 74 19 0 93 0 18 3 21 155 17:15 17:30 2 0 39 41 0 0 0 0 79 14 0 93 0 22 3 25 159 17:30 17:45 2 0 40 42 0 0 0 0 53 16 0 69 0 12 3 15 126 17:45 P.M. Total 25 0 280 305 0 0 0 0 479 143 0 622 0 171 36 207 1134 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: GREENWOOD RD WB: NB: SULPHUR SPRINGS RE SB: SULPHUR SPRINGS RD 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 00 26 0 182 208 0 0 0 0 54 62 0 116 0 67 39 106 430 7:00 :15 28 0 172 200 0 0 0 0 51 69 0 120 0 72 53 125 445 7:15 7:30 35 0 170 205 0 0 0 0 52 74 0 126 0 60 74 134 465 7:30 7:45 25 0 154 179 0 0 0 0 53 87 0 140 0 52 88 140 459 7:45 8:00 23 0 134 157 0 0 0 0 55 90 0 145 0 32 95 127 429 8:00 16:00 16 0 136 152 0 0 0 0 194 66 0 260 0 104 26 130 542 16:00 16:15 8 0 135 143 0 0 0 0 227 77 0 304 0 80 18 98 545 16:15 16:30 10 0 134 144 0 0 0 0 249 79 0 328 0 71 14 85 557 16:30 16:45 10 0 139 149 0 0 0 0 284 78 0 362 0 71 11 82 593 16:45 17:00 9 0 144 153 0 0 0 0 285 77 0 362 0 67 10 77 592 17:00 1 Hour EB: GREENWOOD RD WB: NB: SULPI-IUR SPRINGS RE SB: SULPHUR SPRINGS RD I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:30 35 0 170 205 0 0 0 0 52 74 0 126 0 60 74 134 465 7:30 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.85 PHF = PHF = 0.93 PHF = 0.80 0.90 A.M. Peak 16:45 10 0 139 149 0 0 0 0 284 78 0 362 0 71 11 82 593 16:45 P.M. Peak PIIF = 0.91 PHF = PHF = 0.85 PHF = 0.82 0.93 P.M. Peak 0 Tntersection: E-W: SENSENY RD Weather Dry File Name) N-S: I Greenwood Rd Count By 1JP Input By JJP Location lWinchester,VA Count Date 6/21/2006 15 Minute EB: WB: Wood Rise Lane NB: Sulphur Spring Run SB: Sulphur Spring Run 15 Min. Period JN�S� Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Begining 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 1 4 6 7:00 7:15 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 3 0 3 8 7:15 7:30 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 9 0 5 1 6 16 7:30 7:45 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 l 8 0 9 0 18 0 18 28 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 12 1 13 23 8:00 8:15 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 10 0 10 19 8:15 8:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 5 0 6 1 7 12 8:30 8:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 li 0 11 18 8:45 A.M. Total 3 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 49 0 54 0 68 4 72 130 A.M. Total 16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 18 0 20 0 17 0 17 37 16:00 16:15 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 15 0 17 2 19 35 16:15 16:30 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 14 0 18 0 18 33 16:30 16:45 1 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 13 0 11 0 11 25 16:45 17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13 0 15 0 14 0 14 29 17:00 17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 0 14 0 14 34 17:15 17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 21 0 4 0 4 25 17:30 17:45 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 IS 0 20 0 20 36 17:45 P.M. Total 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 8 125 0 133 0 115 2 117 254 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: WB: Wood Rise Lane NB: Sulphur Spring Run SB: Sulphur Spring Run I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 20 0 24 0 29 2 31 58 7:00 7:15 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 28 0 32 0 38 2 40 75 7:15 7:30 2 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 3 33 0 36 0 45 2 47 86 7:30 7:45 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 30 0 32 0 46 2 48 82 7:45 : l 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 l 29 0 30 0 39 2 41 72 9:00 000 6:00 2 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 5 57 0 62 0 63 2 65 130 16:00 16:15 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 5 52 0 57 0 60 2 62 122 16:15 16:30 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 58 0 62 0 57 0 57 121 16:30 16:45 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 65 0 69 0 43 0 43 113 16:45 17:00 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 68 0 71 0 52 0 52 124 17:00 1 1 Hour EB: WB: Wood Rise Lane NB: Sulphur Spring Run SB: Sulphur Spring Run 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 0.3125 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 33 0 36 0 45 2 47 86 7:30 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.75 PHF = PHF = 0.90 PHF = 0.65 0.77 A.M. Peak 16:00 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 5 57 0 62 0 63 2 65 130 16:00 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.75 PHF = PHF = 0.78 PHF = 0.86 0.88 P M Peak 3 3 5 18 12 10 6 Il 17 17 18 11 14 14 4 20 • THIS DEED, made this day of 2006, by and between CAROL A. LEHMAN and H. HAROLD LEHMAN, TRUSTEES UNDER THE REVOCABLE TRUST OF CAROL A. LEHMAN, dated September 10, 1999, GRANTORS and TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, GRANTEE. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey with Special Warranty unto the Grantee, an undivided ninety-five percent (95%) interest in and to that certain tract of land situate in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia containing 28.9740 acres, more or less, and being more particularly described by that certain plat made by Randy A. Stowers,' Land Surveyor, dated September 16, 2005, and attached to that certain Deed of Gift, dated February 1, 2006, and of record in the Clerk's Office of Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia as Instrument #060002700. This is a portion of the real estate conveyed to the Grantors herein, by deed dated September 16, 1999 and of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 948 at Page 1322. Reference is here made to the aforesaid instruments and the attachments and the references therein contained for a further and more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. 0 O N) 0 0 40 This conveyance is made subject to all duly recorded and enforceable restrictions, easements and rights of way. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: _6- io'Q�:CSEAL) H. Harold Lehman, Trustee (SEAL) Carol A. Lehman, Trustee COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF WINCHESTER, TO -WIT: S ­rA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 10 0 - ( 4---, , 2006, by H. Harold Lehman, Trustee and Carol A. Lehman, Trustee of the Revocable Trust Agreement of Carol A. Lehman dated September 10, 1999. My Commission expires h I/c A_ N�TARY PUBLIC Deed prepared by Thomas M. Dickinson, Jr., Esquire THOMAS M. DICKINSON, JR., P.C. 102-2 South Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-1095 0 • • COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 0 - - - _ -- -- _ - :.my_ - -_ JCipk. _4 `- - ----_ �4 145 VS J. _____ _ 0 A 060004599 THIS DEED, made this 3,,et day of Maw(--,jL. , 2006, by and between BRIDGEWATER COLLEGE, a Virginia non -stock corporation, GRANTOR and TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, GRANTEE. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey with Special Warranty unto the Grantee, an undivided �} five percent (5%) interest in and to that certain tract of land situate in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia containing 28.9740 acres, more or �1 less, and being more particularly described by that certain plat made by Randy A. Stowers, Land Surveyor, dated September 16, 2005, and attached to that Deed of Gift, dated February 1, 2006 and of record in the Clerk's Office of Circuit fJ Court of Frederic k County, Virginia as Instrument #060002700. This is the same five (5%) interest in the property acquired by the Grantor by that Deed of Gift j �\j dated February 1, 2006 and of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia as Instrument #060002700. Reference is here made to the aforesaid instruments and the attachments and the references therein contained for a further and more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. 0 • • � ]l 0 This conveyance is made subject to all duly recorded and enforceable restrictions, easements and rights of way. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above corporate Grantor, Bridgewater College, has caused this instrument to be executed in its corporate name by Anne B. Keeler, its Treasurer. Bridgewater College BY0"ClI- —­� (SEAL) Anne B. Keeler, Treasurer COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OF , TO -WIT: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of March 2006, by Anne B. Keeler, Treasurer for Bridgewater College. My Commission expires Atf. .31 2009. Deed prepared by: Thomas M. Dickinson, Jr., Esquire THOMAS M. DICKINSON, JR., P.0 102-2 South Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-1095 7,47 WINIA, W. illy MWA NOTARY PUBLIC S�•--1 O , . .. �.ii �.ciii�,'f wiSC�Si4U{�. • DC•18 (1/90) • COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA n U • h 19 W'O,�NEY% ON,PWT lAW ,iNCHESTER, VIRGINIA 050002800 CD 4:- 6YU THIS .DEED, made this 8 of Fe✓ , 2005, by and between CAROL A. LEHMAN aad H. RAROLD LEHMAN, as Trustees and as Grantors for the purposes of indexing (the "Trustees") under the Revocable Trust Agreement of Carol A. Lehman dated September 10, 1999 (the "Trust Agreement"), party of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors and TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WI'TNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum. of Ten Dollars ($10.00), and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey, with General Warranty and with English Covenants of Title, unto the Grantee, in fee simple, together with all rights, rights of way, privileges, improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging, all that certain lot, piece or parcel of unimproved land, lying and being situate in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, lying on the southern side of Virginia State Route 655, containing 10.633 acres as more fully described on that certain Boundary Survey of a portion of the land of Carol A. Lehman and H. Harold Lehman dated November 18, 2004, made by S. W. Marsh, Land Surveyor and which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and having been formerly described as containing 46 acres with various off conveyances having been made; and being a portion of the same property which was conveyed to H. Harold Lehman and Carol A. Lehman by deed from Clinton R, Ritter and J. Randolph Larrick, Special Commissioners, dated June 14, 1985, recorded June 17, • F4LMS0N YS AT LAW 4TTORNEYS AT LAW RESTER, VIRGINIA • C7 La �J 1985 in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 595 at Page 611; and further being the same property which was conveyed to Carol A. Lehman and H. Harold Lehrpan, as trustees and as grantees for the purposes of indexing ("the Trustees") under the Revocable Trust Agreement of Carol A. Lehman dated September 10, 1999 (the "Trust Agreement), by deed dated September 29,1999 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 948 at Page 1322. TAX 11 "PARCEL 65-A-86 "he Grantors '.Zerein reserve unto themselves a fifty (50') easement aloq tle northeastern portion of this property for the sole purpose of installing sanitary sewer, public water or other utilities, said easement commencing at the iron rod set at the northeastern corner of the property, running along that boundary S 48 deg. 58' 28" East, to the iron rod found, thence to the southwest boundary 40 deg. 33' 42", said right of way extending 50 feet from the foregoing boundary line, such that the boundary of the easement parallels the described boundary line at a width of fifty feet (50'). Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments and the attachme4ts and the references therein contained for a more particular description of the property hereby conveyed.. This conveyance is made subject to all rights, rights of way, easements, and restrictions of record, if any, acting tine aforesaid) realty. -2- • 8 JOHNSTON,PLC pRNij AT LAW FiESTEF,v1RG1N1A !j Q -;7" CIL) W WITNESS tihe fallowing signatures and; se": CAROL A. LEHMAN REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 1999 By: C''�2�(S13AL) Carol A. Lehman, Trustee and Grantor By: W. 444gM 41A&j—�- (SEAL) H. 3aroY, : ,e:sman, i rustee ane. Grantor STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE, CITY OF ` JNCHESTER, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 11 11A2005 by Carol A. Lehman and H. Harold Lehman, as Trustees and Grantors, under the Carol A. Lehman Revocable Trust Agreement dated SgptembtT 10, 1999, on behalf of said Trust. My commission expires N =now JA ANGLE ' RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTHCHORD BEARING 01 *39'39" '4221.50' 122,36' 61.17 122.35' S 78054'1 9" E C2 02036'12" 9104.92' 413.69' 1206. 88, 413.65' S 81 *02'14" E PIN 65-A-86 15.0' CAROL A. & H. HAROLD LEHMAN AD (25.367 AC. BY SUSTRACflON) A� -P- C-0 DB 948 PC 1322 IRF � .. � �, \'�` � /% � A/ IRS 0 qp %)e �Alk, 0 '9 14. '� ��S �� \ B �Q IRF (PORTION OF �9& PIN 65-A-86 10.633 ACRES 19 \(INCLUDES AREA IN RK Z�y` p 01 y ti \,tiG _v & CPO IRS 0--*' r '°ys ��s \c� 30.00' (n 4 170 q > OD. r4_0 LEGEND: IRF - IRON ROD FOUND I- IRS - IRON ROD SET li , NOTES: IRF 0 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED; THEREFORE, EASEMENTS OR IRF ENCUMBRANCES MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN HEREON. PIN 65-A-104 S AO 2, BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON, AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY COMPLETED NOVEMBER 15,2004. N/F GEORGE S. 3. MERIDIAKIS BASED ON AN UNRECORDED PLAT MADE BY YEATRAS tit GREENWAY ENGINEERING, INC. DATED MARCH 19, 1967. INST.1 020011440 4. THE 12'GRAVEL ROAD SHOWN IS USED FOR INGRESSIEGRESS TO ADJACENT LANDS TO THE SOUTH. 5 THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON IS A PORTION OF TAX 200 1 0 200 400 PARCEL 65-A-86 SITUATED TO THE SOUTH OF SULPHUR SPRING ROAD. SCALE: 1 200' BOUNDARY SURVEY OF A PORTION OF THE LAND OF 'TH I Op GA'ROL A. ant, 10.633 ACRES DEED BOOK 948- P �,GE'1322 Marsh 1 Marsh SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL -DISTRICT No. 001843 \,-T H Op "u uu FREDERICK COUNTY, VIiRG.NIA DATE: 1111 M004 SCALE:'I"='200' SHEET I OF 1 No y u f0i Mary & Let .1cie Land SurVe rs yk- .6 J�mmi DRAWN BY: CAJ 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET - WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 PHONE (540) 667-04M - FAX (540) 667-M - EMAIL oMce@mamharda%9.com DWG NAME: ID6480 U • V1RUI NIA; FREDERICK COUNTY, SCP. This instrument of writing was produced to me on 2. �i v�dth + "'cate di acknowledgement thereto annexed :s omitted to record, T imposed by Sec 58,1-802 of s 11 ? and $8.1-8(}1 have beea paid, ifaedalsabAe CWk 0 N J1 N ' ON,PLC ORNEYS YS AT AT L AW RESTER, VIRGINIA 0504371(1 0 � a, THIS DEED, made this_ of Fr,6LJdt-Lj 2005, by and between DONALD W. MOULDEN, SR, and MELVINA M. MOULDEN, his wife, party of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors and TURNER ENTERPRISES C, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH. That for and inconsideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey, with General Warranty and with English Covenants of Title, unto the Grantee, in fee simple, together with all rights, rights of way, privileges, improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging, all of that certain parcel of land, lying in Shawnee Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia, near the Sulphur Springs Road, containing 31,1684 acres, as shown on that certain Boundary Survey of the Properties of Donald W. Moulden, Sr, and Melvina M. Moulden, made by Randy A. Stowers, Land Surveyor, and dated February 10, 2005, which Boundary Survey is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and designated as Tax Map 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A; This property is the same land that was conveyed to the Grantors herein by the following separate conveyances, (1) A parcel of land originally containing 32 acres, more or less, that was conveyed to Donald W. Moulden, Sr. and Milton Harris, Partners, by deed from Arthur S. Rowles, unmarried, dated December 5, 1978, and of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 504, at Page 335, The interest of Milton �47',9loz *loza • 0 IARRISON & JOHNSTON,PLC TTORNEYS AT LAW HESTER, VIRGINIA 0 Harris was conveyed to Donald W. Moulden, Sr. and Melvina M, Moulden, his wife, by deed from George W. Johnston, III, Special Commissioner, dated December 19, .i 980, anc:. of record in tlhe aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 531, at Page 45 (Tax Parcel 65-A-102); LESS AND EXCEPT that certain five acres, more or less, that was conveyed to Richard A. Maiatico, et ux, by deed ]iom tie Grantors iaerein, dated March 30, 1982, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 545, at Page 868; and (2) A parcel of land containing 5 acres, more or less, that was conveyer, to be Grantors herein by deed from David E. McClure, Jr,, Substitute Trustee, dated January 30, 1986 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Fredleric,c County, Virginia, in Deed Book 611, at Page 493 (TAX PARCEL 65-A-102A), and (3) by that certain Deed of Quitclaim from Mary Lindsay Harris, dated October 10, 1986, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's office in Deed Book 629, at Page 293. The Grantee herein expressly retains the use of a 30 foot wide right of way as shown on be attached, plat, and as specifically reserved in that certain instrument recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 455, at Page 858, along the northwest bounc.ary of Cie property conveyed. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments and the attachments and the references therein contained. for a more particular description of the property hereby 1conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to all rights, rights of way, easements, and I restrictions of record, if any, affecting the aforesaid realty. K] I i RRISON & JOHNSTON,PLC ' STEYS AT LAW TESTER, VIRGINIA • CD N WITNESS tne Ulowing signatures and seals: By� , N16z-s� (SEAM,) Donald W. Moulden, Sr. BY - Mel ina M. Moulders STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE, CITY OF WINCHESTER, to -wit: 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -4day of rvdc�j , 2005 by Donald W. Moulden, Sr. and Melvina M. Mouldien,',tis wife. J My commission expires oil 31 1! NOTES; �j 1, THE POSITIONS OF ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY A FIELD RUN SURVEY. • 2, THIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND DOES NOT THEREFORE NECESSARILY INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY. 3. THE EXISTENCE OF VEGETATED OR TIDAL WETLANDS, WATERS OF THE U.S.AND/OR HAZARDOUS WASTES HAS BEEN NEITHER INVESTIGATED NOR CONFIRMED DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS SURVEY. 4, THE PROPERTIES SHOWN HEREON ARE IDENTIFIED ON FREDERICK COUNTY TAX MAPS AS 65-A-102 AND 65-A-102A 00 ARE CURRENTLY IN THE NAME OF DAVID W. MOULDEN, SR. AND MELVINA M. MOULDEN PER DEEDS RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 531 AT PAGE 45 AND IN DEED BOOK 611 AT PAGE 493 RESPECTIVELY, 80TH AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA, •. �,o P �P 65-A-95 Cr)87344, G039K 30' RIW11 D.B. 455, PG' go IRF N26'S1'27"E 1 L20 Iff I i; ", +w %AIL IN ocusit 65—A-102A,-- m ;u IRS rRxr w A Co I %�-I,�2 0 - 'OF' L6 IR Ni jf �� rRF •� - —Jor CID 1 r `,i? 1 10 � ,`� i. 1� � yes 65—A-102 $ �a (A 0Lp I `� 01 00' i m n 01 31.1684 Ac. :0 —k y 0 ! -4 p r fV 0 rn �. V z I IRf n 01 Y • C) S3 •00'1 7"w 662.12'' S32'22'09"w 415.95 65-A-103A + 65-A-1036 j / DAMD C. & DAVID C. & CAROL A. ROBINSON CAROL A. ROBINSON 1 D.B. 714, PG. 69 D.S. 714, PG. 69 BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PROPERTIES OF • DONALD W. MOULDEN, SR. do i MELANA M. MOULDEN SHAWNEE DISTRICT ,--,ay L � ,,� FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA GRA.'7r.-TIC SCA...�, �V0. I=4 SCALE: 1"-300' DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2005 0 150 ,o0 6001� ��_�� Jj� PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES ' I- r 1 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1_ CONSULTING ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - PLANNING 117 E. PICCADILLY STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 1 inch - 300 tt_ (540) 667-2139 SHEET 1 OF 2 14 OWNER'S TABLE 'ice s ORAYMOND 65-A-99A A. & KATHLEEN WILLIAMS 65-A-100A ROBERT C., SR. & ELMA V. BOYCE D.B. 896, PG. 914 D.B. 874, PG. 1228 c� 65-A-101 ROBERT A. & JENNIFER M. SEAL 65-A-99 O ROBERT C., SR. & ELMA V. BOYCE D.B. 832, PG. 589 D.B. 874, PG. 1228 • 65-A-100 65-A-96 OROBERT A. & JENNIFER M. SEAL © COUNTY OF FREDERICK D.B. 838, PG. 1840 D.B. 371, PG. 181 CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS DELTA LENGTH TANGENT BEARING CHORD C1 413.20 12'28'22" 89,95 45.15 S06'0 3"E 89,77 C2 164.98 40'00'33" 115.20 60,06 S32'14' 0"E 112.88 No. oom 621;���� LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 S12*14'34"E 268.73' L2 S29'30'16"W 374.22' L3 S57'32'51 "E 141.06' L4 S27'10'37"W 166,21' L5 S59'03'08"E 174.81' L6 N25'21'29"E 162,16' L7 S57'32'51 "E 30.72' L8 S69'15'12"E 16.12' L9 S27'23'30"W 99.98' L10 S12'05'25"W 95.94' L11 S40'51'46"W 325.00' L12 S51.00'04"E 268.00' L13 N40'51'46"E 175.00' L14 S51'00'04"E 22.55' L15 N40'51'46"E 150.00' L16 N51 *00'04"W 290.55' L17 S68'30'02"W 308.82' L18 N20'16*19"E 198.22' 1-19 S37'02'26"E 203,98' L20 N26'51'27"E 221.50' L21 S63'36'54"E 210.00' L22 N26'51'27"E 207.50' L23 N63-36'54"W 10.00' L24 ,S:' id'S' 60.58' L25 'N�g i'33"E 165.09' L26 N15.05'4 "W 89-.75' 1.2-77 _._ 4 4n"W 1 54' L V0511130"05-W 185. 25' L29 S88'01'3 " 1 Qpi 40MY SURVEY OF THE, PROPERTIES OF DONALD W. MOULDEN, SR. & MELMNA M. MWLDEN SHAWNEE DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1'-300' DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2005 PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSfONAL CORPORATION CONSULTING ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEIING - PLANNING 117 E. PICCADILLY STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (540) 667-2139 _ _ _ • • VIRGINIA: FREDMUCK COUNTY, SM FI& imtrunc t of pcoduypd Ipme on S p� od wit certMrAte of adcnowiodpmnt thereto annexed • .,as admimd to record. T impond by Sec, 58.14802 of Ali ) and 5&1-801 have bwa paK if am*s4ble 1,� , CQcrk C) C-0 C11 011 0 THIS DEED OF CORRECTION, made this -�— Of� 2005, by and between BRADLEY A. WII,KINS and MICNFi,i,F D. WRNS, his wife, parties of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Virginia Limited. Liability Company, of the other part, hereinafter called the Grantees. WHEREAS, by deed dated April 18, 2005, by and between the parties hereto and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia as Instrument No. 050008110, the Grantors herein conveyed a parcel of land lying and being situate in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, described as containing 14 acres on the survey of Douglas C. Legge, L.S., dated December 22, 1997, as recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 894 at I* I Page 1839; and, (TAX IYXAP NUMBER 65 ((A))-98), WHEREAS, the Grantors meant to convey 14,523 cr to Turner Enterprises, LLC, as stated in said deed and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to correct said mistake. NOW THEREFORE, this Deed of Correction is admitted to record to correct the acreage from 14,523 acres to 4 2 ac a to Turner Enterprises, LLC., a Virginia Limited Liability Company. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments for a more particular description of the property herein conveyed RRLSo a K + 04STON,PIc ATTORNEYS AT LAW WHEsTER,VIRGIN(A E 0 '0 • J2RISON & JOHNSrON,PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW NESTER, V}RGINIA 0 This conveyance is made subject to all easements, rights of way and restrictions of record affecting the subject property, hereto. The Grantee herein Iouns in this Deed of Correction to evidence its agreement W � MESS fie fo;.lowing signatures and seals: SEAL) Bradley illL (SEAL) Michelle D Wilkins TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC, A Virginia Limited Liability Company ByA��•tz(SEAL) R. J. Y , ManagerX_ember STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE, CITY OF WINCHESTER, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was ac'_rnow'_edged. before me tu s '� 3 r-d - day of 2005 by Bradley D. Wilkins and Michelle D. Wilkins, his wife. My commission expires L. 1Z ;' Notary Public ' o Lip � t"'op q�Y �, tNtrnUN�t'�,, CD I' STATE OF VIRGDak, AT LARG CITYRebff'� F art % IQL6 To -wit: I The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this "t � day of 2005 by R. J. Turner, who is Manager/Member of Turner Enterprises, LL a Virginia Limited LiabLity Company, on bd'ia: f i:o said Company I, My commission expires t �._ '�- O O Notary Public i viR I I I I (}Tmk, muns ICK COUNTY, Sf T, 'ibis iftui0t of writes produced to the on at with certificate of acWW1 dgement thereto um'Ved j ttod t3o rewrd. T imposed by Sec. MJ"802 of tf assessable I, � � + �.• , and 5$,1.8011y1tve beau plaid, I; G T + I PRISON & JOHNSTON,PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW MNCHESTER. VIROINIA I I I II I I I ListTickets Page 1 of 1 • • Real Estate Taxes Paid For Tax Year 2007 Name: TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC Map#: 65 A 86 i 1 �% r? H1 Date' De"C Fax ;�f iouiii E aid RE2007 37560 1 4/30/2007 28.97 ACRES $33.78 RE2007 37560 2 12/5/2007 28.97 ACRES $33.78 1 This amount represents payments applied during calendar Year 2007 and does not include Penalty,, Interest or Credit Card Fees. Total $67.56 Previous • https://www.co.frederick.va.us/applications/ReprintRETax/ListTickets.aspx 5/8/2008 ListTickets • • Real Estate Taxes Paid For Tax Year 2007 Name: TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC Map#: 65 A 86B t o x D c a 13111cf `yhi f= Bill D' tte D"C Tax :alloaR€ € Z-11d R.E2007 37561 1 4/30/2007 10.63 ACRES $244.65 RE2007 37561 2 12/5/2007 10.63 ACRES $244.65 1 This aneount represents payments applied during calendar year 2007 and does not include Penalty%, Interest or Credit Card Fees. Total $489.30 Previous Pa e 1 of 1 • • https://www.co.frederick.va.us/applications/ReprintRETax/ListTickets.aspx 5/8/2008 ListTickets Page 1 of 1 0 0 6 Real Estate Taxes Paid For Tax Year 2007 Name: TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC Map#: 65 A 98 1NX De jii � iEleC`� .rsC't1 Bill y C�<ae AesC � Tax :�iilowii 5 :lid RE2007 37562 1 4/30/2007 14.52 ACRES $552.57 RE2007 37562 2 12/5/2007 14.52 ACRES $552.56 1 This amount represents payments applied during calendar year 2007 and does not include Penalty, Interest or Credit Card Fees. Total $1,105.13 Previous 0 0 https://www.co.frederick.va.us/applications/ReprintRETax/ListTickets.aspx 5/8/2008 ListTickets Page 1 of 1 ! 0 0 Real Estate Taxes Paid For Tax Year 2007 Name: TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC Map#: 65 A 102 F s iil 1r to ir)c c 1 dX AII3t3U111 P dlci RE2007 37563 1 4/30/2007 27.00 ACRES $248.07 RE2007 37563 2 12/5/2007 27.00 ACRES $248.06 1 This amount represents payments applied during calendar year 2007 and does not include Penalty, Interest or Credit Card Fees. Total $496.13 Previous i https: //www. co.frederick.va.us/applications/ReprintRETax/ListTickets. aspx 5/8/2008 ListTickets Page 1 of 1 Real Estate Taxes Paid For Tax Year 2007 Name: TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC Map#• 65 A 102A i1X iL'�.ei :fie(( P�[ Date �it'St Tax Ayuoui.'t P.,01 � ilej)i f RE2007 37564 1 4/30/2007 5.00 ACRES $52.50 RE2007 37564 2 12/5/2007 5.00 ACRES $52.50 1 This aneount represents payments applied during calendar year 2007 and does not include Penalty, Interest or Credit Card Fees. Total $105.00 Previous 0 0 https://www. co.frederick.va.us/applications/ReprintRETax/ListTickets.aspx 5/8/2008 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC MEETING November 7, 2008 TO: THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #04-08 FOR RED HAWK ESTATES On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public meeting being held on Wednesday, November 19, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 904-08 of Red Hawk Estates, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.C., to rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 240 residential units. The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 655) in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Plamiing Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development $00.420 ) V��10�7 W 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 .... . M 1V07 ?C,�18 L Winchester, Virginia 22601ti. Mailed From. ?2601 US POSTAGE A R IC- A 115 9'71106r,;43 1908 RETURN TO qFMD,.-R :ARCADJ.A M Co' OVED LEFT NO A-1)DRZSS R17JYN21 F- FC)p ETA-URi_,WARr) `70 SENDER �10V 2 *-; S. i i "J + i 4L 0 4 --- U- i S Mike Ruddy From: Grillo, Maureen [maureen@harrison-johnston.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:42 PM To: Mike Ruddy Cc: Pettler, Steve Subject: Red Hawk Estates Attachments: Ltr to Mike Ruddy 082908.pdf Attached is a letter from Mr. Pettler in the above -referenced matter. Regards, Maureen A. Grillo Executive Assistant to Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Harrison & Johnston, PLC Telephone: 540.667.1266 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message from the law office of Harrison & Johnston, PLC is for the sole use of the intended recipient or recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or other dissemination of this e-mail message and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 9E: b H#U-) k � ,S , TO:BARBARA-DATA PROCESSING FROM:BEV - Pla �ning Dept. Please print b sets of I y © THANKS Property Id Number Owner's Name Mailing Address City Zip Acreage Zone Physical Address Physical Street 64 A 129 AMBROSE, SANDRA ANNE CARPER 1690 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602 107.6 RA 231 SULPHUR SPRING RD 65 A 12 SAGER, JUAREZ C 1376 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602 1.0 RA 1374 GREENWOOD RD 65 A 13B CUNNINGHAM, WALTER C & WANDA M 1366 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 6.9 RA 0 65 A 86A MCKEE, DONNA M 1384 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 5.0 RA 1384 GREENWOOD RD 65 A 104 S 126 N BRADDOCK ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601 56.0 RA 674 SULPHUR SPRING RD 65 A 97 O . ARNOLD, THELMA I PO BOX 3165 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 43.0 RA 193 BRIMSTONE LN 65 A 96 FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF 107 N KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VA. 22601 0.3 RA 160 BRIMSTONE LN ROBINSON, DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 33.0 RA 0 65 A 1036 PERRY PROPERTIES 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 2 6602 45.0 M1 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE 64 A 158 ROBINSON, DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER,—VA-22602 16.0 RA 315 SNAPPER LN 65 A 103A ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95110 59.1 B2 0 65 A 116 65 A 95 FREDERICK, COUNTY OF 107 N KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VA 22601 1 20.2 1 RA I 164 BRIMSTONE LN WILLIAMS, HELEN V 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWS,VA 23601 1 3.2 1 MZ 336 SULPHUR SPRING RD 65 A 91 65-a 6 � - •4 Ssa Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue Office 6s"A'S7 A - IJA 65- A - 100 Page 1 2/7/2006 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING July 25, 2008 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #04-08 FOR RED HAWK ESTATES On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street; Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 904-08 of Red Hawk Estates, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.C., to rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 240 residential units. The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 655) in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 9 t, — COUNTY of FREDERICK � •� ` 016H26508243 Department of Planning & Development - $ 00.420 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 ' F = 07124%2008 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Mailed From 22601 US POSTAGE 65 - A- - 116- ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE CA 95110-1104 NIXIE 951 DE 1 00 O7/3O/O0 RETURN '70 SENDER NOT DELIVERADLE AS ADDRESSED UNAMLE TO rORWARD cc: 22601500099 *3017- 00595--24-41 Mike Ruddy From: Pettler, Steve [pettler@harrison-johnston.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:09 AM To: Jerry. Copp@VDOT.Virginia.gov; Matthew.Smith@VDOT.Virginia.com; jbishop@co.frederick.va.us Cc: John F. Callow; J. Barry Carpenter; John Lewis; Mike Ruddy; rjturner@turnerre.com; Grillo, Maureen Subject: Red Hawk Estates VDOT Meeting; July 11, 2008 Attachments: Memo re VDOT Meeting 071508.pdf; Proffer Revisions 071408.pdf Gentlemen: Attached please find a memorandum and proffer revisions relating to the above referenced meeting. Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. HARRISON & JOHNSTON, PLC 21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P.O. Box 809 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Tel. 540.667.1266 Fax 540.667.1312 Mobile 540.664.5134 Privacy Statement: This message and attachments are confidential and are intended only for the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is protected by one or more legally recognized privileges. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, it is not intended that any legal privilege or the confidentiality of the messages and attachments are waived, and the same are hereby not waived. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer and network without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you. HARRISON & JOHNSTON, PLC 21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. P.O. Box 809 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Facsimile 540.667.1312 Telephone 540.667.1266 pettler@harrison-johiiston.com Mobile 540.664.5134 MEMORANDUM July 15, 2008 VIA EMAIL TO: Jerry Copp, VDOT; Matt Smith, VDOT; John Bishop, Frederick County; John Callow, PHR&A; Barry Carpenter, Sympoetica CC: R.J. Turner, Tuner Enterprises, LLC; John Lewis, Painter -Lewis, PLC; Mike Ruddy, Frederick County FROM: Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Re: Red Hawk Estates; VDOT Meeting held July 11, 2008 Gentlemen: Thank you all for your time on Friday. This memorandum serves to recap the points we discussed in the above referenced meeting. Please advise if I have missed anything or if you wish to elaborate on anything further. We generally discussed the changes to the proffer statement made by Turner Enterprises, LLC to address the comments of Lloyd Ingram received on March 12, 2008 by email. Subject to the additional comments addressed below, the changes to the proffers made in response to Mr. Ingram's comments were acknowledged to satisfy VDOT in regard to the comments made by Mr. Ingram. After a general discussion, it was agreed that the proposed future location of Route 37 in relation to the proposed intersection of Charming Drive extended at Route 50 and Independence Drive should not effect any of the proffers submitted by Turner Enterprises, LLC from the perspective of VDOT and Frederick County's transportation plan. Regarding Section 14.3 of the proposed proffer statement, VDOT and Mr. Bishop noted that the wording of the proffer limited the use of the proffered funds to signalization at the Route 50 / Sulphur Springs interchange. It was discussed that signalization may be required at Route 50 / Channing Drive extended or even at Channing Drive extended and Sulphur Springs Road. Turner Enterprises, LLC understands the concerns stated and has amended Section 14.3 of its proffer statement to reflect this change. A copy of the revised Section 14.3 is attached. Regarding Section 14.2 of the proposed proffer statement, VDOT and Mr. Bishop all pointed out that as drawn on the Concept plan for Red Hawk Estates, the lots fronting on Greenwood Road (as depicted therein) would probably not be approved by VDOT if submitted for site plan approval. This was acknowledged by Turner's representatives and it was communicated that the concept plan was not being proffered and the location of Greenwood Road, once actually determined and engineered, would ultimately determine the lay -out of lots within Red Hawk Estates fronting on Greenwood Road. Otherwise, the proffer as drafted addressed Mr. Ingram's written comments. Regarding Section 14.4 of the proposed proffer statement, it was generally discussed that the proffer did not contain any language specifying the timing of construction of the proposed Chaining Drive improvements. Turner Enterprises, LLC understands the concerns stated and has amended Section 14.4 of its proffer statement to reflect this change. A copy of the revised section 14.4 is attached. The TIA was generally discussed, particularly the fact a new TIA had not been generated for the property in light of the revised proffer to construct proposed Chaining Drive extended across the Red IIawk property and across the Arcadia property to Route 50. It appeared obvious to all present that the proffer to construct an access to the Red Hawk property all the way through to Route 50 would alleviate concerns about traffic impact on Sulphur Spring Road. After discussion it was agreed that it would be helpful to VDOT to have a memorandum from PHR&A showing the trips generated from the property split between the property located north of Sulphur Spring Road versus the property located south of Sulphur Spring Road. PHR&A is preparing such a memorandum for your review in order to confirm that VDOT's concerns about traffic impacts to Sulphur Spring Road are adequately addressed in the rezoning application. The concept drawing of the streetscape for Charming Drive extended across the Red Hawk property was discussed in regard to the width of the right of way necessary to construct the street as depicted. It was acknowledged by the representatives of Turner that the drawing should be amended to reflect a 90' right of way for proposed Charming Drive across the Red Hawk property and the Arcadia property. Barry Carpenter will be revising his drawing to reflect this and it will be submitted for your information after completion. The above referenced changes to the documents are being submitted to Frederick County for inclusion in the rezoning application to be presented to the Planning Commission on August 6, 2008. If any of you have any additional comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. 14.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $180,000 to the County for the construction of a traffic signal and/or other associated improvements as required by the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation at such time the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation determines such traffic signal and/or associated improvements become necessary to address measurable impacts resulting from the development of the proposed Red Hawk Estates and so long as at least 100 dwelling units have been constructed on the Property. 14.4 The Applicant agrees to construct the proposed Channing Drive as a four (4) lane, divided roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Charming Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation in that area of the Property dedicated to the County for the relocation of Charming Drive pursuant to Section 14.1 above. The Applicant will construct the improvements proffered in Section 14.5 below prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. The Applicant will complete the construction of the proffered improvements set forth in this Section 14.4 upon the completion of the construction of the last townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME PROFFER DATE PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ# RA to RP 85.3 Acres Tax Map Parcels 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. R.J. Turner, Manager Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. Red Hawk Estates May 1, 2008, Revised July 14, 2008 The Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as identified above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' ("Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. The Applicant hereby proffers as follows: REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME PROFFER DATE: PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ# RA to RP 85.3 Acres Tax Map Parcels 65-A-86, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. R.J. Turner, Manager Turner Enterprises, L.L.C. Red Hawk Estates May 1, 2008, Revised July 14, 2008 The Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as identified above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' ("Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. The Applicant hereby proffers as follows: 1. LAND USE 1.1 Areas of development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Performance ("RP") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code. All residential development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be approved by Frederick County. 1.2 The Property shall be developed in conformity with the Generalized Development Plan ("GDP") dated April 16, 2008 submitted herewith with regard to the locations for residential dwelling units, open spaces, improvements and roadways as generally depicted on the GDP. 1.3 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum gross density of 2.81 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of two hundred forty (240) dwelling units on 85.3 acres. Of the maximum number of dwelling units (240), no more than sixty-nine (69) dwelling units shall be single family detached residential units, and no more than one hundred seventy (170) dwelling units shall be single family attached residential units. 1.4 The construction of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) units per calendar year. 1.5 In order to preserve the distinctive natural characteristics of the Property, the minimum amount of open space on the Property after development will be at least 32.5 acres or thirty eight percent (38%) of the Property. No more than fifty percent (50%) of this open space will be within lakes and ponds, wetlands or !i steep slopes. 1.6 In order to preserve the distinctive natural characteristics of the Property, the 100- year floodplain area for Sulphur Spring Run located on the Property and all wetlands and steep slopes (exceeding fifty percent (50%) slope grade) adjacent to Sulphur Spring Run located on the Property will be preserved as "community open space" as generally depicted on the GDP. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all areas of the Property on which the location of roadways or trail systems are depicted shall be specifically excluded from the terms of this proffer, and the right to install and maintain utility facilities, access rights of way and recreational facilities in and upon such areas is hereby reserved. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS 2.1 The Property shall be developed as a single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, design standards and this Proffer Statement, as approved by the Board. -2- 3. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL; LINEAR PARK 3.1 The Applicant shall construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail ten feet (10') in width, and dedicate an easement twenty feet (20') in width encompassing said trail for the purpose of creating and maintaining the area as a linear park open to the t' general public along the banks of Sulphur Spring Run. In addition, the Applicant shall construct a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails along the public roadways generally depicted in the GDP submitted herewith connecting all the areas of open space and all of the residential areas of the Property by a continuous network of trails. These trails shall be ten feet (10') in width, located within an easement area twenty feet (20') in width dedicated to the Property Owner's Association for the development and included as "open space" in the development. The location of the trails is to be determined by the Applicant but shall be as generally depicted on the GDP submitted herewith as the "Proposed Trail' (in the designated "Proposed Sulphur Springs Greenway") and along the public roadways depicted therein. Construction of said trails by the Applicant shall be in accordance with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and in conformity with specifications imposed by the County. The trails shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the drawing labeled "bike trail typical" submitted herewith. The Applicant shall construct the trail in its entirety on or before the date on which the building permit for the one hundredth (100`h) unit is issued. The area of the public linear park shall be maintained as open space by the Property Owner's Association but shall be dedicated to public use, not limited to use only by the property owners in the development. 3.2 The Applicant will construct a water feature in that area identified for the same in the "Community Open Space" set forth on the GDP submitted herewith. The water feature will consist of an impoundment of water ("pond") constructed in accordance with all applicable State and County statutes and ordinances. The water feature will be constructed and completed on or before such time the "Community Open Space" generally depicted on the GDP is conveyed to the Property Owner's Association in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 below. 4. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES 4.1 The Applicant will implement the following Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to the extent feasible after detailed engineering of the site development and within a hybrid design including both conventional and LID stormwater management techniques. Page references provided below refer to: The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Urban Manual for Low Impact Site Development by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission and Engineering Concepts, Inc. (October 2005): SIE 4.1.1 ILI 5. R Conservation of resources: reservation of the area within the 100-year flood plain of Sulphur Spring Run, designated wetlands and adjacent steep slopes as community open space and the protection of woodlands located within same (including the planting of more or additional native species, as advisable) in order to provide a substantial buffer along Sulphur Spring Run (page 4-2); 4.1.2 Limitations on impervious surfaces (page 4-7); 4.1.2.1 Limitation of residential private driveway widths to nine (9) feet; 4.1.2.2 Minimization of building front setbacks to the extent permitted by the Zoning Ordinance in order to reduce residential private driveway lengths; 4.1.2.3 Use of private roads where possible; 4.1.3 Installation of bio-retention basins in conjunction with conventional stormwater management facilities, if determined feasible during site engineering (pages 3-4, 4-13, 6-1 through 6-7). 4.2 In addition to implementation of the low impact development techniques set forth above, stormwater management and best management practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, so that the highest order of stormwater control existing under Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility results. PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 5.1 The Applicant shall erect an appropriate historical marker or plaque identifying the site of the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop as identified in Section H of the Impact Analysis Statement. The Applicant shall preserve the site of the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop. FIRE & RESCUE 6.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $771 per single family detached residential unit for fire and rescue purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 0.? The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $568 per single family attached residential unit for fire and rescue purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. f y ' -4- .IM r 7. SCHOOLS 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $18,431 per single family detached residential unit for school purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $12,980 per single family attached residential unit for school purposes upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $2,028 per single family detached residential unit for recreational purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit, subject to Section 8.3 below. 8.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,550 per single family attached residential unit for recreational purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit, subject to Section 8.3 below. 8.3 In consideration of the construction of the bike trail and dedication of the public linear park set forth in Section 3.1, the Applicant agrees to make the contributions set forth in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 subject to a credit in the total amount of $40,000 to be applied by reducing the amounts payable upon issuance of a unit's building permit in the amount of $166.67 per payment ($40,000 divided by 240 units equals $166.67 per unit [$40,000 / 240 = $166.67]). This amount ($40,000) reflects the estimate of the cost to install the trails submitted to the Applicant by -its'engineers and does not include the value of the land dedicated to public use. > LIBRARIES 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $372 per single family detached residential unit for library purposes upon issuance of a unit's building i permit. 9.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $285 per single family attached residential unit for library purposes upon issuance of a unit's building permit. -5- 10. PUBLIC SAFETY 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $875 per single family detached residential unit for the Sheriffs Office upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $669 per single family attached residential unit for the Sheriff s Office upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10.3 } The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $650,000 toward the actual contracted cost of construction for the construction of an indoor shooting range to replace the currently existing outdoor shooting range, one of the last outdoor firing ranges owned by a city or county in the Commonwealth of Virginia, located on Tax Map Parcel No. 65-A-95 owned by the County, which adjoins the Property. The location of the indoor shooting range shall be determined by the County. The Applicant shall not be required to make the aforesaid contribution unless and until the County has approved a contract for the construction of the referenced indoor shooting range and given written notice to Applicant that the County will permanently discontinue the use of its property (Tax Map Parcel No. 65-A-95) as an outdoor shooting range upon the completion of the construction of the said indoor shooting range. The Applicant shall make this contribution within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written notice from the County but in no event shall the Applicant be liable for the contribution set forth in this Section 10.3 after that date which is ten (10) years from the date of final rezoning of the Property. In the event the County has not given the Applicant the written notice required under this Section 10.3 within ten (10) years from the date of final rezoning of the Property, this proffer shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. In the event the actual contracted cost of construction for the referenced indoor shooting range shall be less than $650,000, the Applicant shall only be liable for the total amount of the actual contracted cost of construction. GENERAL GOVERNMENT 11.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $450 per single family detached residential unit to be used for general government administration upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 11.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $344 per single family attached residential unit to be used for general government administration upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. r, 12. CREATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION 12.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a Property Owners' Association (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, -6- maintenance and repair of all community open space and other "common areas" not dedicated to the County or others, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development. In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall be responsible for refuse and recycling collection throughout the development. 12.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all community open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use; (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, including curbside refuse pick-up by a private refuse collection company; and (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12.3 After the establishment of the POA, upon the first sale of each lot on which a residential unit or units are located in the development, the POA will be entitled to collect an initial assessment in the amount of $200 per unit (in addition to the regular annual assessments imposed by the POA) to fund the initial operations of the POA. 13. WATER & SEWER 13.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 14. TRANSPORTATION 14.1 The Applicant shall dedicate a right of way for the relocation of Greenwood Road and Channing Drive over those portions of the Property identified as "Extended and Improved Greenwood Road As Per Eastern Road Plan" and "Extended and Improved Charming Drive Per Eastern Road Plan," each as generally depicted on the GDP attached herewith. 14.2 The Applicant agrees not to construct houses on lots adjacent to existing Greenwood Road which will be accessed from existing Greenwood Road unless and until Greenwood Road is relocated and connected to proposed Channing Drive per the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan as set forth in its Eastern Road Plan. After such time as Greenwood Road is relocated, the Applicant may -7- construct houses on lots which may be accessed from that road which corresponds to existing Greenwood Road. 14.3 The Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $180,000 to the County for the construction of a traffic signal and/or other associated improvements as required by the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation at such time the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation determines such traffic signal and/or associated improvements become necessary to address measurable impacts resulting from the development of the proposed Red Hawk Estates. 14.4 The Applicant agrees to construct the proposed Channing Drive as a four (4) lane, divided roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Charming Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation in that area of the Property dedicated to the County for the relocation of Charming Drive pursuant to Section 14.1 above. The Applicant will construct the improvements proffered in Section 14.5 below prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. The Applicant will complete the construction of the proffered improvements set forth in this Section 14.4 upon the completion of eth construction of the last townhouse unit to be located in that area of the GDP in which such townhouse units will be constructed. 14.5 The Applicant will construct on the property owned by Arcadia Development Co. (Frederick County Tax Map # 65-A-116) proposed Charming Drive as a two (2) lane roadway, with related improvements, including pedestrian improvements, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Charming Drive and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Applicant has entered a memorandum of understanding with Arcadia Development Co. whereby the parties agree to enter a definitive agreement providing that Arcadia Development Co., its successors and assigns, will allow the Applicant, its successors and assigns, access to the property to construct said roadway from the Property to U.S. Route 50 and Arcadia Development Co. will dedicate the right of way related to such roadway to the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation upon acceptance of the same after construction. The agreement between the Applicant and Arcadia Development Co. will be contingent upon the granting of this rezoning application as applied for by the Applicant. 14.6 The Applicant agrees to construct all improvements, including pedestrian improvements, locat ed on the Property r elated to "Old Greenwood Road" as depicted in the GDP attached herewith and all improvements, including pedestrian improvements, located on the Property in that area of the Property 15 dedicated to the County for the relocation of Greenwood Road pursuant to Section 14.1 above. Such improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and any public improvement plans relating to the proposed relocation of Greenwood Road and "Old Greenwood Road" and as approved by the County and / or the Virginia Department of Transportation. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 15.1 In the event the monetary contributions contemplated under this Proffer Statement are paid to the Board within thirty (30) months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after thirty (30) months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") reported by the United States Department of Labor such that, at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI- U from (i) the CPI-U as reported on that date which is twenty-four (24) months after the date of the final rezoning to (ii) the CPI-U as reported on the date of the most recently available CPI-U relative to the date on which the contributions are paid. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the amount of contributions be adjusted by a factor greater than six percent (6%) per year, simple interest. Respectfully submitted this TURNER ENT///117E RISES, LLC 4 By: R.J.. T16W, Manager / V. STATE OF \IRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: day of %, 2008, n., % The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 'day of , 2008, by R.J. Turner, as Manager for and a Member of Turner Enterprises, LLC. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: MAUREEN A. GRILLO NOTARY ID * 7123235 NOTARY PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 2011 -9- Mike Rudd From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Smith, Matthew, P.E. [Matthew.Smith@vdot.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:18 PM To: pettler@harrison-johnston.com Cc: Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Hoffman, Gregory; mruddy@co.frederick.va.us; John Bishop Subject: Red Hawk Estates - VDOT Comments to Rezoning The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 655, 656 and 50. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is generally satisfied the transportation proffers offered in the revised Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Application dated July 15, 2008 address transportation concerns associated with this request. However, VDOT offers the following comments: • Revised Proffer 14.3: The current proffered monetary amount may be insufficient to offset all traffic impacts. Also traffic improvements may be necessary prior to the proffered time trigger of one hundred dwelling units being constructed. We feel traffic improvements could certainly be required prior to the proffered time trigger. Proffer 14.5: Concerning the two lanes to be constructed through the Arcadia Property, it should be clarified that the Red Hawk development's construction is in addition to the already proffered Arcadia two lanes rather than a substitution. The ultimate goal is a four lane roadway. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of- way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Matthew B. Smith, P.E. Residency Staff Engineer VDOT - Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone # (540) 984-5615 Fax # (540) 984-5607 ti jai " „.� � �� r •y. r 1� ` '1K REZONING F'lItzt IC tit AWNS. .. '� tr . r •• b'1 a \ ,r. F ' I�. lei, r •~ #qt i - � ct �1 r �. _ !� �. � � �' y �2' • 1 • ice.. Mp r in r im MA r _ - +� .^ _ •: ! . t� ..off ;. ow w t r. 74, IJ LI 13 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING December 1, 2008 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #04-08 FOR RED HAWK ESTATES You were recently sent a notification to consider the following application: Rezoning #04-08 of Red Hawk Estates, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.C., to rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 240 residential units. Please be advised that this application has been tabled indefinitely by the Planning Commission and is not scheduled to return at this time. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia. 65 - A- -102- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 22601-2631 Painter -Lewis PLC 817 Cedar Creek Grade, Ste. 120 Winchester, VA 22601 64 - A- - 129- CARPER FARM SOUTH LLC CIO CINDY C JONES 113 CARDINAL LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6106 65 - A- - 12- WHITE BENITA C 1122 GUARDHILL RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645 65 - A- - 13-B CUNNINGHAM WALTER C & WANDA M 1366 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6578 65 - A- - 86-A MCKEE DONNA M 1384 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6578 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 65 - A- - 97- ARNOLD THELMA I ETALS TRUSTEES PO BOX 3165 WINCHESTER VA 22604.2365 65 - A- - 103-B ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 64 - A- - 158- PERRY PROPERTIES 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22602.4561 Arcadia Building Co. 117 N. Bailey Ln. Purcellville, VA 20132 65 - A- - 116- ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE CA 95110.1104 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department 1, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning 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 day of My commission expires on NOTARY PUBLIC V 0_-- COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING November 26, 2008 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #04-08 FOR RED HAWK ESTATES On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, December 10, 2008, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 04-08 of Red Hawk Estates, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.C., to rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 240 residential units. The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 655) in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 65 - A- - 86- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601-2631 Painter -Lewis PLC 817 Cedar Creek Grade, Ste. 120 Winchester, VA 22601 64 - A- - 129- CARPER FARM SOUTH LLC CIO CINDY C JONES 113 CARDINAL LN WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 12- WHITE BENITA C 1122 GUARDHILL RD MIDDLETOWN VA 65 - A- - 97- ARNOLD THELMA I ETALS TRUSTEES PO BOX 3165 WINCHESTER VA 22604.2365 65 - A- - 103-B ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 64 - A- - 158- PERRY PROPERTIES 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22602.4561 22602.6106 65 - A- - 116- ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE CA 95110.1104 22645 65 - A- - 13-B CUNNINGHAM WALTER C & WANDA M Arcadia Building 117 N. Bailey Ln. Purcellville, VA Co. 20132 1366 GREENWOOD RD / WINCHESTER VA. 22602 6578 ✓/'�(� G`'dLa� 65 - A- - 86-A MCKEE DONNA M Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning , irector 1384 GREENWOOD RD Frederick County Planning Department WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6578 COUNTY OF FREDERICK a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, d ereby certify that Mi ael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planning d Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and C 7nty aforesaid. Given under my hand this i day of My commission expires on v BEVERLY H, GE5 R NOTARY ID # 331678 NOTARY PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 31, 2011 NOTIFICATION November 7, 2008 Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 MEETING THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public meeting being held on Wednesday, November 19, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 904-08 of Red Hawk Estates, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.C., to rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 240 residential units. The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 655) in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Plarming and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 k This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on / Q (/ from the Department of Planninp- and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 65 - A- - 97- ARNOLD THELMA 1 ETALS TRUSTEES 65 - A- - 86- PO BOX 3165 TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC WINCHESTER VA 22604.2365 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601.2631 65 - A- - 103-B ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN John C. Lewis, P.C. Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. 116 S. Stewart St. Winchester, VA 22601 64 - A- - 129- CARPER FARM SOUTH LLC CIO CINDY C JONES 113 CARDINAL LN WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 12- WHITE BENITA C 1122 GUARDHILL RD MIDDLETOWN VA 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 64 - A- - 158- PERRY PROPERTIES 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22602.4561 65 - A- - 116- 22602.6106 ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE CA 95110.1104 65 -A- - 91. 22645 RICHMOND HELEN MARCIA WILLIAMS 65 - A- - 13-B CUNNINGHAM WALTER C & WANDA M 1366 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6578 65 - A- - 86-A MCKEE DONNA M 1384 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6578 STATE OF VIRGIlVIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK , 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWSVA 23601.2144 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department I, �. a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, d ereby certify that , chael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planningand Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated Z / � /p �( , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this l ' day of My commission expires on d i . -..- !1EVLRlYH UINGFF2 NoARIY 331878 COMtvI1�NWE PU13LIC MYco!�Miss ALTH of VIRGINIA EXPIRES JULY31, 2011 J NOTARY P#BLIC COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC MEETING September 5, 2008 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #04-08 FOR RED HAWK ESTATES On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public meeting being held on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #04-08 of Red Hawk Estates, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.C., to rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 240 residential units. The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 655) in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING July 25, 2008 TO: THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION 404-08 FOR RED HAWK ESTATES On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 904-08 of Red Hawk Estates, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.C., to rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 240 residential units. The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 655) in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A A copy of the application will be available for review at the Iandley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.fi-ederick.va.us. Sincerely, �"C'L_ aL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on lAqkk from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 65 - A- - 86- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601-2631 65 - A- - 86- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601.2631 64 - A- - 129- CARPER FARM SOUTH LLC CIO CINDY C JONES 113 CARDINAL LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6106 65 - A- - 12- WHITE BENITA C 1122 GUARDHILL RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645 65 - A- - 13-B CUNNINGHAM WALTER C & WANDA M 1366 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6578 65 - A- - 86-A MCKEE DONNA M 1384 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6578 65 - A- - 97- ARNOLD THELMA I ETALS TRUSTEES PO BOX 3165 22604 2365 WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- -103-B ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 64 - A- - 158- PERRY PROPERTIES 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22602.4561 65 - A- - 116- ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE CA 95110.1104 65 -A- - 91- RICHMOND HELEN MARCIA WILLIAMS 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWSVA 23601.2144 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Dire or Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, G, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, d4hby certify that Mich T. RUuddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Pl ng d Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my Sta e and ounty aforesaid. Given under my hand this ) day of My commission expires on , B�pE331878 Ll1NGER NOTARY ID PUBLIC NOTEALTH OF VIRGIV41A COMMONW MY CUMMI�.sRES ` NOTARY PVBLIC TO: BARBARA- DATA PROCESSING FROW BEV - Planning Dept. Please print sets of labels by THANKS! Mailing Address 1690 SENSENY RD 1376 GREENWOOD RD city Zip Acreage Zone Physical Address Physical Street Property Id Number Owner's Name WINCHESTER, VA 22602 107.6 RA 231 SULPHUR SPRING RD 64 A 129 AMBROSE, SANDRA ANNE CARPER WINCHESTER, VA 22602 1.0 RA 1374 GREENWOOD RD 65 A 12 - SAGER, JUAREZ C 65 A 13B 4� CUNNINGHAM, WALTER C 8 WANDA M 1366 GREENWOOD RD 1384 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER, VA.K226 6.9 RA 0 WINCHESTER, VA. 5.0 RA 1384 GREENWOOD RD 65 A 86A MCKEE, DONNA M 65 A 104 126 N BRADDOCK ST WINCHESTER, VA 56.0 RA 674 SULPHUR SPRING RD t9D Co PO BOX 3165 107 N KENT STREET 315 SNAPPER LN WINCHESTER, VA WINCHESTER, VA. WINCHESTER, VA. 22604 22601 22602 43.0 0.3 33.0 RA RA RA 193 160 0 BRIMSTONE LN BRIMSTONE LN 65 A 97 65 A 96 65 A 103E ARNOLD, THELMA I FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ROBINSON, DAVID C.& CAROL AN WINCHESTER, VA 22602 45.0 M1 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE 64 A 158 �- PERRY PROPERTIES 1945 MILLWObb PIKE 315 SHAFFER LN 1115 COLEMAN AVE 65 A 103A �- ROBINSON, DAVID C.& CAROL ANN WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 16.0 RA 315 SNAPPER LN SAN JOSE, CA 95110 59.1 B2 0 65 A 116 ✓ ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO RA 164 BRIMSTONE LN 65 A 95 FREDERICK, COUNTY OF 107 N KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VA 22601 20.2 65 A 91 ILLIAMS, HELEN V 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWS,VA 23601 3.2 M2 336 SULPHUR SPRING RD c60 65 - A /A %7JAa4it b S - A-- 10 ( -- - 65— - Io0 2/7/2006 Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue Office Page 1 Easy Peel Labels A r � I'm IrsstcLseli011 Sheet�� Use fweryOp TEIi,KArE 516'i� Feed egdl Paler � •,.rr,,g for Easy Peel Ee ture ova �®5 ifa1a r04i A 65 - A- - 102- 65 - A- - 102- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 22601.2631 WINCHESTER VA. 22601.2631 65 - A- - 102- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 64 - A- - 129- CARPER FARM SOUTH LLC C/O CINDY C JONES 113 CARDINAL LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6106 ki"quettten faciles & Pefo�r A, Litilkez le Dabarit A- ICRY@ 5'1a1d Sens, de chargeinent 65 - A- - 102- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 22601.2631 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 64 - A- - 129- CARPER FARM SOUTH LLC CIO CINDY C JONES 113 CARDINAL LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6106 consUltez la feuille tilww.avery/.com d'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy beet 'Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51610 See Instruction Sheet F e id Paper ��'� �'" for Easy Peel Feature 65 - A- - 98- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601.2631 65 - A- - 98- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601-2631 65 - A- - 98- 65 - A- - 98- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601.2631 WINCHESTER VA 22601.2631 65 - A- - 98- 65 - A- - 98- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601.2631 WINCHESTER VA 22601.2631 65 - A- - 102- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 22601.2631 65 - A- - 102- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 22601.2631 65 - A- - 102- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 22601.2631 65 - A- - 102- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 22601.2631 kiguettos faciles � peler lrl� Consultez la feuille mmavery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERYO 5161'D' Sens de chargement d'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY EasyPeel Labels Al,, Mll" tre�u: SeeinstlonShe�•tUse fikrery©'f E"�VPLATE 51G IFed P-apeV e-�� :' � fov Easy [peel Feature 65 - A- - 12- 65 - A- - 12- WHITE BENITA C WHITE BENITA C 1122 GUARDHILL RD 1122 GUARDHILL RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645 MIDDLETOWN VA 22645 65 - A- - 13-B CUNNINGHAM WALTER C & WANDA M 1366 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6578 65 - A- - 13-B CUNNINGHAM WALTER C & WANDA M 1366 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6578 t'1;idlcrsii� •laeil�s ;� lreler �k €Stilise:z le gabarf•t 1-lvf_IZY,= 5w,i " Sens de cl-rargemen't Consultez la feuille vv-ir:nrr.avery.c®m Winstructian 1-800-CEO-AVERY Easy feel Labels Use AmeryC) TEWPLk E 5161© A See lnstruction'beef , Feed Piper �e—�.�o o for Eery Peel Feature � ��` 65 - A- - 86-A MCKEE DONNA M 1384 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 104- FREDERICK COUNTY VA 107 N KENT ST WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 104- FREDERICK COUNTY VA 107 N KENT ST WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 104- FREDERICK COUNTY VA 107 N KENT ST WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 104- FREDERICK COUNTY VA 107 N KENT ST WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 86-A MCKEE DONNA M 1384 GREENWOOD RD 22602.6578 WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6578 65 - A- - 104- FREDERICK COUNTY VA 107 N KENT ST 22601 WINCHESTER VA 22601 65 - A- - 104- FREDERICK COUNTY VA 107 N KENT ST 22601 WINCHESTER VA 22601 65 - A- - 104- FREDERICK COUNTY VA 107 N KENT ST 22601 WINCHESTER VA 22601 65 - A- - 104- FREDERICK COUNTY VA 107 N KENT ST 22601 WINCHESTER VA 22601 65 - A- - 97- ARNOLD THELMA I ETALS TRUSTEES PO BOX 3165 WINCHESTER VA 22604.2365 65 - A- - 97- ARNOLD THELMA I ETALS TRUSTEES PO BOX 3165 WINCHESTER VA 22604.2365 Utilisez le yaharit A` ER%1" 5-1Gl " 'Sens de cl-Ear9timent consultez la'Fc.2§ He Winstruction ifirolmcavery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel Labets Use Arrery"D I-EfvtPUKTE S161C see Instruction Sherat or Easy feel Feature All 65 - A- - 103-B ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602 64 - A- - 158- PERRY PROPERTIES 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 103-A ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 65 A- 103-A ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 �r,tiq,eebbes Facile s- �t paler Utilisez le 3abari-t : ,vr::nY0 11 riiO Jens cle charger-flent 65 - A- - 103-B ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602 64 - A- - 158- PERRY PROPERTIES 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 103-A ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN-­-­ 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA.-- 22602.6534 65 - A-' - 103-A ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602 Co nsultez la feuille d'instruction VIF1wmavery coo 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Feel Labels Use Pveijr® TvmpLar, s i6112 Feed Peer See Instruction Sheet for Easy Pee! Feature 65 - A- - 103-A ROBINSON DAVID Ch CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN i WINCHESTER VA. /22602.6534 65 - A- - 103=A ROBINSON DAVID Ch CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602-6534 65 - A- - 116- ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE CA 95110.1104 65 -A- - 91- RICHMOND HELEN MARCIA WILLIAMS 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWSVA 23601.2144 65 - A- - 103-A ROBINSON DAVID Ch CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 65 A 103-A ROBINSON DAVID Ch CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 65 - A- - 116- ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE CA 95110.1104 65 -A- - 91- RICHMOND HELEN MARCIA WILLIAMS 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWSVA 23601.2144 Llf€lisez le gabarir i\VERY@ 51616 Senn de chargemon . COMQUICeZ la Ie=Uille vutitvvu.avery.com d'insfru Lion 1-800-GO-EVERY lam and S-niad-e Free Printiinn ® www.avery.com R '1927M P= nA9!. — Rl Lisa ,every@ TEMPLATE ATE 51610 0 1-800-GO-�AVERY � �a� �u s s Arcadia Building Co. 117 N. Bailey Ln. Purcellville, VA 20132 Arcadia Building Co. 117 N. Bailey Ln. Purcellville, VA 20132 Arcadia Building Co. 117 N. Bailey Ln. Purcellville, VA 20132 Arcadia Building 117 N. Bailey Ln. Purcellville, VA Co. 20132 @MS ®AUM AW, S JlMMV-0J-00E-L WOYA.lDAWAAMM 0L9L5;!aege6 al zesaliin apidea a eq:)as a la a6wjnoq!Iue uoissaidwi i A Y I�dt #D�II£ a1 3 � r'r' €° i t= f i ES.Wot a z 01 i ? af�g' any f 1 } Izd_ F jjo foa a'f f%�Yc g . ........ s r t F Y 3 Mann 0 ---------------- r Easy Peel Labels See InS't1'LICU011 Sheet Use Avery® `�EMPL-A"I-E 5161� Feed Paper �_ya for Easy Heel f ea'ture����5161 65 - A- - 85- SHUMAN JOHN E 1365 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 85- SHUMAN JOHN E 1365 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 85- SHUMAN JOHN E 1365 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 85- SHUMAN JOHN E 1365 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA 22602.6581 22602.6581 22602.6581 22602.6581 65 - A- - 85- SHUMAN JOHN E 1365 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 85- SHUMAN JOHN E 1365 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 85- SHUMAN JOHN E 1365 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 85- SHUMAN JOHN E 1365 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA 22602.6581 22602.6581 22602-6581 22602.6581 I?tiquettes faciles A peler A Consultez la feuille www.avery.corrl Utilisez le gabarit AVLRY® 51610 Sens de chargement (!'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Ved Labels Use Pveryo'I'EmP6.ATE 5161@ F}i Feed F-aper HIM See Instructm Sheet for Easy keel Feature 65 - A- - 84- PARLETT JOANNE PO BOX 2613 WINCHESTER VA 22604-1813 65 - A- - 83- MALONE CHARLES R & JUDITH K 1465 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 80- EFG INVESTMENTS LLC 340 W PARKINS MILL RD WINCHESTER VA 22602-6582 22602.4735 65 - A- - 84- PARLETT JOANNE PO BOX 2613 WINCHESTER VA 22504.1813 65 - A- - 83- MALONE CHARLES R & JUDITH K 1465 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 80- EFG INVESTMENTS LLC 340 W PARKINS MILL RD WINCHESTER VA 22602-6582 22602.4735 "tiquettes faciles & pelcr Ah Utilisez le gabarit AVFRYO 5161n Sens de chargement Cvnsultez la feuille d'instruction vtrmmavery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Pec- I Labels l �v j See IPYS'�t'S�E'�ICiE� Sheet 5 //��, �4� �u,tE�a�r�a l6+.l s Use Avery@ TF-,APL.'kTE 516-16 Fccd Papek° Kor Ea5Y Decal Feature 65 -A- - 81- 65 - A- - 81- RUDY GLENN B RUDY GLENN B 621 TENNYSON AVE 621 TENNYSON AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601-3223 WINCHESTER VA 22601.3223 65 -A- - 81-A 65 -A- - 81-A CHAPMAN DONALD L CHAPMAN DONALD L CHAPMAN JANET L CHAPMAN JANET L 767 SULPHUR SPRING RD 767 SULPHUR SPRING RD WINCHESTER VA 22602-6553 WINCHESTER VA 22602.6553 k`Li(queux-is faclles A peler Al Consultez la fouille wvvfw.averV.coEn LitilEsez le gabariE A\IERY® 5161U Sens de chargernent d`instalCti011 1-900-GO-AVERY 'EaYy Pecs L.abelsq p 4'5161 R Use A.very0 S EIVI Lf XE 5 6 6 Y A LM',R :s M See, Instruction Sheet Feed Paper �-«�,��, for Easy Peel Feature '9L s e ire® I&Id j 65 - A- - 99-A WILLIAMS RAYMOND A & KATHLEEN S 8 W SHARON DR BOYCE VA 22620-9703 65 -A- -101- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 a 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 1 DO - SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602-6522 65 - A- - 99-A WILLIAMS RAYMOND A & KATHLEEN S 8 W SHARON DR BOYCE VA 22620.9703 65 -A- -101- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602-6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602-6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 i 'ii�lffs�'33L° v faciles A 13der J: Llriliset le gabadt AVERY-ll 51-610 Sens de cliar0ement l`onsuitei ki feuille d'instruction vfr mr.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy reel Labels Use J%very® TEMPLATE 5161p ry t: 3 v See Instruction 'Sheet Feed Paper E'== � for Easy reel Fea-tEire ® �i �'�V;�le��516'i® .�a 65 - A- - 99- BOYCE ROBERT CECIL SR & ELMA VIOLA 245 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 99- BOYCE ROBERT CECIL SR & ELMA VIOLA 245 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 99- BOYCE ROBERT CECIL SR & ELMA VIOLA 245 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 99- BOYCE ROBERT CECIL SR & ELMA VIOLA 245 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 -A- - 91- RICHMOND HELEN MARCIA WILLIAMS 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWSVA 23601.2144 65 -A- - 91- RICHMOND HELEN MARCIA WILLIAMS 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWSVA 23601-2144 kicluettes faciles A peler .,N Ulilisez le gabarit AVGRY®S 161'D Sens de chargement 65 - A- - 99- BOYCE ROBERT CECIL SR & ELMA VIOLA 245 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 99- BOYCE ROBERT CECIL SR & ELMA VIOLA 245 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 99- BOYCE ROBERT CECIL SR & ELMA VIOLA 245 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 99- BOYCE ROBERT CECIL SR & ELMA VIOLA 245 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602-6522 65 -A- - 91- RICHMOND HELEN MARCIA WILLIAMS 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWSVA 23601.2144 65 - A- - 91- RICHMOND HELEN MARCIA WILLIAMS 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWSVA 23601.2144 Consulter: la fei-idle vuvvvv.avei-y.com d'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY i=asY Feel Labels A� �«a��=� ;-TYWI See Irnsjuction Sheep U � <��, �a�e� 051 G� I® Use I%verY`D TEMPLATE 5i610 Feed Paper ri.«��,� lei �1 for Easy Feature � 65 - A- - 102- 65 - A- - 102- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 22601.2631 WINCHESTER VA. 22601.2631 65 - A- - 102- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 22601.2631 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 22601.2631 22601.2631 22601.2631 22601.2631 64 - A- - 129- CARPER FARM SOUTH LLC CID CINDY C JONES 113 CARDINAL LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6106 I":tiquettes faciles A peler J&l Litillser le gabarit AVIrI:Y® 5m,5 Sens de chargement 65 - A- - 102- TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 22601.2631 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 65 - A- - 102-A TURNER ENTERPRISES LLC 2971 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA. 64 - A- - 129- CARPER FARM SOUTH LLC C/O CINDY C JONES 113 CARDINAL LN WINCHESTER VA Consulter la feuHle ChraStftictican 22601.2631 22601.2631 22601-2631 22601.2631 22602.6106 vvvitmavery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY liasy Peel Labels At, UJO J� 4A See Instruction Sheet, 51610 \ for Easy Peel Feature A 85 A. 85 '0, ' 1� ' ' 12' �H�E8BV��C UVH!TEBEN|TAC 1122GUAODH|LLRD 1122 GUARDH|LLRD 66 'A' - 13-8 CUNNINGHAM WALTERC&VVANOAKU 138SGREENWOOD RD 85 'A, 13'B CUNN|NGHAMUUALTER C&WKNOA0| 138GGREENWOOD RD VV|NCHESTERV& 22802.6578 kicluetms fumkpsa paler & OonoAtezlafeuille '27CSy Peel Labelsus Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 51610 Feed Paper for Easy Peel a ea uve �e 65 - A- - 86-A 65 - A- - 86-A MCKEE DONNA M MCKEE DONNA M 1384 GREENWOOD RD 1384 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6578 WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6578 65 - A- - 104- 65 - A- - 104- FREDERICK COUNTY VA FREDERICK COUNTY VA 107 N KENT ST 107 N KENT ST WINCHESTER VA 22601 WINCHESTER VA 22601 65 - A- - 104- 65 - A- - 104- FREDERICK COUNTY VA FREDERICK COUNTY VA 107 N KENT ST 107 N KENT ST WINCHESTER VA 22601 WINCHESTER VA 22601 65 - A- - 104- 65 - A- - 104- FREDERICK COUNTY VA FREDERICK COUNTY VA 107 N KENT ST 107 N KENT ST WINCHESTER VA 22601 WINCHESTER VA 22601 65 - A- - 104- 65 - A- - 104- FREDERICK COUNTY VA FREDERICK COUNTY VA 107 N KENT ST 107 N KENT ST WINCHESTER VA 22601 WINCHESTER VA 22601 65 - A- - 97- ARNOLD THELMA I ETALS TRUSTEES PO BOX 3165 WINCHESTER VA 22604.2365 65 - A- - 97- ARNOLD THELMA I ETALS TRUSTEES PO BOX 3165 WINCHESTER VA 22604.2365 E•iiquei�s faciles A 1' 0or �f,. Consul' z la lea.ail e mnrr!u.avergr.eesm Utilise._ le gabarit AV'ERY' 5161 " Sells de chargoment c1'instruction 1-800-GO-AVER1r Easy Feel Labels i, free hisstructior➢ Sheet r t3' ®pe1�i� Use Amery'l 1'EimF'imr'! 5161e. Feed Paper. z� � for Easy Fleel Feature ob. J& 65 - A- - 103-B ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 64 - A- - 158- PERRY PROPERTIES 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22602.4561 65 - A- - 103-A ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 65 A- 103-A ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 i ttilisez le gabarlt Av Rv,o, `i iiO Sens de charr.�ere➢e➢y% 65 - A- - 103-B ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 64 - A- - 158- PERRY PROPERTIES 1945 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22602.4561 65 - A- - 103-A ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN ; 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602-6534 65 - A- - 103-A ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 Covisultez la 'FeWile lAfAffVU avery.corn Winstruction 1-800-GO-AVERY Fian!,,F P e e I LalieIs Ulso Avoi)e0 ` rMPLNTE 5161� n Ti See instruction Feed paper o d for Easy I3-del Feature 65 - A- - 103-A ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. /22602-6534 65 - A- J03=A ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 65 - A- - 116- ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE CA 95110.1104 65 -A- - 91- RICHMOND HELEN MARCIA WILLIAMS 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWSVA 23601.2144 r ---Zfq€feftes'faciles 4 Ins: ier '& Utilisez le clabarit AVERY'�`� S'fij'i@ Sens de chargement 65 - A- - 103-A ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 65 - A 103-A ROBINSON DAVID C.& CAROL ANN 315 SHAFFER LN WINCHESTER VA. 22602.6534 65 - A- - 116- ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CD 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE CA 95110.1104 65 -A- - 91- RICHMOND HELEN MARCIA WILLIAMS 44 FERGUSON LN NEWPORT NEWSVA 23601.2144 C�;iri�L3I'I'Li Ir�'i�'lfille 1fUWiRI.c�Vc^f'j/.trPJE1'I d instruction 'I-800-GO-,AVERY Caw Peel Labels Use Avery@'I cMVLATE 5161@ Aja Feed _roper See Instruction Sleet for Easy Peel Feature 65 - A- - 84- PARLETTJOANNE PO BOX 2613 WINCHESTER VA 22604.1813 65 - A- - 83- MALONE CHARLES R & JUDITH K 1465 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 80- EFG INVESTMENTS LLC 340 W PARKINS MILL RD WINCHESTER VA 22602.6582 22602.4735 65 - A- - 84- PARLETTJOANNE PO BOX 2613 WINCHESTER VA 22604-1813 65 - A- - 83- MALONE CHARLES R & JUDITH K 1465 GREENWOOD RD WINCHESTER VA 65 - A- - 80- EFG INVESTMENTS LLC 340 W PARKINS MILL RD WINCHESTER VA 22602.6582 22602.4735 l:tielue•i:tes faciles 6 Paler A Utilisez le clabarit AVFRYO 516110 Sens de chargement Consultez la feuille d'instructiem vvvw.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVER;Y c as f Peel Labels .!€'• f'�- 11 SEv� H35rCiCtfon Sheet r;� TEVi'L1E 5hC'{ Use Avee-ul�Jxor Eesye Peed Feature 65 - A- - 81- 65 -A- - 81- RUDY GLENN B RUDY GLENN B 621 TENNYSON AVE 621 TENNYSON AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601.3223 WINCHESTER VA 22601-3223 65 - A- - 81-A 65 -A- - 81-A CHAPMAN DONALD L CHAPMAN DONALD L CHAPMAN JANET L CHAPMAN JANET L 767 SULPHUR SPRING RD 767 SULPHUR SPRING RD WINCHESTER VA 22602.6553 WINCHESTER VA 22602.6553 r.Vig vi-ies faciles a peer AL CPJnstiltez Ea •Feu{Ede vvvdw.avery.com Utillsez le g.abarit: AVERYO Sens de chargement 01-IStruction 1-900-GO-AVERY E sy Peel Labels Use Ae5lery(D TEV,PLATE 51 a1rp t MSIO U to See Instruction Sheet: .41 Feed Paper =- M for Easy Po!i Feature 65 - A- - 99-A WILLIAMS RAYMOND A & KATHLEEN S 8 W SHARON DR BOYCE VA 22620.9703 65 - A- - 101- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602-6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 99-A WILLIAMS RAYMOND A & KATHLEEN S 8 W SHARON DR BOYCE VA 22620-9703 65 - A- - 101- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 100- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 65 - A- - 1DO- SEAL ROBERT A & JENNIFER M 261 BRIMSTONE LN WINCHESTER VA 22602.6522 Ftirclur, -Vtor, faciles a peler J a Udlisez le gabarit AkVERY0 51610 Seas de r-hargerrient Cl:7nsultez lei •Feuille Wilastruction vuamm'Very ecru 1-300-GO-ikVECY N Vd ..E 5 REQUESTING AGENT: DEPT. OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA GIS, MAPPING, GRAPHICS WORK REQUEST DATE RECEIVED. a VESTED COMPLETION DATE: 1-7 Q Department, Agency, or Company:_ Mailing and/or Billing Address: Telephone: E-mail Address: ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: (Write additional COz-C)/2- rh a PS PINC- DIGITAL: SIZES: COLOR: PAPER: FAX: FAX: information on -back. - of-- — —� _..gi�Z-6 /J I (d & -- 0 (� -6 �cras �S—,q—g6, E-MAIL: BLACKIWHITE: NUMBER Ur" UU.Vlh�: STAFF MEMBER: COMPLETION DATE: MATERIALS: DATE OF PICK-UP/DELIVERY: AMOUNT DUE: AMOUNT BILLED: METHOD OF PAYMENT: HOURS REQUIRED: AMOUNT PAID: CHECK NO.# Frederick County GIS, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601, (540)665-5651) COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of -Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING November 26, 2008 TO: THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #04-08 FOR RED HAWK ESTATES On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, December 10, 2008, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 404-08 of Red Hawk Estates, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.C., to rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 240 residential units. The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 655) in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 65-A-86, 65-A-86B, 65-A-98, 65-A-102 and 65-A-102A Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Q .':-i'q.k.1.l'i I a is Mailed From E US POSTAGE 65 -A- - 116 ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE CA 95110-1104 NIXIE `=0SI ESE 1 00 1-2/03,r'00 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE: 'TO FORWARD 13C.: `2'21 60 1 B-00099 , 02192 - 07:39.1 -- 26 -- 09 ii401Q_5OOO 1,gill,�I,I,II,�II�IIII,II,III�ll,tlllll,llll,l,l,�111>>,Il,ll 1 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 DEC 1 2 K03 65 - A- - 116- ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1115 COLEMAN AVE SAN JOSE CA 95110-1104 J ` ` ` =42 6 ca ro sc4a• �16• a V1 016H26508243 $ 00.420 12/01/2008 Mailed From 22601 US POSTAGE 957 NFE 1 900C 00 12/07/Oe RETURN TO SENDER :ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNAMLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER DC: 22601500099 *3017-04072-01--43 COUNTY of FREDERICK Depart r, ennt of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION Or PUBLIC HEARING December 1, 2008 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION 404-08 FOR RED HAWK ESTATES You were recently sent a notification to consider the following application: Rezoning #04-08 of Red Hawk Estates, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.C., to rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 240 residential units. Please be advised that this application has been tabled indefinitely by the Planning Commission and is not scheduled to return at this time. Sincerely, _t_1 - Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000