Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012-05 Rezoning - Villages at Artrip - BackfileA Phased Traffic: Impact Analysis ol' the Villages at Artrip Frederick County, The Tower Companies 11501 Huff Court North Bethesda, Maryland 20895 PNIZ/� Associates, pc Lcndsccpe Architects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 December 15, 2004 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Villages at Artrip development located between Tasker Road and the Opequon Creek (northeast of the Lakeside Drive dead-end) in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to include 820 units of residential, 60,000 square feet of office, approximately 150,000 square feet of retail and two (2) 6,000 square foot restaurants with access to be provided via the planned Warrior Drive (future roadway). The proposed development will be built -out over three (3) phases by the year 2012. Figure I is provided to illustrate the location of the Villages at Artrip with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Wan-ior Drive is proposed as a new arterial that would provide a connection from Fairfax Pike (Route 277), through Tasker Road (Route 642), to north of the future Crosspointe Boulevard (extended Route 37). The completion of Warrior Drive, however, may not occur until the final stages of construction for the Villages at Artrip. Therefore, in order to address all possible roadway network conditions, PHR+A has prepared build -out analyses for two (2) interim transportation phases. The following provides a description of each phase: Phase 1 (2006) assumes 297 residential units along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip; Phase 2 (2009) assumes 577 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip; and Phase 3 (2012 - Full Build -out) assumes the build - out of the entire Villages at Artrip development along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to north of Crosspointe Boulevard (future roadway within the planned Crosspointe development). Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Villages at Artrip development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for Villages at Artrip, • Distribution and assignment of Villages at Artrip generated trips onto the study area road network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS-2000, for existing and future conditions. R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 1 No Scale r _ 4P c <. `'k r: �Raia llle t�y;� ' '��z � �����-��� � SITE _�- t r,': • Parlous W56 t���6 i� I •�; Yy ✓'w'�--r�—I— �5 � ,� j. �,1 ii ft I ••,y r �,M -,, � r (7: +`""''Qb i`,. .`, /''v., lF -t,7� tj zs„- I—•'�—�-z "ail t`II U�I.E J i� Z f. r1'� •}+ram. •,�-����� t �_.� }--``.xr'f'r t I t"�1: • f1e �f�+'�" - �: PT TR+/ Figure 1 Vicinity Map - Villages at Artrip A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip PH 1 +A December 15, 2004 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A obtained AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 37/1-81 southbound ramps, Route 37/1-81 northbound ramps and Route 37/Tasker Road from the report titled: A Phased Traffic Impact Ancelysis of Crosspointe Center, by PHR+A, dated September 10, 2003. Since these counts were conducted prior to Year 2004, an annual growth rate of 5% was applied. PHR+A then conducted "new" traffic counts at the intersections of Tasker Road/Lakeside Drive and Tasker Road/War-rior Drive to complete the study area. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using an average "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 9%. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December I5, 2004 3 PH 3 ivi .V111.. Average Daily Trips Figure 2 Existing ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip H1 { + \ December 15, 2004 ` 1 Page 4 d ,L Unsignalized Intersection ree-Flow Lane ���.....� d Critical Movement _ 1-JT-rI-<+/\ AM Peak Hour ( Figure 3 PI -PA Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service Peak Hour A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 5 PHASE I ANALYSES (2006 The 2006 roadway network assumes the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip site. PHR+A assumed the partial build -out of Crosspointe Center and Wakeland Manor (background developments) to coincide with the completion of the proposed Phase 1 Villages at Artrip development (297 residential units). 2006 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to accurately depict future conditions within the study area, PHR+A utilized the following traffic studies to determine the trips associated with not yet completed area developments: 1) A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center, by PHR+A, dated September 10, 2003; and 2) A Traffic Ini act Alialysis for Wakelmid Manor, by KELLERCO, dated June 30, 2003. Based upon the 71h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, Tables la and lb are provided to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2006 "other developments". Table la 2006 Background Development #1: Crosspointe Center Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Out Hour Total In PM Peak Out Hour Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 555 units 99 298 398 316 185 501 5,550 230 Townhouse/Condo 140 units 11 56 68 53 26 79 1,218 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 4 8 7 4 11 348 710 Office 95,000 SF 158 22 180 31 154 185 1,282 820 Retail 375,000 SF 211 135 346 719 779 1,498 16,035 Total Trips 484 515 999 1,126 1,148 2,274 24,433 1 Total Internal 74 74 147 304 304 608 6,478 I Total Pass -by 26 26 52 112 112 225 2,405 Total "New Trips" 384 416 800 709 732 1,441 15,550 I Table lb Luuo 15acxgrouncl Development #2: Wakeland Manor AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 199 units 37 111 148 125 74 199 1,985 230 Townhouse/Condo 107 units 9 45 55 43 21 64 931 Total Trips 46 157 203 168 94 262 2,916 I P A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 H Page 6 In addition to the trips relating to the specific background developments described in Tables la and lb, existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2006. Figure 4 shows the 2006 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2006 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 1 TRIP GENERATION The total trips produced by and attracted to the Villages at Artrip site were established using the 71h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tp Generatiort Report. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed Phase 1 Villages at Artrip development. A detailed description of internal/pass-by trips are provided in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT Assuming the 2006 roadway network, PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Phase 1 Villages at Artrip trips (Table 2) throughout the study area. Figure 7 shows the corresponding development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2006 PHASE 1 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Villages at Artrip assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2006 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2006 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2006 Phase 1 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 9 shows the corresponding 2006 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PH A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 7 Figure 4 2006 Background ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PHR1\ A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 8 Figure 5 PHRn 2006 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 9 Table 2 Phase 1: Villages at Artrip Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Percentage Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT I of Total 210 Sin.gle-Family Detached 39 units 9 28 37 29 17 46 390 230 Townhouse/Condo 258 units 19 91 110 88 43 131 2,245 Land Bay C 488 Soccer Complex 3 field 2 2 4 43 19 62 214 Total Trips 30 121 151 159 79 239 2,849 100% Total Internal 1 1 2 16 16 31 107 7% Total Pass -by 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Total "New Trips" 29 120 149 144 64 208 2,742 93% R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 10 No Scale I' 37 C\� S� c C z y'Uantl air lay r n Tas4rr Road O CO 1A 4T O �� •et R°°d G�sPOj 33 c B) d I , SITE Lakesidc Drive Or � Doti wy PY TP+/ Figure 6 Phase 1: Trip Distribution Percentages PHR1� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 11 a Figure 7a Phase 1: Development -Generated Trip Assignments R+A A Phased "Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 12 No Scale / >I �I oI I / I I. Dti�e I Sp\ II Land Bay B �` t ;'q t t a Land Bay A SITE s`e ' ,96�;yc' � Of A � Ve o Rai �' Land Bay E Land Bay D AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) ■Average Daily Figure 7b Phase 1: Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Detail) PH �� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December I5, 2004 Page 13 Average Daily Trips C. Figure 8a Phase 1: 2006 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PH R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 14 No Scale o/ I / . to Driv e 1 1 1 ,$\teDt've Pya2 Land Bay B � . C ♦ \n Land Bay A •' SITE / \Ve o \Ra R 1, Land Bay E Land Bay D d�Drive Dl !yi aI o� AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 8b Phase l: 2006 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Detail) R+A 15 A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 15H5 Figure 9a Phase 1: 2006 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip PH RA December 15, 2004 Page 16 No Scale Land Bay B \a %, L N Land Bay A SITE I/ I ' Land Bay E ' ^, about A(A) Land Bay D * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9b Phase 1: 2006 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Detail) PR+AH A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 17 PHASE 2 ANALYSES (2009 The 2009 roadway network assumes the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip site. PHR+A assumed the partial build -out of Crosspointe Centel- and Wakeland Manor (background developments) to coincide with the completion of the proposed Phase 2 Villages at Artrip development (577 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail). 2009 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to accurately depict future conditions within the study area, PHR+A utilized the following traffic studies to determine the trips associated with not yet completed area developments: 1) A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center, by PHR+A, dated September 10, 2003; and 2) A Traffic Impact Analysis for Wakeland Manor, by KELLERCO, dated June 30, 2003. Based upon the 71h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, Tables 3a and 3b are provided to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2009 "other developments". zvvy Dacxgrouna L►evelopment fF1: Lrosspolnte center AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 833 units 148 444 592 455 267 722 8,325 230 Townhouse/Condo 210 units 16 78 93 74 36 110 1,827 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 150 units 5 7 12 10 6 17 522 710 Office 142,500 SF 219 30 249 41 198 238 1,752 820 Retail 562,500 SF 269 172 441 940 1,018 1,957 20,870 Total Trips 658 730 1.388 1,519 1,526 3,045 33,296 1 Total Internal 94 94 199 397 397 795 8,436 I Total Pass -by 33 33 66 147 147 294 3,130 Total "New Trips" 530 603 1,133 975 982 1,956 21,730 I Table 3b zUUy lackground Development 42: Wakeland Manor AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 298 units 54 163 218 180 106 286 2,978 230 Townhouse/Condo 161 units 13 63 75 59 29 89 1,396 Total Trips 67 226 293 240 135 375 4,374 PH]['A+ A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2008 Page 18 In addition to the trips relating to the specific background developments described in Tables 3a and 3b, existing traffic Volumes were increased along study area roadways using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2009. Figure 10 shows the 2009 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 11 shows the corresponding 2009 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION The total trips produced by and attracted to the Villages at Artrip site were established using the 7`" Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 4 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed Phase 2 Villages at Artrip development. A detailed description of internal/pass-by trips are provided in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT Assuming the 2009 roadway network, PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 12 to assign the Phase 2 Villages at Artrip trips (Table 4) throughout the study area. Figure 13 shows the corresponding development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2009 PHASE 2 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Villages at Artrip assigned trips (Figure 13) were added to the 2009 background traffic volumes (Figure 10) to obtain 2009 build -out conditions. Figure 14 shows the 2009 Phase 2 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 15 shows the corresponding 2009 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PH A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip R+ 1 December 15, 2004 Page 19 SITE ,- Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 10 2009 Background ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 20 Figure 11 2009 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 21 fable 4 Phase 2: Villages at Artrip Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Ilour Out Total In PN'I Peak llour Out Total ADT Percentage of Total Land Bav A 210 Single -Family Detached 102 units 20 60 SI 69 40 109 1,017 230 Townhouse/Condo 438 units 29 140 168 135 67 202 3,811 820 Retail 10,000 SF 24 15 39 66 71 137 1,520 Land Bay B 210 Single -Family Detached 37 units 9 27 36 28 16 44 373 Land Bav C 488 Soccer Complex 3 field 2 2 4 43 19 62 214 Total Trips 84 244 328 340 214 554 6,935 10017v Total Internal 1 1 2 16 16 31 107 317o Total Pass -by 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Total "New Trips" 83 243 326 325 198 523 6,828 97% R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 22 No Scale I' 37 c x' O 2 Ua'var1 a� r c T�+"kerROad O O~ G .`,s •ec Rond °sspOjnrc SITE Lakeside D6- �u O` �v I , nT T�-1-n Figure 12 Phase 2: Trip Distribution Percentages R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 23 Pagee 23H3 Figure 13a Phase 2: Development -Generated Trip Assignments PJ�R1� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 24 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 13b Phase 2: Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Detail) R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, e 04 25 Page 25H5 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 14a Phase 2: 2009 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 26 No Scale / c 0 o On rbdla9l .` O<1v 3 / i\;�z #S"tr 1 Site �,IB2 Land Bay A ��e•. ' Or��r �'•. � . � � . Land Bay B SITE mob` qG� yP i Land Bay E 9 P�` `z a akeside Dnve O,. Land Bay C Land tray D `Q V rS,J*eis Na\ Ra jSiteve Dl y j*D1i l��ltiL �S �o 1�9�ti AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 14b Phase 2: 2009 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Detail) A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip PR+A December 15, 2004 HPage 27 No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS = C(D) Signalized I "Suggested Intersection Improvement" LOS=C(B) SB - 1 Left Remove WB Left Turn Unsignalized Intersection C1 -i- Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=C(C) WEI - FrenD,, Right Ell• 2 Lefts NB .2 Lefts RC37J Signalized I nl erseclion ti LOS F(F) 4 /Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C)`C� `t rc��N or9 � Signalized Intersection LOS =BIBi`�� 4• rr See Fgure I5b SITE Roundabout LOS = A(A1 Signalized Inlersection LOS=B(C) 'Suggested Improvements" Added dlh Leg ot9S yO �• EB/NNB - I Left T °sfo SB - 1 LI, 1 Thru-Rt F �liv Ta'�a C`C, R�d7i rd96 S J.z► o{ tiC, Denotes Free -Flow Lane Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 15a Phase 2: 2009 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 28 No Scale Land Bay E Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 15b Phase 2: 2009 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Detail) R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 29 PHASE 3 ANALYSES (2012 The 2012 roadway network assumes the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to north of Crosspointe Boulevard (future roadway with the planned Crosspointe development). PHR+A assumed the full build -out of Crosspointe Center and Wakeland Manor (background developments) to coincide with the completion of the proposed Phase 3 (full build -out) Villages at Artrip development. 2012 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to accurately depict future conditions within the study area, PHR+A utilized the following traffic studies to determine the trips associated with not yet completed area developments: 1) A Phased Traffic In2pact A/alysis of Crosspointe Center, by PHR+A, dated September 10, 2003; and 2) A Traffic Impact Analysis for Wakela7zd Manor, by KELLERCO, dated June 30, 2003. Based upon the 71h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, Tables 5a and 5b are provided to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2012 "other developments". ZU12 Background llevelopment 41: Urosspointe (,enter AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 1,110units 197 590 786 589 346 935 11,100 230 Townhouse/Condo 280 units 20 98 118 94 46 140 2,436 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 200 units 7 9 16 13 9 22 696 710 Office 190,000 SF 276 38 313 50 242 292 2.187 820 Retail 750,000SF 320 204 524 1,136 1,231 2,367 25,161 Total Trips 819 938 1,758 1,882 1,874 3,755 41,580 1 Total Internal 113 113 225 481 481 961 10,174 Total Pass -by 39 39 79 178 178 355 3,774 Total "New Trips" 667 786 1,454 1,224 1,215 2,439 27,632 Table 5b 2012 Background Development #2: Wakeland Manor AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 397 units 72 215 287 234 137 371 3,970 230 Townhouse/Condo 214units 16 79 95 75 37 112 1,862 Total Trips 88 294 382 309 174 483 5,832 p jl�� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip H December 15, 2004 Page 30 In addition to the trips relating to the specific background developments described in Tables 5a and 5b, existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2012. Figure 16 shows the 2012 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 17 shows the corresponding 2012 background lane geometry and AM/PM peal< hour levels of service. HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 3 TRIP GENERATION The total, trips produced by and attracted to the Villages at Artrip site were established using the 71" Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 6 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed Phase 3 Villages at Artrip development. A detailed description of internal/pass-by trips are provided in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT Assuming the 2012 roadway network, PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 18 to assign the Phase 3 Villages at Artrip trips (Table 6) throughout the study area. Figure 19 shows the corresponding development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2012 PHASE 3 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Villages at Artrip assigned trips (Figure 19) were added to the 2012 background traffic volumes (Figure 16) to obtain 2012 build -out conditions. Figure 20 shows the 2012 Phase 3 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 21 shows the corresponding 2012 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 31 Pagee 31H1 [TE Y' - AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 1 A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 32 No Scale Signalized Intersection 37 LOS = E(E) rOJ4 «� Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(Q WB - I Thru SB - I Left Remove WB Left Turn g IG G o Unsignalized Intersection A j v L�J R h� F�E'J LOS F(F) Signalized "Suggested Interseclion Improvements" LOS=C(Q r.R - I Thru, 2 Lel'ts NB - 2 Lefts t111 - Freellmv Muhl F- Signalized I nlerseclion S. LOS = B(B) `NK V, / / c Unsignalized Intersection Intersection LOS = B(B) w` "�nteelya � T8(8) Z � i r SITE itetsectibio Improvements" Added dth Leg EB/WB - I Ll, 1 RI NB - I Thru SB - 1 LI, 1 Thru 1 Rt ? 1 c2 �P Denotes Free -Flow Lane * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 17 2012 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip PH R+ 1 December 15, 2004 Page 33 Table 6 Phase 3: Villages at Artrip Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Percentage Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT of Total Land Bav A 210 Sin, -le -Family Detached 139 units 27 80 107 91 53 144 1,390 220 Apartment 76 units 8 33 41 39 21 59 456 230 Townhouse/Condo 438 units 29 140 168 135 67 202 3.811 710 Office 60,000SF 110 15 125 25 121 146 900 820 Retail 103,700 SF 98 62 160 308 333 641 6,953 932 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 Land Bav B 210 Single -Family Detached 51 units I 1 34 45 37 22 58 510 Land Bav C 488 Soccer Complex 3 fields 2 2 4 43 19 62 214 Land Bay D* 820 Retail (4.2-acres @ 0.25 FAR) 45,738 SF 60 38 98 179 194 374 4,084 Land Bav E 220 Apartment 116 units 12 48 61 53 29 81 696 Total Trips 428 519 947 989 910 1,899 20,540 100% Total Internal 47 47 94 165 165 331 3,262 140% Total Pass -by** 19 19 39 76 76 152 1,656 6%u Total "New Trips" 361 452 814 748 669 1,416 15,623 80% * PHR+A performed analysis assuming the worst -case land use. however, Land Bay D may be replaced by 80 apartment units (ITE Code 220) with trip generation totaling 43 AM peak hour, 62 PM peak hour and 480 daily trips. This would result in a reduction of 55 AM Peak Hour, 312 PM peak hour and 3604 daily trips. $* The completion of Warrior Drive will create diverted background thru traffic that will utilize the retail components of the Villages at Artrip. PHP � A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 34 No Scale 37 z' m z '�nyrr r� as r 4 T'�ke r oad O' op• .`�kcS Road GossPoihre 811d 3 , , SITE Lakeside Drive ^�o Task oaV I � , A TR+A Figure 18 Phase 3: Trip Distribution Percentages P H� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 35 Figure 19a Phase 3: Development -Generated Trip Assignments R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 36 No Scale O~ nor p\Ol '�,`'` r✓1�`�l 3 ri���Ji`��,�;�etSNt\\RJ P�10�J o Sitep,rVe [ L �10) �► via o ri site :�BZ Land Bay A ds'ee. s3� Land Bay B D true � SITE `6i, c cp J } Land Bay E rgo jl t O ro akeside Dnve rz4jl�1 �r j(,ij rsJ 4J'�s Land Bay C Land Bay D ti ap. r2� J t y 151�9) site Drive01 O_J. c o \ l }} la�l AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 19b Phase 3: Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Detail) R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 37 Figure 20a Phase 3: 2012 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 38 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 20b Phase 3: 2012 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Detail) R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 39 NU Scale Signalized Intersection 37 LOS = DR') Signalized "Suggested Intersectiou lmprovemenls" LOS=B(C) EB & WB - I Thru SB - I Left Remove WB Left Turn G r/c" Unsignalized Intersection 1—T _YP+ .t rT VJ Figure 21a LOS r(F) Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=C(C) Eft - I Thru. 2 Lefts \\"II - I Thru & 1 Freenow Right NB - 2 Lefts 37 Intersection N LOS = B(B) Vj J J Unsignalized Intersection Intersection LOS = B(C) yrny11�1U "P07n4 Blvd aC(C) o o` 41 c p/ 3 SITE Roundabout LOS = A(A) See Figure 21b Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" o� LOS=C(Cy Added 4th Leg EB/WB - I Lt, 1 Rt NB - I Thru SB - I Lt I Thru 1 Rt LG1 �o'c :►L . ..cZ. Denotes Free -Flow Lane * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Phase 3: 2012 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PHP A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 40 No Scale 0 * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 21b Phase 3: 2012 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Detail) PH��A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 41 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Villages at Artrip development arc acceptable and manageable. The follo�� ing describes the future (Year 2012) operating conditions at each of the study area intersections. • Route 37/SB I-81 ramps: In order to achieve acceptable overall levels of service of "C" or better during 2012 background and build -out conditions, the following intersection improvements were assumed: 1) One lane was added along the southbound approach; 2) One thru lane in the eastbound and westbound directions, respectively; and 3) The westbound left -turn movement to southbound I-81 was eliminated. All vehicles would be rerouted to the eastbound 1-81 southbound ramp via the Route 37/US Route 1 I interchange. • Route 37/NB I-81 ramps: In order to achieve acceptable overall levels of service of "C" or better during 2012 background and build -out conditions, the following intersection improvements were assumed: 1) The intersection is to be realigned to the east at the approximate location of the existing Tasker Road; 2) Two eastbound left -turn lanes were added; 3) One thru lane in the eastbound and westbound directions, respectively; 4) One lane was added along the northbound approach; and 5) A designated right turn lane was added in the westbound direction to allow free flow travel onto northbound 1-8 1. • Crosspointe Boulevard/Tasker Road: For 2012 background and build -out conditions, this intersection will operate with overall levels of service of "C" during the AM peak hour and "D" during the PM peak hour assuming the following improvements: 1) Tasker Road is to be realigned to the east through the proposed Crosspointe Center site; 2) Route 37 was extended through the Crosspointe Center site as Crosspointe Boulevard.; 3) The new intersection of Crosspointe Boulevard/Tasker Road will be signalized and include the following lane geometry: Eastbound — one left -turn lane, two thru lanes and one right -turn lane; Westbound — one left -turn lane, one thru lane and one shared thru/right-turn lane; Northbound - two left -turn lanes, one thru lane and one right -turn lane; Southbound — one shared left-turn/thru lane and one right -turn. In order to demonstrate the minimal impacts of the project, PHR+A has provided Table 7 to the show the increase in delay/levels of service between 2012 background and 2012 build -out conditions, assuming no improvements, for the intersections of Route 37/SB I-81 ramps, Route 37/NB I-81 ramps and Crosspointe Boulevard/Tasker Road. PH A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip R+ 1 December 15, 2004 Page 42 Table 7 Comparison or Intersection Delay and Levels of Service (without improvements) Villages at Artrip: 2012 Background versus 2012 Build -out 5 Weekday Intersection Traffic Control ('riticol aA9 Peak (lour PNI Peak (lour Levels of Service Delav (in seconds) Levels of Seri -ice Deltic (in seconds) .iuvernenl Background Build-oul Background Build -out Q Background Build -out Background Build -out Q EB F F I32.6 202.9 +70.3 F F 5M2 406.3 -111.9 Route 37 & 1-31 Signalized WB F F 2958 313 6 +32.8 F F 544.1 439.0 +94.9 NB Ramps NB F F 135 3 139.0 + 3.2 F F 1064 362.7 +256.3 Uverall F F 2014 241.4 +40.0 F F 375.' 409.6 +34.4 EB B B 131 11.3 -1.3 C F 30,1 930 +67.9 Route 37 & 1-31 Signalized P1B F E 11.4 75.0 -16.4 E F 69.9 104.9 +95.0 SB Ramps SB C E 30.9 55.9 +25.0 F F 131.9 153 3 +26.4 Overall E D 59.4 54.5 -4.9 E F 70.2 139.4 +69.2 EB C C 29.2 25.0 .4.2 D E 460 56.3 +10.8 TaskerRoad & WB C C 31.7 34.3 +3.1 C C 23.3 260 +2.7 Crosspointe Signalized NB C C 33.7 33.7 +0.0 D D -10.7 54.6 +13.9 Boulevard SB C C 33.4 34.7 +1.3 C D 34.3 52.6 +17.8 Overall C C 31.7 30.6 -1.1 D D 393 48.9 +9.6 PH��A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 43 • Crosspointe BoUlevard/Warrior Drive: For 2012 background and build -out conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. This planned intersection is to he signalized and will include the following lane geometry: Eastbound — one shared left-turn/thru lane and one right -turn lane; Westbound — one shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane: Northbound - one shared left-turn/thru lane and one right -tutu lane; SOUthboUnd — one shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane. • Hillandale Lane/Tasker Road: For 2012 background and build -out conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours assuming the following improvements: 1) Tasker Road is to be realigned to the east through the proposed Crosspointe Center site; 2) Hillandale Lane was realigned to intersect with Tasker as a T-intersection.; 3) The new intersection of Hillandale Lane/Tasker Road will maintain the following lane geometry: Eastbound — one shared left-turn/thru lane/right-turn lane; Westbound — one shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane; Northbound - one shared left-turn/thru lane and one right -turn lane; Southbound — one shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane. • Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (north intersection): For 2012 background and build - out conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours assuming the following improvements: 1) Tasker Road is to be realigned to the east through the proposed Crosspointe Center site; 2) The planned intersection of Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (north intersection) will maintain the following lane geometry: Eastbound — one shared thru/right-turn lane; Westbound — one shared left-turn/thru lane; Northbound - one shared left - turn/ right -turn lane. • Warrior Drive/Parkins Mill Road: For 2012 background and build -out conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service "A" during the AM and PM peak hours assuming the following intersection improvements: 1) Warrior Drive is to be implemented from south of Tasker Road to north of Crosspointe Boulevard; and 2) The proposed intersection of Warrior Drive/Parkins Mill Road will maintain traffic control via a single lane roundabout. P A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip H�{ + \ December 15, 2004 ` 11 Page 44 • Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (south intersection): For 2012 background and build - out conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. This planned intersection is to be signalized and will include the following lane geometry Eastbound — one left -turn lane, one thru lane and one right -turn lane; Westbound — one left -turn lane, one thru lane and one right -turn lane; Northbound - one left -turn lane, one that lane and one right - turn lane; Southbound — one left -turn lane, one thru lane and one right -turn lane. • Lakeside Drive/Tasker Road: For 2012 background and build -out conditions this intersection will operate with levels of service "C" during the AM and PM peak hours. No improvements were required. PH���A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 45 "�:B,, `*!* Dewberr Transmittal F Y 1503 Edwards Ferry Rd., Suite 200 Leesburg, VA 20176 Phone 703-771-8004 Metro 703-478-1335 Fax 703-771-4091 Survey Fax 703-771-2630 ❑ Atlanta, GA ❑ Fairfax, VA ❑ Lanham, MD ® Baltimore, MD ® Fredericksburg, VA © Leesburg, VA FBI Chicago, IL ® Gaithersburg, MD L Manassas, VA To Frederick County Department of Planning i- - - --- - -- - - and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 Attention: Mike Ruddy We Transmit: 9 as per your request under separate cover FRI by mail © by messenger 0 by pick up 0 by overnight carrier Z Copies: Date: 1 10/5/2006 1 8/17/2005 Comments: Date: 10/5/2006 Project No: Project Name: The Villages at Artrip Reference: Carbon Copy: � ---- —_--- the following: for: © prints your approval FER specifications your review and comment change order © your file/use ® shop drawings revision and submission R reproducibles distribution © cd ® product literature ® computations ® descriptions Number: CD of Artrip MDP 12819-2-0 Artrip MDP TIA Supplement If enclosures are not as noted, please notify us at once Dewberry & Davis LLC is an touportunitfim d, as such, complies with Section of Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11357. Description: El as requested by ❑ as approved by ❑ as submitted for approval by please acknowledge receipt of enclosures ❑ return enclosures to us Transmittal # 13184 Sent by: David Frank Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc End neers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. PH 00 R+AMartinsburg, F xcroft Avenue, Suite 54 West Virginia 25401 Phone: 4.264.4.2711 Memorandum Fax: 304.264.3671 To: Charles Segerman Organization/Company: Tower Companies From: Michael Glickman, PE Date: August 17, 2005 An Addendum to: A Phased red Tra c Im�act AnaUsis of the Villages Project Name/Subject: atArlri , dated December 15, 2004. PHR+A Project file Number: 12819-2-0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this addendum to the report titled: A Phased Traffic Impact flrral ry is of the Villager at AL__p, by PHR+A, dated December 15, 2004. The purpose of this memorandum is to address the possibility that Warrior Drive would be completed under Phase 3 prior to the completion of Crosspointe Boulevard. Accordingly, a "maximum threshold" scenario was established to demonstrate the worst -case Artrip development assuming sole access via the intersection of Tasker Road/Warrior Drive. Based upon HCS-2000 analyses, PHR+A determined the maximum development that the Tasker Road/Warrior Drive intersection could potentially accommodate would be 680 residential units and 25,000 square feet of retail. TRIP GENERATION PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the revised total trip generation associated with the proposed Villages at Artrip development. Table I Phase 3: Villages at Artrip (Partial Build -out) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 242 units 45 134 179 150 88 237 2,420 230 Townhouse/Condo 438 units 29 140 168 135 67 202 3,811 820 Retail 25,000 SF 42 27 68 120 130 251 2,758 Total Trips 115 300 415 405 285 690 8,989 Page 1 of 5 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum To: Page 2 of 5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The assumptions regarding the distribution of Villages at Artrip trips remain consistent with those determined in the PHR+A December 15, 2004 report. PHR+A utilized these trip distribution percentages to assign the Villages at Artrip trips (Table 1) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 1 shows the development -generated AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes and Average Daily Trips (ADT) at the intersection of Warrior Drive/Tasker Road. 2012 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Villages at Artrip assigned trips (Figure 1) were added to the 2012 background traffic volumes to obtain the 2012 build -out conditions. Figure 2 shows the revised 2012 build -out AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes and ADT at the intersections of Warrior Drive/Tasker Road. Figure 3 shows the corresponding 2012 build -out lane geometry and levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this addendum. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with Warrior Drive being completed under Phase 3 prior to the completion of Crosspointe Boulevard are acceptable and manageable. Assuming 680 residential units along with 25,000 square feet of retail, the intersection of Warrior Drive/Tasker Road would maintain acceptable overall levels of service "C" or better. This planned intersection is to be signalized and will include the following lane geometry: Eastbound — one left turn lane, one thru lane and one right turn lane; Westbound — one left turn lane, one thru lane and one right turn lane; Northbound - one left turn lane, one thru lane and one right turn lane; Southbound — one left turn lane, one thru lane and one right turn lane. Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners . Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum To: Page 3 of 5 No Scale SITE �^1 Tacker Road IN (223)63 29(1pI �askerR 4� L�11 gad AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 1 Phase 3: Development -Generated Trip Assignments Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum To: Page 4of5 No Scale oad (s(')S" (321 j31�6 �%► 1 /l �11ti 11�� 5r SITE T a i . Oad AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) mwmn!fl1 �p + - H Figure 2 Phase 3: 2012 Build -out ADT and AN"M Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc No Scale Memorandum To: Page 5 of 5 SITE AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Phase 3: 2012 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects APPENDIX HCS 2000 Worksheets HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Intersection warrior Drive & Tasker Ro Analyst PHR+A (S) Agency or Co. PHR+A Area Type All other areas Date Performed 08115105 Jurisdiction Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Artrip Volume and Timin in ur EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Number of lanes, N1 1 1 1 1 1 L T R L T R L T R L T R Lane group Volume, V (vph) 72 546 317 114 506 38 238 32 98 105 90 195 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 6 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak -hour factor, PHF Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Start-up lost time, I, 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 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 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 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Filtering/metering, 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial unmet demand, Ob Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 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 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB1 Min. time for pedestrians, G 0 0 0 3.2 0 0 3.2 0 NB Only 0 0 3.2 NS Perm 0 07 0 0 3.2 08 0 Phasing EB Only 6.0 EW Perm 03 G= 41.0 G= G= 04 G= 17.0 G= 16.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= ength, C Cycle L= 90.0 Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 76 575 334 120 533 40 251 34 103 111 95 205 Lane group capacity, c 314 936 1214 295 816 721 492 683 580 243 331 175 v/c ratio, X 0.24 0.61 0.28 0.41 0.65 0.06 0.51 0.05 0.18 0.46 0.29 0.43 Total green ratio, g/C 0.52 0.52 0.77 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.18 0.18 0.30 Uniform delay, d1 13.3 115.1 3.1 16.4 19.0 13.7 21.2 18.4 19.3 33.1 32.1 25.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 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 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.23 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay Lane group LOS Approach delay Approach LOS Intersection delay HCS2000TM 0.4 11.2 10.1 10.9 11.9 10.0 10.9 10.0 10.1 1 1.4 10.5 10.6 13.7 16.3 3.2 M19.8 13.7 22.1 18.4 19.5 34.5 32.5 26.0 B B A B C B 8 C C C 11.7 21.1 29.8 B BC C 18.4 Xc = 0.64 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.le HCS2000T'DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Intersection Warrior Drive & Tasker Road Analyst PHR+A (S) Agency or Co. PHR+A Area Type All other areas Date Performed 08115105 Jurisdiction Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Artrip Volume and Timin in ur EB FWBj]p NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 1 1 1 1 1 Number of lanes, N1 1 1 1 1 1 L T R L T R L T R L T R Lane group Volume, V (vph) 254 502 321 191 789 132 342 112 ill 89 1 74 174 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 6 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 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 I A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 12.0 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 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 1 3 3 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 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 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 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 EN P ' / Grade / Parking kn N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 ar ig Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, GE 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 Perm 07 08 G= 8.3 G= 43.7 G= EIINBHyNS G= G= 11.0 G= GTiming Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination NB EB WB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted flow rate, v 267 528 338 201 831 139 360 118 117 Lane group capacity, c 246 1035 1302 399 870 769 422 580 492 v/c ratio, X 1.09 0.51 0.26 0.50 0.96 0.18 0.85 0.20 0.24 Total green ratio, g/C 0.58 0.58 0.82 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.31 0.31 0.31 Uniform delay, di 25.9 11.4 1.8 115.8 22.2 13.1 27.0 22.8 23.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ------------- Delay calibration, k 0.50 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.47 0.11 10.39 0.11 0.11 LT TH RT 94 78 183 155 228 427 0.61 0.34 0.43 0.12 0.12 0.27 37.4 36.2 127.1 1.000 1.000 11.000 0.19 10.11 10.11 Incremental delay, d2 Initial queue delay, d� Control delay Lane group LOS Approach delay Approach LOS Intersection delay HCS2000TM 82.0 10.4 10.1 1 1.0 120.4 10.1 115.5 10.2 10.3 16.7 10.9 10.7 107.9 11.8 1.9 16.8 42.6 13.2 42.5 23.0 23. 144.1 137.1 127.8 F 8 A 8 D_jl 8 D C C D I D C 31.5 34.7 34.8 34.2 C C C C 33.5 Xc = 1.16 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.le �r• Dewberry F The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 SECTION 8 APPENDICES El • The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 APPENDIX A PROPERTY DEED • • �wvss • 71 k. �eaow .v,o,sa+s rAT U+r roan^ i Q< ay A - THIS pgED, mode and dated this d ay of may, 1989, by .nd between P C ARTRIP JR. and 8"T^ ° aRT RIP, I:usband and rife, parties of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors; rrp�wESTEt ARTRIP LTNITL UjjjigL;_ , ■ Virginia limited )artnarehip, party of the second part, herein after called the iranteet and DAVIp 8. HOLLIDAY, homme sole, ]party of the third )art. WITH98sSTNt That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten )ollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of Mhich is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do grant —end -convey, with General Warranty and English covenants of title unto the 5rentee, in fee simple, all the following described real estates TRACT ONEI All of that certain :.pact of land f way, together with all ziappu rights hereunto improvements and appurtenances gisterial belonging, situated in Shawnee ~containing District, Frederick County, `lir;_nia, curve 169.00� acres. as described by boundary " drawn by Carl J. Rinker, C,�.S., dated February 27, 1989, revised April 28, 1989. arad designated thera as "Tract 1", attached hereto and ,side a part hereof by this reference; and being portion of the parcel conveyed to the male Grantor herein by deed of Hugn G. Slonaker et ux dated August 20, 1962. of recorJ in the Clerk's Offica of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virgin -'a in Deed Book ter at page 2L'1, 4'enCT TWO: !11 of that certain tract ightA of land t�;ath_r with all rights, rncek% improvements and appurtenanceu [hereunto Kecis[e:1e1 belonging, situated in Shawnee District, Frederic= County, Virginia, containing 9.915 acres, as described by boundary survey drawn 4 by Carl J. Rinker, C.L.B.. lated February 27, 4 1999, and designated there as "Tract 2", attached to all easements. r 9 o al v't7ance is made subject =. µ at�itriotions o! zecord, effecting the uubjece vtoDerty. P their heirs and unto theeselws, - `Ozae�tors hereby reserve 4K5 - s ''`' r than two aon-eaelusive easements of right—ot- '� t.eorf than sixty (60) feet wide, {N l-which shall be more i '.:. ',.. luture utility installation i Ate to be used I11 for i" adjacent retained j R•:t copvared property bg to Grantors' Afrf iA.. ' ✓. } ~ for future, ingress to and across from sai ¢ xr over the heroin conveyed property. �'fitiktt 1st' tt7 Ot The ,i Ilf3tNa�r + '- by the Crantaa'■ ; Co_.rninsd .y X /fid'fsrew•pu shall ba toz the who the master development plan �'. +i iaottsttltant shall be morn on { :�hl�Z is rrvgared. and eaid aas�santa y sr by Frederick �oun_ y. .. �idyG, '&*'and when submitted for approval i O' bad .Zoo a-,. T �7m •iecctii3 BKT 13FG42 Q •AAare �/ CeC CA f Q+ S. R -3D S 4 r S •-ia.'ot'G 9ad�' ®•s.<oo jouh40 t oswz000 pacc goer / •Ja.` oaa•c ec :It' �- aa'oas. aHo.c hr� ,e del to • 8 � � o '� rta�•- 20.�C! ia'au� t� a avo \s ad L Al 1�� OO � /ZC 4.G 3 olcrte6 •� ..•sa'�a�I �oa.aa sst� J! �a �! :r s�•L � J410a• �- •�}"` •i11Q•,RA'64"hi ��Iow.t+Df -I, J JJIi� 47�� I�oo6.db' •� � � u G _.. .. �;�• sis.ss' � r• 'eta �� !fo'� � e air•is's.tW10 prY go�.r0 • <t; f<sGt�aK �� s4tlHa,�r 44�bm' ,Jea•sa•ooti.,t NQao 44.r4Yoea Nor��_ ,..,�-�',� ,,,1- jgra•or'ae 4 iaay •q��rty ls;eaasecr vJq�aM�lni Ced i,i �i'rJ aad.��' '�"'t,�<sr1c•1ra AJo 'Z73�bA0a--+• <.of•Mr�tya a� <ceo p7�rtC•prJ;s1[, vr(KarKG4. �st,:.�.10 Poaea3aeo ,4,e�p,7G,Cru,X- O�nfor+aO PCopagsJr LrCG3 Co�IST•LLCTCO g6 PCC y.a� pa zaa-ac3 ���'r�rLc tt0004�' � u<r.lis r .-' Pnpco'ed by CARL J.'RINKER AND ASSM. m rw�s LkMERS ROW FH 703-45'9.4715 P i �ou�OR u Grp of q, Po4rioa of rot r f, f /iQYTR iP..TP,. aT. Nf. PtoPC�s� 4oC�grc0 gaour4VA aZil-ca *our%- a,q,rr of TH .CirX of Wih/cp,ca rc C# sA{1,WAIC& 44A,firaei4L Oior., pe4oagiOK. aout4ry, ✓igaigilt. 54.17.30 QO1Q �,40 wavy-) 1pc r. ?,I) 10BOj t CARS, i. _ _ : ��R ASSi�CIA�EIS1 Fc `' 2 I Lewd Sunwran ErQkM2 i Ls-d nwmen L�wywa' biva� (1' WooJdodk. VA =14 Thaae (2) tracts of land are located about 4% miles Southeast of the City of Winchester. Shawnee Magisterial District. Frederick Cooaty. Virginia and are deseribed ►y metss r.; bounds am f011ovsl _ nucr-1 6oainning at as iron rod found at a•-cornsr rich Tract-2 and Vernon L. Lichlltert thwuce with the said Uchliter's line and continuing with sleanor Jackson enrlemat '•. at. als. lines m 13. 11' is" 3 1.964.95 feet to as iron rod mat{ thence a $2. 46' 02" a 301.34 feet to an iron rod sate thence a K• 30' 39" a 408.69 feet to a Saw t. dmblo black oak tree leered at a corner with Y. F. Artrip. Jr.'a other landt tsease with the maL4 &strip'@ lines 8 60. 21' 070-19 1,011.33 feet to .a 22"-double ohfstwt osk tree{ then" a 62. 35' 38"'l 829.34 feet to a 16" eta treat thence 1 71' 14' 37" 2 1,116.61 Lest to a 10" rbite oak t`w tow at a corner With James N. Stafford. Jr.) thence with the said stafterd'a liars 8 36. 19' 46" V .174.84 feet.to an irca rcd torsi at an angle in the ad fence, thence • 0 S6• 59' le V 341.02 -test to a wood fence N;. pet feundi t aco s 190 "1 14" W7f.43 lost to sa icon rod sat► thence a 19. 06' V 740.16 Cast to as iron rod mstt teoo" a 17. 13' 22" W 409.60 lost tea a wood fence post founds thence 0 16, 29' 16" V 443.66•feet to a 10" Dine tree found at a fames corner. a corner with load claimad by Ralph M. Vakeasa{ thence with the said .. Waltemsa'e linen t Of' 33' 00" V 313.60 feet to a 12" wsita oak creel thence EI 78' 071.J3" W 18.27 feet L3 a 12" white oak treat thence a 66. 14' 31" W 363.71 feet to a fencs post foaodt thence With mother of the said Vakansa's lines and contimolas . with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority And another 02.the osid Nakamma's Its" ��. 34' OS' 43" Y 1.760.b4 feat tr, as lino rod totand at a ootwr with lragj-2t fheaa i� with a 1LAo of the said Tract-2 ■ !6' 22' 54" if 1.003.22 teat to the pint *t e. bo ming sad ...retaialas 169.009 Actse awe of lees. 1 I Ij I r f R� The Villages atArtrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 40 APPENDIX B WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT • • • • 3 t E�j7jC�f,,,+�5'�j,:...,', WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT' M ARTRIP PROPERTY FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA�� kM1 ECS PROJECT NO. 21-8232-A r 1i , , FOR t ARTRIP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP c/o THE TOWER COMPANIES ;t t.: APRIL 23, 2004 ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD. Geotechnical e Construction Materials e Environmental Mr. Charles Segerman, P.E. Artrip Limited Partnership c/o The Tower Companies 11501 Huff Court North Bethesda, Maryland 20895 April 23, 2004 RECEIVED APR 2--- 6 2004 Dewberry -Winchester ECS Project No. 21-8232-A Reference: Wetland Delineation Report, ARTRIP Property, Frederick County, Virginia. Latitude: 39° 06' 30" N Longitude: 78' 10' 22" W Dear Mr. Segernian: Engineering Consulting Services (ECS) is pleased to present this detailed wetland delineation report for the above -referenced project., A detailed delineation entails the gathering of appropriate field data according to the 1987 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual, field flagging and mapping of wetland and stream boundaries located on -site, preparation of a final report, and request to the USACE for confirmation and jurisdictional determination of U: S. Waters including wetlands identified on -site. Submission to the USACE for confirmation will be.done with your. permission. INTRODUCTION The ARTRIP Property project site is approximately 170+/- acres situated north of Fair Lawn Court in Frederick County, Virginia (Figure 1-1). The terrain of the project site consists of gently rolling hills and steep ravines, and is within the Opequon River drainage -basin (Figure 1-2). Currently, the site is vacant with no indications of present use. ' SECONDARY INFORMATION Secondary Information entails the background research and review of recorded data and . mapping pertaining to the project site. Resources include but are not limited to the: U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map, Stephen City Quadrangle, Revised 1986 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetlands Inventory Map, Stephen City Quadrangle (On-line Interactive Mapper) Frederick County Soil Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) 026 Thunderbolt Place, Suite 100, Chantilly, VA 20151 a (703) 471-8400 • FAX (703) 834-5527 * WWW.ecslimi d coin cct m Aberdeen, MD* • Atlanta, GA • Austin, TX • Baltimore MD • Chantilly VA • Charo 1 tt e, ncago, IL • Dallas, TX Danville, VA • Frederick, MD • Fredericksburg, VA • Greensboro, NC • Greenville, SC • Norfolk, VA • Orlando, FL • Raleigh, NC Richmond, VA • Roanoke, VA • San Antonio, TX • Williamsburg, VA • Wilmington, NC • Winchester, VA* York, PA* *Testing Services Only -- Not to Scale Artrip Property Fair Lawn Court Frederick County, VA 4/2004 Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. 14026.Thunderbolt Place Chantilly, VA 20151 Figure 1.1 DeLorme Mapping 1993 Project Area Location Map ECS Job# 21:8232A Artrip Property Fair Lawn Court Frederick County, VA 4/2004 Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. 14026 Thunderbolt Place Chantilly, VA 20151 Figure 1.2 USGS Topo Map Stephen City Quad. ECS Job# 01:8232A Artrip Limited Partnership ECS Project No. 21-8232-A April 23, 2004 Page 2 The USGS quad map shows an elevation of 650 feet above mean sea. level '(MSL) in the southern portion along an un-named tributary of Opequon Creek, 720 feet above MSL in the central portion, and 700 feet above MSL in the northern portion. The project area drains to the north to Opequon Creek and to the south to a tributary of Opequon Creek. The drainage divide is located in the central portion of the site. The NWI map depicts the pond in the central portion of the site, no other wetland or stream features are indicated on the NWI map within the -property boundaries. The soil survey indicates that the site is underlain.primarily by Berks channery silt loam, Clearbrook channery silt loam, and Weikert-Berks channery silt loam. None of the soils in Frederick County, Virginia are classified by the MRCS as hydric. FIELD INVESTIGATION Fieldwork was conducted during April 2004 using the Routine Determination Method as outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Wetland flags were placed in the field by ECS and sequentially numbered to provide an onsite record of the location of wetlands and other waters subject to the jurisdiction of state and federal agencies. The data sheets used in this investigation are attached, along with the Delineation Map showing data point locations, and the approximate wetland and waters boundaries subject to the jurisdiction of state and/or federal. agencies. Surveyed boundaries of the wetlands are available at Dewberry, LLC, Winchester Office. In' -addition, a photographic log of 3t� representative wetland and waters is attached. FINDINGS ECS has identified and located seven wetlands and 4 streams. Wetlands identified on the project site are classified as palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine scrub/shrub (PEM/SS), and palustrine forested (PFO). Wetland vegetation is dominated by green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), seedbox (Ludwigia x lacustris), Frank's sedge (Carexfrankii), and soft rush (Juncus effuses). The main source of hydrology for these wetlands includes ground water fluctuation and surface runoff. The wetlands are underlain by Berks channerysilt loam and Weikert-Berks channery silt loam. REGULATORY DISCUSSION The USACE-Norfolk District and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) recently implemented the State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) to streamline the permit process and avoid duplicity of agency review. For those projects impacting less than 0.5 acre of non -tidal wetlands and/or less than 300 linear feet of stream bed (SPGP 1 — Category A), DEQ will be responsible for review and authorization. For those projects impacting up to 1.0 acre of non -tidal wetlands and 300-2,000 linear feet of stream bed (SPGP _ 1 — Category B), both DEQ and the USACE will review these projects and make independent _� permit decisions. Notification of potential impacts should -be filed with DEQ by completing Artrip Limited Partnership ECS Project No. 21-8232-A April 23, 2004 Page 3 i W ■ ._ 14 the Virginia Water Protection General Permit Registration completed registration statement, resource agency review mitigation for unavoidable impacts to non -tidal waters provided at a ratio of 2:1 for forested wetlands, 1.5:1 f emergent wetlands, and 1:1 for streams.. Mitigation can mitigation bank credits; wetland preservation; associated contribution to the Virginia Wetland Restoration Trust Fund, PROCEEDINGS Statement. Upon receipt of the will be initiated. Compensatory and wetlands will generally be or scrub/shrub wetlands, 1:1 for include: the purchase or use of upland buffers, and in -lieu -fee Upon your request, we will contact the USACE to schedule a field meeting to conduct a wetlands and waters boundary confirmation and jurisdictional determination. This process takes an average of two to three weeks depending on the availability of USACE personnel. After the boundaries of the wetlands and waters .have been. confirmed by the USACE, we suggest that the areas be surveyed for future plarining purposes and be submitted to the USACE as a final record. Once we have determined potential impacts we can assist you with pennitting options. For now, we would suggest that a protected species records review and a historical records review be conducted for the project site. ECS would like to. thank Artrip Limited Partnership for the opportunity to provide you with - this wetland delineation. We look forward to assisting you further with this project and other environmer(tal concerns you may have. If you have any questions, please feel free to. contact me at 703-810-1311 (office) or 571-641-0376 Sincerely, ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD. cc: Mike Wiley - Dewberry, LLC PH/plg/environ/wetland projects/ifiorello/files/2I 4inchesteroffice/21-8232-A) Group Manager m DATA SHEETS LEGEND v� Wetland ® Waters of the United States DPI Data Points _ a\ sc �.�-.'.�'. �i'�^. Xl1 ri'Jr'-� F'C � !•._ 1 `.9 ��- r� �!t /4 f 1 *� �_ / _- �- �__�- 1 __ _=1(F _4�_-`_-_---•-_-..'. _--.;��:.:."�., NyJjn rl�, ,J� rJ °'_ ^ ;X-11 if 1, 1 1 II � 1 �� !p { � �3�Cr .I ,s _.r _ __- + 1 ` Nts � _-^_- � , T ^'` 1 '� t " , Vl•�__. 11 f 1 f r.I 'y. -� x� . t,t� y !>_ =k r_s���8--:-;•`_t+ i'M;�K� � ,F`4` � I ll i � T - � r_� =_ 'itJ /i 1 r i'i /�ri-r s__ - Irj,�` ` ,'--"?��ry3ts•- .fr iJ_J'- �` ---- __ �'�'i i'-moo` _ %% J,-�`, ,tl _ 1, !/, ✓ \ I 1 _ / - :.`.` { ' +'!I /i '-�.._ ^♦ ,�:..'-^..- r fM/ _ +' __ - , r 1'1 ..= Pl. ' }i ' r atllIl-�- ��r J I �. , ll i1- ~ ram'^``+\. + `\\ 1 r � r- -�`:a�+i ,_-� �♦Y� J�riJyr -__ )� 1 19 1 rrr=..'J-�'= 3`�'+��•���_--'`` i - 1 ' '�+a�-_��MI. -� � �' / w 11 F i%i ,.'--_� \�' r r � +\�`_�'�\ it r' `, ♦ ♦ , `\ 1 I rfll �l(- N HI fI /r/' _�- ,a �.-_ � + � it fl ',iw _ '`•\+ / �� i' IIrJ � �N�=1+a, a r ^`, 1 I ,�` ++\ i �;_,! . ''% `; 1, ,,r %' _ f� , f' \,`._ -.+ �/I � , \ +,\ 1 1 �l/r�kNR ,1'' I 1 I I rJf�• r - +`+`: :�:;�-'�:�;, ` ` t 'J ' 1 ; +` t• I`I _ .J '[,' ^�-. r J 1` . a�_wrj' •, , , 1 t II I JJ41'1 NIJ rnj! '' - /f,,"� ,/!/' _ - I I - + \ `-... ♦ rJ 1 I I n QJJJJ111 N ill'r nlr 1.'.,..-=; +` -�♦``\ rr JN- {� 1 l , '1, � -, Ir , - i.', �''.. ♦� � 1! , ��`♦ Y 11 t /,i ��•-`^�\...:•' ,-_, 1 , /. ,Jr -rrr }I Ge11 .h J 1 I{p��,1 nr, Ir � �`� �, :- �`�`:r rrli 5❑ , f Ilfr V r, ._� . r , 1 ,` r i �'� - - ,1 r ,ry,7 r // -J J _ _^+ ., ,I 1 1 / , aRJt 1 II 11� d 1 ' \ +�•'i ,, _. f rri , 1 1 S % f' / i' ^i" r " fl(dllt1•J�f�fr/r r ''� � rr, ' , `_- ___ - � 1 i i i' i �ill li1` ♦♦`• IS'Ir� ++��n,���1111ii1, ', rr 1,11't 11 is a\ `-''- �'', +\`.. Ix, _ �', + „{ 1 \,, , I i 11 1 .{. 1 + to 11 i 4• , ��♦,a\++`+ � �`�i - ` `J rJ'�\♦ , :� � t It„ a __ / `- �^��''�'. �� � --- ' - ,•r"-��,! J,'1 1 1 J ,' - I -' 1`` I r J"`s�'_�i 1\ t yf a ,�'�; � �r 1 �l'. f� ti ," , , t ^, 1 + _ ,:``.� ; `♦fi � fr I t s,t+, �I,,�IIr - + a♦♦,,♦`\1 ,-' - ' l "4 N '- ��\ rr rll ! 1 0, u n',-n.: �a t„+.+.` .r .: `~ `` ` `r II�Ih t>i Qi. � �' ,J � � + �11 {,,,\ , , � /_^ l`\ / � + , N`'b♦yA\"�.��."s.^��- illf;,plf ,�il l�'t__- +U\\; ,``++, 1 r - _ \ `.\�'� �`\ !, 11' I x��r-� � i• � , \ ( , // +\ ,IC; Jr _- i / / .l , , Ia,. / , \`\\ , , , f r 1 � 1 1`��' ` _IN _+r• ,, .r=-^ �`� t+, � I I r'.' -'•' w�w..,,.,�.��� +. �1 ♦ , , ` 1 w.. � j ,I � � `; ,�i _ .. _.. jffj T`Y ,..{,,__ Nr 1`( y ! / �'--. �'^ I I r I ♦ , \ !la � I � i-/.^ - - `. Jj f r , ,7 f \ + ��_ 'l ' � r ' , I'�'.'� yy � r'_••`. J ♦+' rr- \+ ♦ -. -� � , +_. °_ : - , f �1 i/� J 1 �''.'rS' I ��+� `a L _i:1"� `- ,` 41.r�y7�7,7f La'r�-p9�;:'r r - -' , I ( `+ - �.•-�� _ ` � :'JJ , .- ---, 1 i " ' ' a. r . �� ' +♦ ` ' `l __ __ ' i , f/ /' �� .�_ /i ." i ri ,f'r''frr,'• rf'r7%i r �,/ � .rr' - J J _- �:� i=_= -_..- r__^^ J ` ;' ` , i i j'-r �-`--- �. i i • ` � ��-•1,� r 1 r t ,-/,- , , r � r lfffl -.� / `+ r 1 l ` t ``--- �,,,I ; r 1 -/'' --` + t I r:'.�;.�.. , /w' q./,_sLrir �11//)' P iIt!t'!�,' r i rrr- - � ri _ `"` ♦1_, ,, 1 `a, t, � - \`� :. , 1 I l f I ` __ 7 1 1 i_ ' i I'i / r�i/irl�y7J,'-/ll.:: 1 ; f♦♦ , 1 ' i' r' ``\ � I I . , _ --_ ._r/ ..'�. #6 4r r-• ++`.. �.�\` , ,` I r r` -- - = -_-== -` `' --- _ \ , i w . `\ ^ ` --' • , I yr , 1'{ -r y �:`"i�+��.`\`a �. ♦ t 1 1 .- � `♦ _ ♦ `'` +\ \ a ♦ _� _ + (/ t , ' + r �,,11��yy , • L ,a • ♦ 1 . 1 1 r 1 ♦. _ ^ ` , ~ \ , + { i \ r I I,I r-r " - a-=rL.�.r\Ia. `` : _�_ -.� �y 1 1 r' ` - ______ 1 `, ``, t ,a 1 \ `, `.�;�`^ `� ♦. \ l 1 .r i1 I / ' S ` i Y __ \ •7` + l , 1 I r ^-"' - 1 + \ I ' , \ •``, `r't_�� ` , _ \` ,b , { ,,`, 1 � r rI 1 r I .'i% r r �j ` , Il ,' �frr , .• '^� �' `� r ' �J r ♦ _ l ` , ♦ , 11 1 ` a ,` , \ 1 � . r,' f '=_�, f//r"'_�ti 1 `24� ' 'l - r Q• /`-���•^_ � <` `'°,. i i t ' I _ `Fl i Il J i ' `- , { { 1 1 • I � I - r ; I'10�♦,. f; r;;=,' r r I :'. , + ` J f {`! ` 1� ;j' 1 r1 , , t , , 1 I , .`\ r r.c. //r _, { ,1t,y, rr'•' � �' " J -'-- _ ,..�_ J fJ. I, r r-_'^ r I i ." a •`�` `•a ! r � r � r r yr' rill' +, ���t .+ , 1� r �\ I ` \�\ fl 1 / `a , 1 ` 1 1 /I • /mow`-' \ `, 1 { 'rl ' - _ �.. J'" l,1 J � 1 f / I 1 1 ` \ \ / •- `.. I !r „Ir1 / 1 1 / / / , , / i � w- re r , 1 , + t, { r r' r t• 1 + 1' ` +{ r f ` t \ , 1 , r ! / / � - _ - r r •/r , 1 r _' 1, � i ' ii'-`%'�^-' jy,Id M S� . t, 1 ll ! - i-- I / r l r f `\ `I ! I ♦, ♦a 1 1 r/ 1 I 1 j1 1+� { 1 r ' r __r= � ,--• r � ��� / t �r'rI- a"� �:��..� '`'___ � ';`c , /� , , , 1 1+� f 1 .. J � '` 1 � • ,'';;`';'��i� dill �t4 �, 1{ 1 11 `� i I .fr /' / / - , / t. � \ - I , `♦, ♦-_.{7�,�``++ \ �_:�:,+ ' ,r � , - -r \. � Jf � ` , M!�11 , ,'1 { , + , ,I i ( 1 I rrr.�►� - o'a \ , , 1 , 1 \ � r f 1 , +`�` i O° ° `....y`t__--' .•.- J , `{�.� J:" �l�` {t `♦++ \ ' i ii i f r 1 1 'Is ,-,�--^�� w' ' a ♦ 1 +\ 1\ I/� 1 \ ♦ 1 I I ! :.\r ,,\ , , _ _ ' / . _-`_______-_- 1 l 1 .-,; , `_`.-_- `, `♦ \` `FM N / w I % 1 ` +, \ `5 t 11 1 ' 1 , f J , 1{`t.� `;;,;,_ it 1 `,`♦�, It � ' i'` �_.. I 1' r r .• a, ^- � 1`1 , 1 I .„h Jr ip'I 1 r , �/%% /u iSa ut, , �/ _ �. + - , ` ,'` - ; / __ J 1 1 r \ /,'.'•� _�� ---' ` , I J I // 11 , ` %!/ -Y �r I1 �t t ,,, � .___ r / i ; i � ,`"-/f ' 1a � _r -- .', , 1 r I I' : t♦ , 1 I--- ' ` ♦ , f ,/ , , ,11I \�^ . _ -!!!! 1 ,,\ ,,t ..v{ , / Cyr �`v 1 1 1 .t �;\l♦l .'; ]f w i ,+-+_` _., i ; �' `y _. , .fr � / r f 1 ( ,, 1 1 r' '- �``- '-�_/'♦ 1, ♦`ter r rl'ir Ji �lr ill x{ 1 \ ,. , ` , „ tal ltq N\\+ 'ti.. � j 1 j t\C�-' ` / I 1 l+ Ills i �` '/'^ �. ��'+ `\ r i t f f l iril ,11 „it ` _w \ `� _ f r i Ir \' ✓� 1 ; l \,/ / \„ ' „I,{{{(((' , J'`, , , /�, ,11f\I/�l ,„{{. III K\\` r, r,l 1 C , t ` , ` f Illl,� +,t} •u+, -_tip 1 `` l �, ,i' !� , l\ 5{ I` `, 1 1 1 , % tiler, , ♦ ` I / ' Ill,l. 4 11 \ 1_ ,� 1 1 1 + 1\{ \\ + +` -�` ,' I 1 t( a+`\`w so 1 ♦a \`+ `�i 1 , r��.., ! f--^\i \{ `'! ' _'.- �"-- ` ,'- a 1 / ! ./'' _w- ` t`_-r / - , ' S, f\1 \+`,+ r; 1 ,1, f -'l 1, + 1 {,' NI. A�``r `� 'r'11 t I 1 1 , ,td. ��`�` `��� � �- ' 115t *�� --'-••; . ', ``_, �, . , Ill `, ` I ' 1 ,;\, �. •,` , ; ,,'�`�-', ., +, ````-__' 1 ; 1,' �,,f .� �1: � % 1, 1 , 1 1 1 , 1,Q :.,� `. r ; } 11, s `-``-.. . + , , , f 1 / I� J ',__ 1 1 I ♦'`^ � 1 I � JJ 5 a+`. __ ��' / 1 +, �- � 1 , , \ la�\t_�w` - �` -_•_�` ` i i i 1' "-' 1 I �' `+� r' ' 1- wri it Jl 1 �:. .��'''' Jf �'__''r ++`�� •- ^�''. ` '/r' ff. 11 N) ,i'I ' -' / f I 1 l 11, �_� r�`{j; :\ `` ... _-___ f { , �i :� �... 1 1 '.i , 1 ' - ` � '-- ' / f //r+�=i/S' i - , ``.._•_+ii: !� -- r'._��\- .�.� /nu i f'� I r 1 \ + ' t ; __ - 1 Z♦\ ^_ i..` � r +== Jr \ / I ' ,� , / r ' g_ __ --__ __ :�_ :^�"_�yr// iJ 111 1 t , I t \ `t _� •• � ._! rll �-' hl __ _ : r l V ` -- W";: ;.: pl� , __•` --- ;l„ = ".�;.•_,.• ` ` " --.. - ' \ ,a\, \,t. 1 \; \ a_r r % r t J r I r rf/f A - -•, \a♦,\\al. `?,�`+, ,`+\`` / -w - J , J r r J4:/,S'96'w J; ' J ' °'-� r + { ♦ t\t{-tih S t\_♦ ` + ♦ \. r J"`..� _ r r'r ''�s ° ,SIN l �� \.+``a ._�..`\ p'; ���,/y 4/ +, ♦ / r Lx0- �` ♦ -a, , t q,` lh + `*,1, , 1 r^ \ /rr JY / i r /rJrr�fr2°.t /' I ,` ^`+ ♦ J -" r 1 \ \ 5 ♦ 111 1 1 \ \++ \ \ ♦ ✓ rf JK i f + \+ \I `, J '- ° , \ l ,\, a\\, ,i�l.\ .\♦ \\,\ \,,, ' r ' ''' _ ---G-`_-" -' ' ` , \ \\ \,a` ♦+ ♦` `t" , \\ 1 I l 1 1 l' `\``_..... '=✓,,�r rff/YrJr I r /% -`\\ / i ' 'J'I' - +♦ `\ ♦\i\\��e\++♦♦,, `[`, 'a i,\ ♦ +\`v r i ` + " rr' rr J , �y -r r^-' � _.•�- ,� J f y, '�' \` 1 / r I '•-S- ,- 1\--1_____^_♦, + t t ` \N2♦�\t J.,S♦��, ♦t I, t• +`. r''� t //4:'S�.'��i I I I // I ( a , ,, - ,, ♦ \ / 1 1 , , „N\, ♦+ ,`\t \Z,, a,1S \ / I1j4 � V f / � ll r Nso;filr f"i . ^t Sr ! wr-__ f J , f , ,, \i•+ `'- , , t\, 1 , ram' ' `� CID ~^. +.._._ w '-_ l 1 , ;; `=' J ! , 111„ _ , JJ r•-� ..I' S\ad+1\�+ \ {,\\ if: yA �.-t'�✓rS / JJJJJ r i ' J J r f • + , +. �r r n y - 'i ' f a -'� , +;.•_'",,;,;.;_...-.-,...�t� -- '_; ,+ ; , ; ',+;;, �,+�: `-'-^=�JJ,,d� � ;; � `, �- '-` r' ; ; / ' ;' I �I It �, {r ``--%r -. _r;1�:i= - J►,e�rr; / Is Roo you i U W DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) `roject/Site ARTRIP PROPERTY . 'pplicant / Owner. Mr. Charles Segerman, P.E., Artrip Limited Partnership - Investigator JPF + RJC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) ❑ Yes ® No Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION I H Ik Date County State Community ID TransectID Plot ID 04/08/04 FREDERICK VA PEM DP 1 Dominant P lant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Carex frankii H OBL Ludwigia x lacustris H OBL Mimulus guttatus H OBL Toxicodendron radicans V FAC l®rcent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 75% Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ® Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY ❑Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other I. Lj No Recorded Data Available . FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water ' ' N Depth to Free Water in Pit nPpth to Saturated Soil WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Primary Indicators: ® Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands 2.0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves 1.0 (in) ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test 1.0 (in) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: ❑ No indicators of wetland hydrology. 0 Sufficient evidence of wetland hydro HYDROLOGY ❑Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other I. Lj No Recorded Data Available . FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water ' ' N Depth to Free Water in Pit nPpth to Saturated Soil WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Primary Indicators: ® Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands 2.0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves 1.0 (in) ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test 1.0 (in) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: ❑ No indicators of wetland hydrology. 0 Sufficient evidence of wetland hydro Community ID: PEM Plot ID: DPI 1 Project Name: ARTRIP PROPERTY a SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Clearbrook Channery Silt Loam Drainage Class: poorly drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? ® YES ❑ NO Depth 1:Horizon (inches) 0-12 A/B PROFILE DESCRIPTION Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (Mansell Moist (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. IOYR 6/2 7.5YR 6/8 25% SILT LOAM ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing .Conditions HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: El Concretions ❑-High Organic Content in Surface Layer in. Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List lJ kileyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) tiyaric soils present? I�9 Yes H No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ .Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. ® Chroma of 2 with mottles ❑ Chroma greater than 2 with mottles. ❑ Chroma of 1 with or without mottles Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: ® Yes ❑ No ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® YES ❑ NO ® Yes ❑ No ' DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION I _0 Page I J. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION .(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) 'oject/Site ARTRIP PROPERTY Date 04/08/04 Applicant / Owner Mr. Charles Segerman, P.E., Artrip Limited Partnership County FREDERI.CK i Investigator JPF + RJC State VA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community JD UPLAND 1 Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes. ® No i Transect ID Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID DP 2 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Arthraxon hispidus H NI Cirsium horriduhtm H FACU- Solidago altissima H FACU- Blephilia hirsuta F H FACU- IG ercent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 0% Hydrophytic vegetation present? LJ Yes N No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ®. Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ❑ Greater than 50% dominance of hydlrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY ❑Recorded Data (Describe. in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ No Recorded Data Available ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water 0.0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit 0.0 (in) ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) epth to Saturated Soil 0.0 (in) = ier (explain): Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: ® No indicators of wetland hydrology. ❑ Sufficient evidence of wetland hydrology. Project Name: ARTRIP PROPERTY SOILS Cornmunity ID: UPLAND Plot ID: DF' I J FMap Unit Name (Series and Phase): Clearbrook Channery Silt Loam Drainage Class: poorly drained axonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ YES ® NO Depth Horizon (inches) 0-12 A/B PROFILE DESCRIPTION Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (Munsell Moist Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc, 10YR 5/4 - - SANDY SILT HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: ❑ Histosol . ❑Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ' n Gleved or Law-Chroms Cnlnra �ryunc sons present: L Yes �C No Rationale -for decision/Remarks: ❑ Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. ❑ Chroma greater than 2 with mottles. Remarks: Id, WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: ❑ Chroma of 2 with mottles ❑ Chroma of 1 with or without mottles ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ YES ® NO ❑ Yes ® No ' DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION • Pag( DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) 'roject/Site ARTRIP PROPERTY Date 04/15/04 / Owner. Mr. Charles Segerman, P.E., Artrip Limited Partnership County FREDERICK ft'pplicant Investigator JPF + RJC State VA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes []No Community ID PEM/PSS Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑Yes ®No Transect ID Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID DP 3 Explanation of atypical or problem area: I VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Carex frankii H OBL Lobelia cardinalis H ' FACW+ Ilex verticillata H FACW+ Lonicera japonica H FAC- ILWercent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding.FAC-): 75% I Hydrophytic vegetation present? LQ Yes • ❑ No j Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ Less than 50%. dominance of hydrophytic plant species. 1 ® Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. —i HYDROLOGY ❑Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑.Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other LJ No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Primary Indicators: ® Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water 1.0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves a Depth to Free Water in Pit 0.0 (in) y El Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral'Test epth to Saturated Soil 0.0 (in) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: ❑ No indicators of wetland hydrology. 0 Sufficient evidence of wetland hvdrt Project Name: ARTRIP PROPERTY SOILS Community ID: PEM/PSS Plot ID: DA Fdap Unit Name (Series and Phase): Berks Channery Silt Loam Drainage Class: well drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? ElYES ®NO . Depth Horizon (inches) 0-4 A PROFILE DESCRIPTION Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (Munsell Moist) Munsell Moist). Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 1 OYR 4/2 - - SILT LOAM 4-12 . B lOYR 5/2 lOYIt 5/8 25% SILT LOAM ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑.Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: ® Concretions: Mg ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List u, vieyea or Low-unroma uoiors LJ Other (Explain in Remarks) '-riydric soils present`? [L(J Yes LJ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. ® Chroma of 2 with mottles ❑ Chroma greater than 2 with mottles. ❑ Chroma of 1 with or without mottles Remarks: i WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: ®Yes ❑ No ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® YES [] NO ® Yes ❑ No ' DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION 0 Pa€ t DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Aftoject/Slte ARTRIP PROPERTY Date 04/15/04 pplicant / Owner Mr. Charles Segerman, P.E., Artrip Limited Partnership County ' FREDERICK Investigator JPF + RJC State VA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID UPLAND Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID DP 4 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Lonicera japonica H FAC- Andropogon A.rginicus H FACU Rosa multiflora H FACU a ,I + ercent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 0% Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes N No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ® Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ❑ Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. i 14VDRoi.0GV ❑Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Inundated ❑ Other ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ No Recorded Data Available ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water 0.0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit 0.0 (in) ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ')epth to Saturated Soil 0.0 (in) er (explain): Wetland hydrology present? El Yes No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. ❑ Sufficient evidence of wetland hydrology. Project Name: ARTRIP PROPERTY Community ID: UPLAND SOILS Plot ID: D Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Berks Channery Silt Loam Drainage Class: well drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations ConfuTn Mapped Type? ® YES [] NO PROFILE DESCRIPTION Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle inches) (Mansell Moist (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast 0-3 A 1 OYR 3/2 _ 3-16 . B 10YR 5/4 - Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. SILT LOAM GRAVELY LOAM I HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions —{ ❑ Histic Ep dor Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils. ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ' ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) i ydric soils present? ❑ Yes No Rationale for decision/Remarks: El..Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. ❑ Chroma of 2 with mottles El Chroma greater than 2 with mottles. El Chroma of 1 with or without mottles .Remarks: i i WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ YES ®NO ElYes ® No 4 DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Pag I _* i 1 4 Ij I VEGETATION DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION .(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Aroject/Site ARTRIP PROPERTY Date 04/15/04 pplicant / Owner Mr. Charles Se erman P.E. Artri Limited g p anted Partnership County FREDERICK Investigator JPF + RJC State VA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID PEM Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) ❑ Yes ®No Plot ID DP 5 Explanation of atypical or problem area: Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Carex frankii H OBL Ilex verticillata H FACW+ Agrostis alba ' H FACW erc rt,1%,rr, u1 rm., kexcivaing lUU% nyuropnytic. vegetation present? 1�9 Yes U No Rationale for decision/Remarks: El*.Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ® Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ' J HYDROLOGY .. ❑Recorded Data. (Describe in Remarks) El. Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other Lj No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water 1 � Depth to Free Water in Pit Clthh(to Saturated Soil ex lain): Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decision/remarks WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Primary Indicators: ® Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands 1.0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper. 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves 0.0 (in) ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test 0.0 (in) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ® Yes ❑ No No indicators of wetland hydrology. Sufficient evidence of wetland hvdrolo Project Name: ARTRIP PROPERTY SOILS Community ID: PEM Plot ID: DP5 Ij Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Berks Channery Silt Loam Drainage Class: well drained T axonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ YES ®NO Depth Horizon (inches) 0-4 A PROFILE DESCRIPTION Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 1 OYR 4/2 - - SILT LOAM 4-12 . B IOYR 5/2 1OYR 5/8 25% SILT LOAM ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: ® Concretions: Mg ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List L-i -Yy ,., ul , vw--iuuuia k.oiors U Other (Explain in Remarks) i nyaric sons present: ICI Yes " No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. ® Chroma of 2 with mottles ❑ Chroma greater than 2 with mottles. ❑ Chroma of 1 with or without mottles Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: ® Yes ❑ No ®Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® YES ❑ NO ® Yes ❑ No ' DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Pagi 4-- DATA FORM kOUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site ARTRIP PROPERTY Date 04/15/04 Applicant / Owner Mr. Charles Segerman, P.E., Artrip Limited Partnership County FREDERICK Investigator JPF + RJC State VA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID UPLAND Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID DP 6 Explanation of atypical. or problem area: F 1 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Cirsium vulgare H FACU- Rosa multiflora H FACU Andropogon virginicus H FACU Rubus arcticus. H NI -------- -----...............�l..vv.w I—, — V1J L, 1'!]l_. YY, Ul i'tit.. kumaucung V% iiyurophytic vegetation present? Ll Yes Z No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ® Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ❑ Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY ❑Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other . LJ No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water ' a � Depth to Free Water in Pit epth to Saturated Soil WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands 0.0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves 0.0 (in) ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test 0.0 (in) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: ® No indicators of wetland hydrology. ❑ Sufficient evidence of wetland hvrlri Project Name: ARTRIP PROPERTY Community ID: UPLAND SOILS M ap Umt Name (Series and Phase): Berks Channery Silt Loam Drainage Class: well drained �Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? ® Y nn�rrr T T\T[1/1TTTmT�» Depth Horizon (inches) 0-3 A � ��va auai �..,LV V1\11 11V1\ Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle (Munsell Moist) Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast 10YR 3/2 - - Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. SILT LOAM 3-16 . B 10YR 5/4 - - GRAVELY LOAM ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfdic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions- HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: El Concretions ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List n Listed on National TTvdric Qnilc T ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ .Other (Explain in Remarks) Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. ❑ Chroma of 2 with mottles ❑ Chroma greater than 2 with mottles. I-1 Chrnma nf i — ,,.;a.,:._. i I WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: . ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes ® No ' ;� DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Ij DATA. ORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) 1 roject/Site ARTRIP PROPERTY Date 04/15/04 (Applicant / Owner Mr. Charles Segerman, P.E., ArtriLimited Partnershi p P County FREDERICK Investigator JPF + RJC State VA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID PEM Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID DP Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Carex frankii H OBL Ilex verticillata H FACW+ Agrostis alba H FACW Pycnanthemum flexuosum H FACW Festuca pratensis H FACU- Cent Of nhminant TnPriPe fl—f oro naT II A nw .._ r, w --- --- ---�, ... v k­14LL11161'Ali-�, OV/Q riyurupnyuc vegetation present: LJ Yes Lj No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ® Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY J. ❑Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake; or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other LJ No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water i I Depth to Free Water in Pit nth to Saturated Soil Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decision/remarks WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Primary Indicators: ® Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands 1.0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves 0.0 (in) ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test 0.0 (in) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) IN Yes U No No indicators of wetland hydrology. Sufficient evidence of wetland hydra Project Name: ARTRIP PROPERTY Community ID: PEM SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Pha B k Plot ID: DP7 se). er s Channery Silt Loam Drainage Class: well drained T axonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? PROFILE DESCRIPTION Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors inches Horizon Mottle ( ) (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast 0-4 A 1 OYR 4/2 _ 4-12 . B 1 OYR 5/2 1 OYR- 5/8 25% J ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: ❑ YES NO Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc, SILT LOAM SILT LOAM ® Concretions Mg ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) .�dric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑.Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles ❑ Chroma greater than 2 with mottles. Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION HydropVegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Chroma.of 2 with mottles ❑ Chroma of 1 with or without mottles ® Yes [:]No ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ®YES El NO ® Yes ❑ No ' )ATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Page ra DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) . roject/Site ARTRIP PROPERTY Date 04/15/04 Applicant / Owner Mr. Charles Segerman, P.E., Artrip Limited Partnership County FREDERICK Investigator JPF + RJC State VA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID UPLAND Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? El Yes ®No Transect ID Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID DP g Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Cirsium vulgare H FACU- Rosa multiflora H FACU Andropogon virginicus H FACU Y.rercern or i,orrunant opecies that are UtsL, rAUW, or.F.AU (excluding PA( ): U o Hydrophytic vegetation present? U Yes D!j No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ® Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ❑ Greater than 50% dominance of hydlrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY ❑Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other' LJ No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water I 0.0 (in) ' a A Depth to Free Water in Pit I 0.0 (in) pth to Saturated Soil I 0.0 (in) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: ® No indicators of wetland hydrology. ❑ Sufficient evidence of wetland hydri Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ■ Project Name: ARTRIP PROPERTY Community ID: UPLAND SOILS Plot ID'-. D Z3 Map. Unit Name (Series and Phase): Berks Channery Silt Loam Drainage Class: well drained e Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fild Observations Confirm Mapped Type? � Pp YP YES f—I tJn Depth inches 0-3 3-16. Horizon A B ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing.Conditions ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors PROFILE DESCRIPTION Matrix Color Mottle Colors Aunsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) l OYR 3/2 _ 1 OYR 5/4 _ Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. SILT LOAM GRAVELY LOAM HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: ❑ Concretions . ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) i iAy W q: JUl1J pi-esenU lJ Yes lex—J No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ Chroma of 2 or greater -without mottles. ❑ Chroma of 2 with mottles ai ElChroma greater than 2 with mottles. ElChroma of 1 with or without mmottles Rearks: . WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: ❑ Yes ®No ❑ Yes ® No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ YES ® NO 0 Yes ® No ' DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION PagE DATA. FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) .-0 ect/Site ARTRIP PROPERTY Applicant / Owner Mr. Charles Segerman, P.E., Artrip Limited Partnership Investigator JPF + RTC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? [—]Yes ® No Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) ❑Yes ®No Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION Date 04/15/04 County' FREDERICK State VA Community ID Transect ID Plot ID PEM/PSS DP 9 Dominant Plant Species Stratum ' Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Carex frankii H OBL Ludwigia alata H OBL Juncus effusus H FACW+ Toxicodendron radicans r. V FAC fyent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 75% rophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ® Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY ❑Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑• Other I_J No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water I 2.0 (in) Depth to Free Water in Pit I 0.0 (in) . Depth to Saturated Soil I 0.0 (in) nd hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No ale for decision/remarks: ❑ No indicators of wetland hydrology- 0 Sufficient evidence of wetland hydre WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Primary Indicators: ® Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves . ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Project Name: ARTRIP PROPERTY Community ID: PEM/PSS SOILS [Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Clearbrook Channery Silt Loam Drainage Class: poorly drained Am axonomy (Subgroup): I Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? I I-j PR CWTUP n P.Q (-R ZPTTnrT Plot ID: DI 1 ® YES ❑ NO Depth Horizon (inches) 0-12 B Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (Mansell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 10YR 4/2 1OYR 5/6 15% SILT LOAM ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: ® Concretions Mg ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List F 1 Listed on Nat9nnal ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 I — Hydric soils present? N Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles J. ❑ Chroma greater than 2 with mottles. Remarks: . WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: N Chroma of 2 with mottles ❑ Chroma of 1 with or without mottles ® Yes ❑ No N Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® YES [] NO N Yes ❑ No 1DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Pag DATA FORM .ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION .(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Pject/Site ARTRIP PROPERTY Date 04/15/04 pplicant / Owner Mr. Charles Segerman, P.E., Artrip Limited Partnership County FREDERICK Investigator JPF. + RJC State VA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes El No Community ID UPLAND Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? [:]Yes. ® No Transect ID Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) [:]Yes ® No Plot ID DP 10 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Rosa multiflora H FACU Andropogon virginicus H FACU Juniperus virginiana H FACU Diospyros virginiana H FAC- . ercent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding. FAC-): 0% Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ®.Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ❑ Greater than- 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY ❑Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑. Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water I� Depth to Free Water in Pit ' `pth to Saturated Soil WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Primary Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands 0.0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves 0.0 (in) ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test ❑ 0.0 (in) Other (Explain in Remarks) Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: ® No indicators of wetland hydrology. ❑ Sufficient evidence of wetland hydro Project Name: ARTRIP PROPERTY Community ID: UPLAND Plot ID: DP 10 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase); - Clearbrook Chamfer Silt Loam Y Drainage Class: poorly drained _Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ YES ® NO / I-4 Depth (inAnq) Horizon PROFILE DESCRIPTION Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle - . Texture, Concretions. 0-12 B - -- ---- - -- - , 1 OYR 5/4 �--�•��•• --VlaL . - tuwivance/t,onrrast - Structure, etc. GRAVELY LOAM ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: ❑ Concretions ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric soils present? ❑•Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. ❑ Chroma of 2 with mottles ❑ Chroma greater than 2 with mottles. ❑ Chroma of 1 with or without mottles Rvm�rlrc- WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ❑ YES ®NO ❑ Yes ® No i DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Pag The EDR Radius MapTM Report Artrip ESA Undeveloped Property Frederick County, VA 22655 Inquiry Number: 01155029.1r March 22, 2004 LDR" Environmental Data Resources Inc The Standard in . Environmental Risk Management Information 440 Wheelers Farms Road Milford, Connecticut 06460 Nationwide Customer Service Telephone: 1-800-352-0050 Fax: 1-800-231-6802 Internet: www.edrnet.com j•ilir��i,',y 't'� it : •:I, TABLE OF C.ONTE TS': SECTION PAGE Executive Summary------------ ------------ ------------------------------ ES1 Overview Map_ -------------------------------------------- 2 Detail Map_____ ---------------------------- Map Findings Summary ---------------------------- ---------------- -------- ------------------- Map Findings_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Orphan Summary__________________ ---------------- ----------------------------------------- 7 Government Records Searched%Data Currency Tracking- - - - - - - - _ - _ ■ '.7 GEOCHECK ADDENDUM GeoCheck - Not Requested Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This report contains information obtained from a variety of public and other sources: NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL EDR BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. It can not be concluded from this report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. Any analyses, estimates, ratings or risk codes provided in this report are provided for illustrative purposes Only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Any liability on the part of EDR is strictly limited to a refund of the amount paid for this report. Copyright 2004 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates, All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. TC01155029.1r Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). The report meets the government records search requirements of ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments, E 1527-00. Search distances are per ASTM standard or custom distances requested by the user. TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY FREDERICK COUNTY, VA 22655 COORDINATES Latitude (North): Longitude (West): Universal Tranverse Mercator: UTM X (Meters): UTM Y (Meters): Elevation: 39.109800 - 39- 6' 35.3" 78.173800 - 78- 10' 25.7" Zone 17 744373.6 4332556.5 687 ft. above sea level USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY Target Property: Source: TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS 39078-A2 STEPH ENS CITY, VA USGS 7.5 min quad index The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES No mapped.sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government records either on the target property or within the ASTM E 1527-00 search radius around the target property for the following databases: FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD NPL_________________________ National Priority List Proposed NPL_______________ Proposed National Priority List Sites CERCLIS---------- _---------- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation; and Liability Information System CERC-NFRAP---------------- CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned CORRACTS------------------ Corrective Action Report RCRIS-TSD------------------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System RCRIS-LQG------------------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System RCRIS-SQG------------------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System ERNS________________________ Emergency Response Notification System STATE ASTM STANDARD SHWS------------------------ This state does not maintain a SHWS list. See the Federal CERCLIS list and Federal NPL list. TC01 155029.1 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 EXECUTIVE`:S.UMM4RYSWF/LF---------------------- Solid Waste Management Facilities LUST___________ ___. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System UST__________________________ Registered Petroleum Storage Tanks VA VRP ---------------------- .Voluntary Remediation Program LTANKS_____________________ Leaking Petroleum Storage Tanks FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT___________________ Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees ROD_________________________ Records Of Decision ' Delisted NPL ---------------- National Priority List Deletions FINDS ------------------------ HMIRS_______________________ Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System MILTS________________________ Material Licensing Tracking System MINES_______________________ Mines Master Index File NPL Liens___________________ Federal Superfund Liens PADS____________ ........... PCB Activity Database System US BROWNFIELDS__________ A Listing of Brownfields Sites DOD_________________________ Department of Defense Sites RAATS----------------------- RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System TRIS_________________________ Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System I TSCA________________________ Toxic Substances Control Act Section 7 Tracking Systems ±SSTS------------------------- FTTS INSP___________________ FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) t STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL AST__________________________ Registered Petroleum Storage Tanks VA Spills_____________________ Pollution Complaint Database f!C- CEPS________________________ Comprehensive Environmental Data System EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES i Coal Gas_____________________ Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites BROWNFIELUS DATABASES US BROWNFIELDS__________ A Listing of Brownfields Sites VA VRP_--------- _----------- Voluntary Remediation Program INST CONTRO____________. L Voluntary Remediation Program Database SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS Surrounding sites were not identified. Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. r• TC01 155029. 1 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped: Site Name STEPHENS CITY PCB FREDERICK COUNTY -WIN CHESTER SANITARY LAN FREDERICK COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF FREDERICK CDD LANDFILL TECHNICON CORP. CLARKE COUNTY SINKHOLE - BARTLES RESIDEN OLD STEPHENS CITY SCHOOL COMPLEX ROBERT AYLOR MIDDLE FULTON TRUCKING PROPERTY RED APPLE-STEPHENS CITY G AJENKINS RESIDENCE KERNSTOWN SHELL FORMER ARA/SMITH'S GENSTAR STONE ALLEGHENY POWER MEADOWBROOKE SUBSTATION STEPHEN CITY HIGHS ARTHUR H. FULTON, INC HEYMANJOHN GENSTAR STONE PRODUCTS STEPHENS CITY PLANT WHITE OAK TRADING POST SHEN-VALLEY LIME CORPORATION WINCHESTER BUILDING SUPPLY CO DARLINGTON J P W W CARLISLE ESTATE CLARKE MOTORS INC E R NEFF EXCAVATING INC STICKLEY FORD INC SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO INC SOUTHLAND CORP THE POTOMAC INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS INC ra Database(s) CERC-NFRAP SWF/LF SWF/LF SWF/LF SWF/LF LUST, LTANKS LUST, UST, LTANKS LUST, LTANKS LUST, LTANKS LUST, LTANKS LUST;.LTANKS LUST, UST, LTANKS LUST, LTANKS LTANKS UST UST UST UST UST UST FINDS, UST UST UST UST UST RCRIS-SQG, FINDS RCRIS-SQG, FINDS RCRIS-SQG, FINDS RCRIS-SQG, FINDS RCRIS-SQG, FINDS TC01155029.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY asct {,3s;_ Target Property Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property + Sites at elevations lower than the target property 1 Coal Gasification Sites National Priority List Sites El Landfill Sites —Dept. Defense Sites OVERVIEW MAP - 01155029.1 r - ECS I ' -4� • 1 ; i� 114 112 1 Miles u Oil & Gas pipelines Federal Wetlands TARGET PROPERTY: Artrip ESA ADDRESS: Undeveloped Property CITY/STATE/ZIP: Frederick County VA 22655 LAT/LONG: 39.1098 / 78.1738 CUSTOMER: ECS CONTACT: Stuart B. Mayberry INQUIRY #: 01155029.1 r DATE: March 22, 2004 10:43 am .�ov.Inh� ih 9M9 R1R i— w —i, — —„------ ... - Target Property Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property + Sites at elevations lower than the target property 1 Coal Gasification Sites Sensitive Receptors National Priority List Sites Landfill Sites -,Opt. Defense Sites DETAIL MAP - 01155029.1 r - ECS va Miles tf Oil & Gas pipelines Federal Wetlands �i TARGET PROPERTY: Artrip ESA CUSTOMER: ECS ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP; Undeveloped Property Frederick County VA 22655 CONTACT: Stuart B. Mayberry LAT/LONG: 39.1098 / 78.1738 INQUIRY#: DATE: 01155029.1r March 22, 2004 10:43 am Dapyrighl -?,; 2003 EDR. Inc, " 2G00 GDT. Inc. Rd. 072003. Till Rlghls neserved MAP FINDINGS S'UMMAR,' ,- Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 Plotted FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD NPL 1.000 Proposed NPL 1.000 CERCLIS 0.500 CERC-NFRAP 0.250 CORRACTS 1.000 RCRIS-TSD 0.500 RCRIS Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 RCRIS Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 ERNS TP STATE ASTM STANDARD State Haz. Waste N/A State Landfill 0.500 LUST 0.500 OST 0.250 VRP . 0.500 LTANKS 0.500 FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT 1.000 ROD 1.000 Delisted NPL 1.000 FINDS TP HMIRS TP MLTS TP MINES 0.250 NPL Liens TP PADS TP US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 DOD 1.000 RAATS TP TRIS TP TSCA TP SSTS TP FTTS TP STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL AST TP VA Spills TP CEDS TP EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES Coal Gas 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 0 0 0 0. NR 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 NR NR NR- 0 0 0 NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 .NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 TC01155029.1r Page 4 � 41 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted BROWNFIELDS DATABASES US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 VRP 0.500 0 0 0 INST CONTROL 0.250 0 0 NR NOTES: TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database N/A = This State does not maintain a SHWS list. See the Federal CERCLIS list. NR NR 0 NR NR 0 NR NR 0 TC01155029.1 r Page 5 Map ID MAPFINDINGS;+'!t`s'Si):'+'i` Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID. Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number I i Coal Gas Site Search: No site was found In a search of Real Property Scan's ENVIROHAZ database. NO SITES FOUND r� TC01155029.1 r Page 6 ORPMARY City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s) BERRYVILLE S105051797 CLARKE COUNTY SINKHOLE - BARTLES RESIDEN RT 672 FREDERICK COUNTY S105425975 FREDERICK COUNTY-WINCHESTER SANITARY LAN FOUR MILES EAST OF WINCHESTER, NEAR 22602 LUST, LTANKS SWF/LF INTERSECTION FREDERICK COUNTY S105425976 FREDERICK COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL 280 LANDFILL RD. OFF CO. HIGHWAY 655 SWF/LF SULFUR SPRI FREDERICK COUNTY S105426006 COUNTY OF FREDERICK CDD LANDFILL OFF COUNTY RT 655 SULFUR SPRINGS RD), 1 SWF/LF FREDERICK COUNTY S105425980 TECHNICON CORP. MILE WEST TECHNICON CORP. ROUTE 11 SOUTH SWF/LF MIDDLETON, VA 226 STEPHENS CITY 1004790470 E R NEFF EXCAVATING INC RT 1 BOX 377 COUNTY RD STEPHENS CITY 0003695897 ALLEGHENY POWER MEADOWBROOKE SUBSTATIOI RTE 11 & 638 22655 RCRIS-SQG, FINDS STEPHENS CITY 0003695959 .OLD STEPHENS CITY SCHOOL COMPLEX 22655 UST STEPHENS CITY 22655. LUST, RTE 11 & SCHOOL'ST UST, LTANKS 1000448224 STICKLEY FORD INC RTE 2 BOX 289 STEPHENS CITY S104408558 ROBERT AYLOR.MIDDLE 22655 RCRIS-SQG, FINDS STEPHENS CITY RTE 2 BOX 14 22655 LUST, LTANKS 1000582251 SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO INC RT 227E STEPHENS CITY S104408436 FULTON TRUCKING PROPERTY 22655 RCRIS-SQG, FINDS 0003693043 STEP STEPHENS CITY RTE 277 / 636 22655 LUST, LTANKS HEN CITY HIGHS ROUTE 277 STEPHENS CITY 0003693304 ARTHUR H. FULTON, INC 22655 UST RTE 277 & 636 22655 UST STEPHENS CITY 5104408416 RED APPLE-STEPHENS CITY RTE 3 BOX 1 STEPHENS CITY 0003693695 HEYMAN JOHN 22655 LUST, LTANKS ROE 50 E STEPHENS CITY 22655 UST 1003866734 STEPHENS CITY PCB ROUTE 63'I WEST . STEPHENS CITY 5105860553 GENSTAR STONE 22655 CERC-NFRAP ROUTE 631 22655 LTANKS STEPHENS CITY 0003694938 GENSTAR STONE PRODUCTS STEPHENS CITY PLAt, ROUTE 631 STEPHENS CITY 1000460041 SOUTHLAND CORP THE 22655 UST' STEPHENS CITY 1004790628 POTOMAC INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS INC ROUTE 642 22655 RCRIS-SQG, FINDS RTE 642 22655 RCRIS-SQG, FINDS STEPHENS CITY 0003694229 WHITE OAK TRADING POST STATE HWY 277 STEPHENS CITY 1004610354 SHEN-VALLEY LIME CORPORATION 22655 UST STEVENS CITY ROUTE T-631 22655 FINDS, LIST G A JENKINS RESIDENCE RTE 1 BOX 35 WINCHESTER 0003694906 KERNSTOWN SHELL 22655 LUST, LTANKS WINCHESTER RTE 11 S 22602 LUST, UST, LTANKS S104795459 FORMER ARA/SMITH'S RTE 6 BOX 106 WINCHESTER 0003693175 WINCHESTER BUILDING SUPPLY CO 22602 LUST, LTANKS ROUTE 6 BOX 152 AA 22602 UST WINCHESTER 0003694833 DARLINGTON J P RTE 6 BOX 173 WINCHESTER 0003694708 W W CARLISLE ESTATE 22602 UST RTE 6, BOX 113 22602 UST WINCHESTER 0003693600 CLARKE MOTORS INC RTE 7 BOX 117 22602 UST TC01155029.1 r Page 7 . . , �. III Clc9ED-:- :D�►TA:°C:URREN.CY'.TF�CKING GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEAR. i =s To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required. Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this EDR report meets or exceeds the 90-day updating requirement of the ASTM standard. FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD' RECORDS NPL: National Priority List Source: EPA Telephone: N/A National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) and regional EPA offices. Date of Government Version: 01/29/04 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/27/04 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually NPL Site Boundaries Sources: EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) Telephone:202-564-7333 EPA Region 1 Telephone 617-918-1143 EPA Region 3 Telephone 215-814-5418 EPA Region 4 Telephone 404-562-8033 Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Date of Government Version: 01/07/04 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/27/04 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 02/06/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 21 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/06/04 EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214-655-6659 EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303-312-6774 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 02/06/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 21 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/06/04 CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Source: EPA Telephone: 703-413-0223 CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible Inclusion on the NPL. Date of Government Version: 11/17/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/02/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/22/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 42 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/22/03 CERCLIS-NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Source: EPA Telephone: 703-413-0223 As of February 1995, CERCLIS sites designated "No Further Remedial Action Planned" (NFRAP) have been removed from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. EPA has removed approximately 25,000 NFRAP sites to lift the unintended barriers to the redevelopment of these properties and has archived them as historical records so EPA does not needlessly repeat the investigations in the future. This policy change is part of the EPA's Brownfields Redevelopment Program to help cities, states, private investors and affected citizens to promote economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites, TC01 155029.1 r Page GR-1 OOVERNMENT.RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 11/17/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/02/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly i Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/22/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 42 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/22/03 CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report Source: EPA Telephone: 800-424-9346 CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. Date of Government Version: 12/18/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/02/04 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Dale of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/26/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 38 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/08/04 RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Source: EPA Telephone: 800-424-9346 Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs): generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Small quantity generators (SQGs): generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Large quantity generators (LQGs): generate over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Transporters are individuals or entities that move hazardous waste from the generator off -site to a facility that can recycle, treat,'store, or dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste - Date of Government Version: 01/12/04 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/19/04 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/10/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 22 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/19/04 ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard Telephone: 202-260-2342 . Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version: 12/31/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/26/04 Date Made Active at EDR: 03/12/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 46 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/26/04 FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS BRS: Biennial Reporting System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 800-424-9346 The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG) and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Date of Government Version: 12/01/01 Database Release Frequency: Biennially Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/16/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/14/04 CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Source: EPA Regional Offices Telephone: Varies Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters. Date of Government Version: N/A Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A TC01155029.1 r Page GR-2 • • a GBVE�NMENT REC®R®S �EARCHE®.JIDA�.[1RRE(VC.Y.TRACKING ROD: Records Of Decision Source: EPA Telephone: 703-416-0223 Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical and health information to aid in the cleanup. Date of Government Version: 01/09/04 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/06/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/05/04 DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions Source: EPA Telephone: N/A The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Date of Government Version: 01/29/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/06/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/01/04 FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). Date of Government Version: 02/09/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/06/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/05/04 HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Telephone: 202-366-4555 Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. Date of Government Version: 12/18/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/19/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/19/G4 MILTS: Material Licensing Tracking System Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone: 301-415-7169 MLTS Is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version: 01/15/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly MINES: Mines Master Index File Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safely and Health Administration Telephone: 303-231-5959 Date of Government Version: 11/25/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/06/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/05/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/29/04 NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4267 Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCIA) of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens. TC01155029.1r Page GR-3 C� GOVERNMENT RECORDS. SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 10/15/91 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/12/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/24/04 PADS: PCB Activity Database System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-3887 PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial scorers and/or brokers and disposers of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities. Date of Government Version: 12/30/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/09/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/10/04 DOD:. Department of Defense Sites Source: USGS Telephone: 703-648-5423 This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Date of Government Version: 10/01/03 Dale of Last EDR Contact: 02/02/04 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/10/04 STORMWATER: Storm Water General Permits Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202 564-0746 A listing of all facilities with Storm Water General Permits. Date of Government Version: N/A Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A - Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Nezt Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-566-2777 Included in the -list ' ing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields properties addrssed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assess ments-EPA's Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBA) program Is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities —especially those without EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots --minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and/or technical assistance for environmental assessments at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement Recipients -States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields-related cleanup activities. Date of Government Version: 07/15/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/15/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/14/04 RMP: Risk Management Plans Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-8600 When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, it required EPA to publish regulations and guidance for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. The Risk Management Program Rule (RMP Rule) was written to implement Section 112(r) of these amendments. The rule, which built upon existing industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain flammable and toxic substances to develop a Risk Management Program, which includes a(n): Hazard assessment that details the potential effects of an accidental release, an accident history of the last five years, and an evaluation of worst -case and alternative accidental releases; Prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee training measures; and Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care, employee training measures and procedures for informing the public and response agencies (e. g the fire department) should an accident occur. TC01155029.1r Page GR-4 ■ i� V� GOVERNMENT RECORDS'' SEARCHED:. DAT'rG.IJ:RRENCY:.TRACKING Date of Government Version: N/A Database Release Frequency: N/A Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4104 RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database. Date of Government Version: 04/17/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/08/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/07/04 TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-0250 Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. Date of Government Version: 12/31/01 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/22/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/22/04 TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-5521 Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant site. Date of Government. Version: 12/31/02 Database Release Frequency: Every 4 Years Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/05/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/07/04 FITS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act) TSCA (Toxic Subslances'Control Act) Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-2501 Date of Government Version: 01/21/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/22/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/22/04 SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-5008 Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all registered pesticide -producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March 1st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active Ingredients and devices being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year. Date of Government Version: 12/31/01 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/19/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/19/04 FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Telephone: 202-564-2501 FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. TC01155029.1 r Page GR-5 s GOVERNMENT RECORDS. SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 01/30/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly STATE OF VIRGINIA ASTM STANDARD RECORDS Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/22/03 Dale of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/22/04 SHWS: This state does not maintain a SHWS list. See the Federal CERCLIS list and Federal NPL list. Source: EPA Telephone: 703-413-0223 State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds (state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially responsible parties. Available information varies by state. Date of Government Version: N/A Date Made Active at EDR: N/A Database Release Frequency: N/A Date of Data Arrival at EDR: N/A Elapsed ASTM days: N/A Date of Last EDR'Contact: 01/19/04 SWF/LF: Solid Waste Management Facilities Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 804-698=4238 Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically.contain an inventory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. Date of Government Version: 10/01/02 Date Made Active at EDR: 10/22/02 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/08/02 Elapsed ASTM days: 14 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/09/04 UST: Registered Petroleum Storage Tanks Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 804=527-5249 Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available information varies by state program. Date of Government Version: 12/05/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 01/12/04 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/29/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 14 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03 VRP: Voluntary Remediation Program Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 804-698-4232 The Voluntary Cleanup Program encourages owners of elected contaminated sites to lake the initiative and conduct voluntary cleanups that meet state environmental standards. Date of Government Version: 02/02/04 Date Made Active at EDR: 03/04/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG SC: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Source: Department of Environmental Quality, South Central Region Telephone: 434-582-5120 Date of Government Version: 12/30/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 01/12/04 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 02/03/04 .Elapsed ASTM days: 30 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/26/04 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/31/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 12 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03 TC01155029.1r Page GR-6 I :;j:;tif:?::.fLIy9T/f GOVERNMENT RECORDS. 8EARCFiED'%•Di4T.A."CURREt LTANKS: Leaking Petroleum Storage Tanks Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 804-698-4269 Includes releases of petroleum from underground storage tanks and aboveground storage tanks. Date of Government Version: 12/05/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 01/12/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly STATE OF VIRGINIA ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS AST: Registered Petroleum Storage Tanks Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 804-698-4317 Registered Aboveground Storage Tanks. Date of Government Version: 12/05/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Y.TRACKING Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/29/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 14 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/29/04 SPILLS: Pollution Complaint Database Source: Department of Environmental -Quality Telephone: 804-527-5200 Pollution Complaints Database. The pollution reports contained in the PC database include the initial release reporting of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks and all other releases of petroleum to the environment as well as releases to state waters. The database is current through 12/1/93. Since that time, all spill and pollution . reporting information has been collected and tracked through the DEQ regional offices. Date of Government Version: 06/01/96 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/25/96 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A CEDS: Comprehensive Environmental Data System Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 804-698-4077 ( Virginia Water Protection Permits, Virginia Pollution Discharge System (point discharge) permits and Virginia .Pollution Abatement (no point discharge) permits. Date of Government Version: 01/06/04 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually SPILLS: PREP Database Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Valley Regional Office Telephone: 540-574-7800 Date of Government Version: 12/31/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SPILLS PD: PREP Database Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Piedmont Region Telephone: 804-527-5020 Date of Government Version: 04/25/02 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SPILLS TD: PREP Database Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Tidewater Region Telephone: 757-518-2177 Date of Government Version: 02/03/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/06/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/05/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/29/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/02/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/31/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/29/04 TC01155029.1r Page GR-7 1181 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING SPILLS NO: PREP Database Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Northern Region Telephone: 703-583-3864 Date of Government Version: 01/31/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) LUST Records LUST REG NO: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Tracking Database Source: Department of Environmental Quality Northern Regional Office Telephone: 703-583-3822 Date of Government Version: 10/30/02 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG PD: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Department of Environmental Quality Piedmont Regional Office Telephone: 804-527-5020 Date of Government Version: 12/02/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG SW: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Source: Department of Environmental Quality Southwest Regional Office Telephone: 504-676-5507 Date of Government Version: 12/09/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG TD: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Department of Environmental Quality Tidewater Regional Office Telephone: 757-518-2198 Date of Government Version: 01/05/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG VA: Leaking Underground Storage Tank List Source: Department of Environmental Quality Valley Regional Office Telephone: 540-574-7800 Date of Government Version: 08/01/01 Database Release Frequency: Varies LUST REG WC: Leaking Underground Storage Tank List Source: Department of Environmental Quality West Central Regional Office Telephone: 540-562-6700 Date of Government Version: 12/25/03 Database. Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG SC: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Source: Department of Environmental Quality, South Central Region Telephone: 434-582-5120 . Date of Government Version: 12/30/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/29/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: -12/29/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/29/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/02/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/31/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/09/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/10/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/29/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/29/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/29/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/29/04 TC01155029.1r Page GR-8 x� ■ GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARC.:. i7�...: /,...:..::.:.i.;.; t:,..� .,...,.,.REN.:..�,,..., C . • ..:....... HE''DATA`.CJR �Y TRA EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. ©Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types of hazards which may be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative. Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan, Inc. The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entities other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report, Real Property Scan does, not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund of the amount paid. No claim is made for the actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal opinion. BROWNFIELDS DATABASES VRP: Voluntary Remediation Program Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 804-698-4232 The Voluntary Cleanup Program encourages owners of elected contaminated sites to take the initiative and conduct voluntary cleanups that meet state environmental standards. Date of Government Version: 02/02/04 Dale of Last EDR Contact: 01/26/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/26/04 INST CONTROL: VoluntaryRemediation Program Database Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 804-698-4498 Sites included in the Voluntary Remediation Program database that have deed restrictions. Date of Government Version: 02/02/04 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/26/04 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/26/04 US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-566-2777 Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments-EPA's Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBA) program is designed to'help states, tribes, and municipalities —especially those without EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots --minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and/or technical assistance for environmental assessments at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement Recipients -States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields-related cleanup activities. - Date of Government Version: N/A Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually OTHER DATABASE(S) Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not. mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report. Oil/Gas Pipelines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs from 1:100,000-Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily gas pipelines. Electric Power Transmission Line Data Source: PennWell Corporation Telephone: (800) 823-6277 This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information is provided on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy norwarrant its fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell. TC01155029.1r Page GR-9 is 170 G®VERNMENT'REC®RDS.SEA1RCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers. and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located. AHA Hospitals: Source: American Hospital Association, Inc. Telephone: 312-280-5991 The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey of hospitals. Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Telephone: 410-786-3000 A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nursing Homes Source: National Institutes of Health Telephone: 301-594-6248 Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States. Public Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202-502-7300 The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on elementary and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are . comparable across all states. Private Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202-502-7300 The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on private school locations in the United States. Daycare Centers: Licensed Facilities Source: Department of Social Services Telephone: 804-692-1900 Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR In 2002 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION © 2003 Geographic Data Technology, Inc., Rel. 07/2003. This product contains proprietary and confidential property of Geographic Data Technology, Inc. Unauthorized use, including copying for other than testing and standard backup procedures, of this product is expressly prohibited. TC01155029.1r Page GR-10 `9 APPENDIX III STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS 4 r• ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD. 1.0 CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was incorporated in 1 Q87 to meet the gro`ving needs of our clients as a multi -service engineering firm. The managing principals of ECS, Ltd. average over 20 years of experience in their respective fields. Our staff of over 425 people includes registered professional engineers, environmental geologists, hydrogeologists, certified engineering technicians and support personnel. ECS, .Ltd. places great emphasis on the individual qualifications and experience of its technical staff. Our geotechnical and environmental engineers hold Masters or Doctorate degrees in engineering and are well - versed. in the subsurface conditions typically found in the Mid -Atlantic region. Our senior environmental personnel have performed a variety of environmentally -related services for major corporations on projects in over 20 states and four countries. ECS, Ltd. engineering technicians are certified by such recognized organizations as the American . Concrete Institute (ACI), the Washington Area Council of Engineering Laboratories (WACEL), the American Welding Society (AWS), and the Roofing Industry Educational Institute (RIEI). In addition, we have developed and implemented our own in-house training, certification and QA/ QC programs. ECS, Ltd. emphasizes quality and responsive service to our clients in solving problems and providing innovative engineering and scientific analysis. With our corporate office in Chantilly, Virginia, we maintain branch offices in Baltimore, Maryland, Richmond, Fredericksburg and Norfolk, Virginia, Charlotte, Research Triangle. Park, Greensboro, North Carolina, Greenville/Spartanburg, South Carolina, Atlanta, Georgia, Chicago, Illinois and Austin, Texas. We focus our activities on the specific concerns of the Mid -Atlantic development area. By combining the talents from all four offices, we can offer highly qualified personnel to staff each of our projects. Our multi -phase services structure - including geotechnical engineering, construction materials testing and inspection, and environmental services and engineering -- results in better long-term understanding of individual projects and clients, and alloys us to respond quickly to potentially critical situations. ECS, Ltd. has applied this approach on many of the larger projects in this region, including work for such firms as Trammell Crow Company, Prentiss Properties, Homart Development Company, The Oliver Carr Company, and Friendswood Development. -1- ECS, abo Ltd. is certified bt� the Washington Area Council of Laboratories (�VACEL . ), and the Cement and Concrete LaboratorT. (CCRL), in the area of Construction Testin? SerT.•ices, r� = I• 1.0 FIELDS OF COMPETENCE Through the close .corking relationship of its operational departme, r and specialized sub -contractors, ECS, Ltd. has the total capabi!' n; o evaluate a given site or operation and to develop the most practical approach to environmental site assessments, site contamination studies. ground water and soil remediation, permitting, environmental control systems. and design of continually develop practical and cos Our er primary solutionsus has been to responsive manner to changing in a timely and b environmental problems. One of the major reasons for our past success in the envir onmenlai consulting marketplace has been our ability to "customize" and ombine specific services from. different disciplines to individual client and project needs. Also of importance to our clients is our knowledge environmental regulatory agencies and our record of succs working the es with them in our clients' interest. The environmental services av from ECS; Ltd. include: aiiable ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES: . • Real estate transactions/environmental. site assessments (Phases !, II, and III) • Environmental impact studies and risk assessments • Wetland delineation and mitigation investigations • Radon investigations • Environmental facility audits and assessments • Third -party reviews ASBESTOS ASSESSMENTS: • Asbestos surveys • Sample collection and analysis • Preparation of plans and specifications UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK MANAGEMENT: • Monitoring of tank removals • Site investigations and assessments'. • Contaminant plume evaluations • Long- and short-term environmental site monitoring • Development of corrective actions plans (CAP's) Regulatory permitting • Ground water recovery system design HYDROGEOLOGICAL .AND GEOPHYSICAL SERVICES: Development and implementation of ground xate.r -e so t.:: e%,aluation plans • Design and implementation of ground %eater monitoring. including drilling and well installation • Ground water modeling • Aquifer testing (pumping tests, slug tests and bail -down `estsj • Contaminant plume investigations • Electromagnetic and resistivity surveys • Design of ground water recovery and treatment systems I Seismic refraction and ground -probing radar studies i ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING: • Design and implementation of site remediation measures • Preparation of closure plans and other hazardous faciliV.- per m; r ;z; • Design of new landfill and lagoon facilities Design ofm uins P p a and treatment systems for contaminated Tr. water _ • Design of water/waste water treatment systems • Permitting and regulator- negotiation 110 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES � •3.1 BACXGR0UND Within the environmental field. ECS, Ltd. has concentrated on prov*c.i, services to the regional development and financial community, including and lenders. commercial, residential; institutional and industrial clients By concentrating on this service sector, we are able to better understand. the requirements of each group and provide services more e tailored to individual needs. _ost p cificall�- institutional developers, the most ocommon commercial, services performed, 'residential and have been Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments. to nd his area, our work includes a thorough evaluation of the physical conditions of the property using visual overviews supported by aerial photographs, an historical search of appropriate information for past historic and regulated uses, and interviews with current or previous tenants to determine previous site activities. Depending upon the results of the pPhase I investigation, follow-up phase II studies, if necessary, rovided and structured as site -specific conditions dictate and car, include soil -test borings, monitoring well installations and chemical analyses of soil, ground water and surface water. i ECS, Ltd. also provides hydrogeolo ical and g geophysical investigations for. the municipal, commercial, industrial, development, and financi al sectors. These investigations can' be sub -divided into two fields: ground water resources studies, and contaminant/delineation ground water monitoring - investigations. Ground water resource investigations primarily concentrate on developing and/or protecting our valuable ground water resources. These rtypes of investigations are. commoniv equested by municipalities, industries, and developers in need of water for potable, irrigation, or industrial use, particularly in those areas where commercial water supplies are either unavailable, difficult to attain, or economically unfeasible. Existing published data, other consultant reports, and pertinent scientific literature are reviewed and are supplemented by a full-scale field investigation consisting of geological and/or geophysical surveys. The synthesized information is then used to more cost-effectively site future water supply wells and/or enhance old established well fields. 1740 Contaminant delineation and ground water monitoring investigations primarily concentrate on determining the magnitude and extent of ground water and soil contamination. Test -borings- are drilled, ground water monitoring wells are installed, and the subsurface soils and ground water are sampled and chemically analyzed to determine the I le I� tYpes and concentrations of the various contaminants) that arc potentially present. The number of borings dependent on the estimated extent and na reaof the ontami 'ells 5 question, Through hydraulic testing and measurements, the re is ^n and rate of ground water flog,;-, and hence, contaminant migration c� nrl dispersion, can be calculated. Geophysical techniques are often used -C supplement the environmental sampling and analyses as a o more effectively locating - means a contaminant plume. Such n es hz drogeological investigations are necessary for determining the P OI impacts from leaking underground ' storage tanks (UST's) , old and ne0..� landfills, surface impoundments, hazardous spills of hazardo chemical materials and wastes, etc. us Finallv, ECS, Ltd. can comprehensively assess industrial processes =o determine wastewater flows and loads, develop permitting and tr -, strategies, perform treatabilirv. studies and design Wastewater treutme-_r systems. ment m 3.2 REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS AOKI Corporation Birtcher-Butcher Partnership Boston Properties Buvermo Properties Cafferry Development Carey Winston Company Cambridge Companies Centennial Development Center ,lark Properties . Citistate. Inc. CSX Realtv Cushman and Wakefield Danac Corporation Development Resources. Inc. Dome Real Estate The Donohoe Company The Evans Company Everereen Development Federal Real Estate Investment Trust Friends%vood Development Gilbane Properties Greenbaum & Rose Homestead Village J&B Enterprises V The JBG Companies KLNB Management Services Lincoln Propertv Companv The Henry A. Long Companv `Ianekin Corporation The Stanley Martin Companies Mason Hirst Companies ✓Metropolitan Partnership, Ltd. Mobil Land Development National Dev. Mid -Atlantic Office Space Management. Inc. Osprey Investment Company Pence-Freidel Development* Prentiss Properties, Ltd. Prudential Realty Group The Radnor Corporation Reston Town Center Associates. Inc. The Michael T. Rose Companies B.F. Saul Company Savage -Fogarty Realtv Sequoia Building Corporation The Shapiro Companies Simpson Development Company The Staubach Company The Svatos Company The Taubman Company Trammell Crow Companv Turner Hanvood Ventures Union Pacific Realtv Corporation William H. Dolben & Son. Inc. Winchester Commercial The World Bank Banks and Financial Institutions - 6 - - ------------ I �__* 170 LTpes and concentrations of the various contaminant(s) that ar dependent potentially present. The number of borings and monitoring ..ti-ells s on the estimated extent and nature of the contaminants question. Through hydraulic testing and measurements, the direct:o;l and rate of ground water floe-, and hence, contaminant migration and dispersion. can be calculated. Geophysical techniques are often used =o supplement the environmental sampling and analvses as a means more effectively locating a contaminant plume. Such t� Ps rmini ht�drogeological investigations are necessary for deteng the potential impacts from leaking underground storage tanks (UST's), Old and ne;z; landfills; surface impoundments, hazardous spills of hazardous chemical materials and wastes, etc. Finallv, ECS, Ltd. can comprehensively assess industrial processes =o determine wastewater flows and loads; develop permitting and treatme^ strategies, perform treatability. studies and design wastewater treatme L systems. 3•2 REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS AOKI Corporation Birtcher-Butcher Partnership Boston Properties Buvermo Properties Cafferry Development Carey Winston Company Cambridge Companies Centennial Development Center` -lark Properties Citistate. Inc. CSX Realtv Cushman and Wakefield Danac Corporation Development Resources. Inc. Dome Real Estate The Donohoe Company The Evans Company Evergreen Development Federal Real Estate Investment Trust Friendswood Development Gilbane Properties Greenbaum & Rose Homestead Village J&B Enterprises v The JBG Companies KLNB Management Services Lincoln Property Companv The Henry A. Long Companv -Manekin Corporation The Stanley Martin Companies .Mason Hirst Companies Metropolitan Parmership, Ltd. Mobil Land Development National Dev. Mid -Atlantic Office Space ,\vlanagement. Inc. Osprey Investment Company Pence-Freidel Development Prentiss Properties, Ltd. Prudential Realty Group The Radnor Corporation Reston Town Center Associates. Inc. The Michael T. Rose Companies B.F. Saul Company Savage-Fogartv Realtv Sequoia Building Corporation The Shapiro Companies Simpson Development Company The Staubach Company The Svatos Company The Taubman Company Trammell Crow COmoany Turner Harwood Ventures Union Pacific Realty Corporation William H. Dolben & Son. Inc. Winchester Commercial The World Bank Banks and Financial Institutions -6- American Security Bank Amresco Institutional. Inc. t_ resiar Bank Eastern .American Bank Equitable Real Estate Investment Mgmt Financial Conservators.'Inc. y First Union Bank Bank of America Perpetual Bank Potomac Capital Investment Comoration Principal Capital Management. dC Riegs National Bank Resolution Trust Corporation Security Trust Company, N.A. 3.3 SPECIFICATIONS AND PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS Resumes of keV personnel are attached. 1-4 GARNETT B. WILLIAMS, C.F.G. _ Senior Environmental Geologist_ o EDUCATION B.S., Geology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 1988 CERTIFICATIONS OSHA 40 Hours, 29 CFR 1910.120(e)(2) OSHA Hazardous Materials and Incident Commander (16 hours) BOCA CPCCI IA Exam - National Certification Program Inspectors for Construction Code Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University - Managing Asbestos in Buildings Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University - Inspecting Buildngs for Asbestos -Containing Material i CONTINUING EDUCATION National Water Well Association (NWWA)-Theory & Practice Of Ground & Sampling and Water �lonitorinQ NWWA-Treatment Technology For Contaminated Ground Water V NWWA-Environmental Site Assessments Virginia Association Of Professional Soil Scientists (VAPSS)-Nontidal Wetlands Field Study Government Institutes -Wetlands & Real Estate Development National Wetlands Training Institute -Plant Identification Best Management Practices And Wetlands Cook College, Understanding Soil Conditions of Wetlands NGWA, Principles of Ground Water Hydrology. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers (AGWSE/NWWA). EXPERIENCE 1989 to Present: Project Environmental Geologist, Engineering Consulting Services. Ltd.; Chantilly, Virginia. Responsible for coordination and preparation of Phase I/Phase II eriNironmental site assessments; facility audits; geotechnical engineering reports - environmental site characterization studies; coordination and implementation of corrective action plans .and contaminant remediation efforts; wetlands delineation -1- studies and associated environmental permitting. Duties also include surveying with conventional transit/ EDM and GPS instrumentation. t 1985 to 1989: Engineering Geologist, Bengston, DeBell, Elkin and Titus, Inc., Centreville, Virginia. Assistant to the Geotechnical Engineering Group. Duties included: preparation of preliminary and final e otechnical coordinatin of subsurface drilling and seismic refraction surveys sanitary drrai_nfieldorts� evaluations and infiltration testing; and, Virginia Uniform Building Code (structural and wood framing) inspections for commercial and residential structures under Fairfax County BOCA contract. El 1983 to 1985: Exploration Geologist, North American Exploration, Inc., Kaysville, Utah. Responsible for collecting and logging rock and stream sediment samples for targeted anomalous areas in precious and base metals exploration. Performed preliminary field investigations of above areas by various geophysical methods using proton precession magnetometer, gravitometer, reflection seismography, and rock outcrop mapping techniques. Representative sampling_ of recent key assignments and experience: • Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments (ESAs)', environmental safety and liability audits of tenant operations and building facilities for an assortment of commercial/industrial/residential properties involving confidential . financial institutions. These studies have included acquisition and foreclosure of properties in Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and Connecticut. Properties included warehouses, strip retail facilities, commercial offices, railyards, industrial facilities and undeveloped tracts. • 'Site characterization, monitoring and remediation of fuel/solvent spills for a prominent railroad company. Sites included railyard fueling/maintenance facilities in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. Projects involved: Phase I historical evaluation of events to define areas of potential contamination; installation of monitoring and recovery wells; installation and operation of remediation systems (free product and dissolved phase); and development of groundwater sampling and monitoring programs. ' • Engineering and environmental support of omnibus contract to US. Army for design, testing and evaluation of a prototypical small arms range facility 'to reduce lead contamination to surrounding environment. Designed and provided oversight of range construction. Prepared and executed a sampling plan to evaluate the effectiveness of soil fixation technologies in reducing lead leachate from impact berm and migration of lead via surface waters. • Sampling, analysis and geochemical modeling of lead in soil at a private shooting range. Data was' used to complete a risk characterization to develop cleanup costs for a proposed single family subdivision. • • Wetland delineations,' functional assessments and permitting of commercial properties in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. • Phase I environmental services at a renovated tobacco warehouse project. Work included lead -based paint survey, PCB analysis of transformers, asbestos inspection, UST site characterization and a tenant and mechanical facilities audit. -2- APPENDIX IV PHOTOGRAPHS i t, Y r 1� �.,��t.,Jo��•a� {3 ja, � `� i• �"'�i'b'asa 's rm.a y� 2.. ' ii . •+x . 1i:.t:'#� 1 ; ! .rY ix+�'=��'ewi � Lz �,; .,,Y �� i f'? 2.Kr�rit�'d"s+aa?!...,�i..-e�:' '+ = r.. i"',=i.{, a... f..+T.ra'+c.s •uE'.M, ".rtir4�cf�. - - _ •5���; ;+ �,'` � ..1" _ :.,twice G t. YaN, • JP I � - �s-° . • .. ".� ,fir . , }x ti\j�lF-��i't '�� � � �s t�. . .•+ •• .X �C ��`• 7�'-fjt���(y- -------------- CC'; - �s.{ f•-siTr•7^ X".yyp _ ip' f .. y`iss itr3 _""'L..Z "f't`�!�c��'•NT l J��}. t Y .{ l 1".� Wi. >, �'�s„x,�.�«'ti-�..� M•.r•,...v '•�'"` .. ,_ 44 ~�a-: , ��• ','". �; Rl, R tv �whl ( 41 IF AM-N-NIV '11,325CM, Rl .01 p - . Tv_ JFl F?A . lw `�� F,.� t..� -': p�?k?;T{ "c�—_7 +' _ •max. :r� } r - r} �, � e+s"��' - gg rg- Z � S^ ___1 4K ............ . --tm, 71; AM : 3ri¢r_.F:;:;;ds;c-s�.:a�::.csd;Y,•;�.,a.:�!lc+.tr;+���. .. _ _. s r� mix ,s+�r,.�a..v Wf s2`"iT'".'K`'i"' •€ ,a. ' yk.Yr,� �yM�(` �' 3s.�rna yLc, IM � ti r IS,{.y,� ,��-y�.r�v,. F �i�' `fir •t�?' •'�(..'T'q.�ta,�r � �,; °, - .. �. �~•`'+t ` • al 3�.�-- ,j,r_ {. b ^�,•u.'iv .7-�i.�� � � ts.� Lw'�if�Wi!i`a �a ..: : � _ � ��'..� . �.[`yl"�"f�.. 1. �..• .j�.�'i v�, rW� VnMij M-0,; °��'.a ii y� L ��* aZy'd.^'2' �? s's�,. 'i'3'�J;.'„�'is�. �S•�""`'T ig. S� :.r+.r. tir Y'i'��."iCrS'�,sy •rly�f �f f���`. �6��`�`=+�C__ � \ � I i VEGETATION Ij I C DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) oject/Site • ARTRIP PROPERTY Date 04/15/04 Applicant / Owner Mr. Charles Segerman, P.E., Artrip Limited Partnership County FREDERICK Investigator JPF + RTC State VA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ElNo Community ID PEM Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ®No Transect ID Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID DP 11 Explanation of atypical or problem area: Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Carex frankii H OBL Carex crinita H OBL Ludwigia alata H OBI:. Juncus efjusus H FACW+ Agrostis a14a H FACW =?ercent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100% Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ® Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. j HYDROLOGY ❑Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS ❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other . Primary Indicators: ® Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ No Recorded Data Available ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water 1.0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water -Stained Leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Free Water in Pit 0.0 (in) Other (Explain in Remarks) to Saturated Soil A�th❑ 0.0 (in) er (explain): Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: ❑ No indicators of wetland hydrology. ®. Sufficient evidence of wetland hydrology. Project Name: ARTRIP PROPERTY SOILS Commuuity ID: PEM Plot ID: DP I I Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Berks Channery Silt Loam Drainage Class: well drained '''_xonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ YES ® NO PROFILE DESCRIPTION Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-3 A 10YR 3/2 - - LOAM 3-18 . B 10YR 4/1 - - CLAY LOAM HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: ❑ Histosol [] Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List -:0-90 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) `,ydric soils present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. 0 Chroma of 2 with mottles ❑ Chroma greater than 2 with mottles. ® Chroma of 1 with or without mottles Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: ® Yes ❑ No ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® YES ® Yes ❑ No )ATA FORM —ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION ❑ NO Page i VEGETATION I� i DATA FOIRaM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ject/Site ARTRIP PROPERTY Date 04/15/04 Applicant / Owner Mr. Charles Segerman, P.E., Artrip Limited Partnership County FREDERICK Investigator JPF + RJC State VA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes [:]No Community ID PFO Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID DP 12 Explanation of atypical or problem area: Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Carex frankii H OBL Fraxinus pennsylvanica T FACW Platanus occidentalis T FACW- percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100% Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: ❑ Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ® Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. i HYDROLOGY ❑Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) ❑, Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ® Aerial Photographs ❑ Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface Water Depth to Free Water in Pit "th to Saturated Soil WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Primary Indicators: ® Inundated ® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits_ ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands 2.0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required): ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches ® Water -Stained Leaves 0.0 (in) ❑ Local Soil Survey Data. ❑ FAC-Neutral Test 0.0 (in) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: ❑ No indicators of wetland hydrology. ® Sufficient evidence of wetland hydro Project Name: ARTRIP PROPERTY Community ID: PEO Plot ID: DP 12 SOILS Iii ap ru ame ( eves and Phase): Weikert Berks Channery Silt Loam Drainage Class: well drained �xonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? ❑ YES ®NO PROFILE DESCRIPTION Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, I (inchesl Horizon 0-12 B - -- -- -- - IOYR 4/1 —A-1 10YR 5/6 huuuUalu;C/VonLrasi 15% Structure, etc. SILT LOAM HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS: ❑ Histosol ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑.Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ----iydric soils present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: Remarks: ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. ❑ Chroma of 2 with mottles ❑ Chroma greater than 2 with mottles _ ® Chroma of 1 with or without mottles WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: ® Yes ❑ No ® Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ® YES [] NO ® Yes ❑ No ' )ATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Page 14 PHOTO LOG 0 a M 'IjI Ir If tj " , 1q, A 41 A1, at w . l M Z� I g� � 0 If If V 1;M � It "A'tt Y , f t I I lo 'N' All itTM114 If 2y )MIJ. V of I rp 1, Ilk 1A \5- 10 .......... if J ... .. ... .... IJ Photograph Location and Number REVISIONS A ENGINEERING CONSULTING M47 fQ/, PHASE I ESA RTRIP PROPERTY Dewberry, LLC a i 'W 1 �'�F`iii.:.Ft..i��t.-t'Y%•'�iw=,,..�.-.... :.,`•...tt_, �,=n"'. � _.. n$ Srr -4 �3.!.��f-i�'j�'; .i.^j''i �.-.*•it�tY��at t.�� ,3 'Fr+e r i r i 1,44 iTMY k i' .yak . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7d. " pu t 1 �4R4"o t� VF n The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 APPENDIX C PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 0 0 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT WINCHESTER ARTRIP LP FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ECS, LTD. PROJECT NO.8232 FOR THE TOWER COMPANIES MARCH 23, 2004 I• n- �- =_ Ic� 777 ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD_ Geotechnical �, Construction Materials , Environmental March 23, 2004 Mr. Stuart Margulies The Tower Companies 11501 Huff Court North Bethesda, Maryland 20895 ECS Project No. 8232 Reference: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Winchester Artrip LP Property Frederick County, Virginia. Dear Mr. Margulies: Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) is pleased to provide you with the 'results of our Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the referenced property. Our services were provided in general _accordance with ECS, Ltd. Proposal No. 15786-EP and meet the requirements of ASTM E 1527-00, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. If there are questions regarding this report, or a need for further information, please contact us at 540-667-3750. Respectfully submitted, ENGINEERING CONS LTING SERVICES; Ltd. 1 l: Garnett B. Williams, C.P.G. Senior Environmental Geologist (GB W/environ/rpt/8232) Stuart B. May e P.E. Senior Projec ngineer 166 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, Virginia 22602 =_, (540) 667-3750f', FAX (540) 667-3730 Aberdeen, MD* • Atlanta, GA • Austin, TX • Baltimore, MD • Chantilly, VA • Charlotte, NC - Chicago, IL • Cornelia, GA* • Dallas, TX • Danville, VA* Frederick, MD • Fredericksburg, VA Greensboro, NC • Greenville, SC • Norfolk, VA - Research TrianglePark,.NC - Richmond, VA - Roanoke, VA • San Antonio, TX • Williamsburg, VA Wilmington, NC • Winchester, VA *Testing Services Only PROJECT CLIENT SUBMITTED BY . 9: r Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Winchester Artrip LP Property Frederick County, Virginia The Tower Companies 11501 Huff Court North Bethesda, Maryland 20895 Engineering Corisulting Services, Ltd. 166 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 PROJECT 8232 DATE March 22, 2004 r PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT WINCHESTER ARTRIP LP PROPERTY FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ECS PROJECT NO. 8232 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2 2.1 Scope of Work 2.2 Objectives 2.3 Limitations 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4 3.1 Site Location 4 3.2 Physical Setting and Hydrogeology 4 4.0 PREVIOUS WORK 6 5.0 REGULATORY REVIEW 7 5.1 Records Review 7 5.2 Regulatory Summary 8 6.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 10 6.1 On -Site Features 10 6.2 Nearby Properties 11 7.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION 13 7.1 Title Information 13 7.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map and City Directory Review 13 7.3 Aerial Photograph and Topographic Map Review 14 7.4 Local Sources 14 7.5 Interviews and FOIA Requests 14 8.0 OTHER SERVICES 15 9.0 CONCLUSIONS 16 10.0 REFERENCES 17 F• Table of Contents Page 2 U Figure Regulatory Database Report Statement of Qualifications Photographs 0 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was contracted by The Tower Companies to perform an ASTM Standard E-1527-00, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on a 169.01 acre unimproved tract called the Winchester Artrip LP Property located approximately 1 mile east of Interstate 81 and 2.5 miles north of Stephens City, Virginia. To summarize, available historical documents, regulatory records and conversations with persons having knowledge of the property revealed no evidence of current or previous uses or conditions onsite that would be regarded as environmentally -suspect. Further, a reconnaissance of the site did not reveal the presence of: pipelines; drums; storage, leaks or spills of hazardous substances, petroleum or chemicals; buried or above ground tanks; industrial or manufacturing activities; surface or ground water contamination; distressed vegetation or stained soil; chemical smells or emissions; environmental wells or remedial activities; high voltage electrical easements; farm waste concerns; buried waste; asbestos waste; leachate or seeps; PCB -containing equipment; mining activities; or, similar. environmentally deleterious features or conditions. In view of our findings, 'no further environmental investigation of the property is deemed necessary prior to development. In closing, we note that this ESA was performed in general accordance with ECS, Ltd. Proposal No. 15786-EP and the requirements of ASTM E 1527-00, Standard Practice for • Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. * Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 2 of this report. This Executive Summary is an integral part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report. ECS recommends that the report be read in its entirety. .0 ECS Project No. 8232 March 23, 2004 -2- i 0 2.1 Scope of Work 2.0 INTRODUCTION Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was contracted by The Tower Companies to perform an ASTM Standard E-1527-00, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on a 169.01 acre unimproved tract called the Artrip Property located approximately 1 mile east of Interstate 81 and 2.5 miles north of Stephens City, Virginia. The environmental assessment was conducted in substantial accordance with ASTM Standard E-1527-00. The purpose of the ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject site, hereafter referred to as "subject", "site", "property" or "tract". 2.2 Obiectives The objectives of the ESA were to: • evaluate the probability of impact of the surface water, groundwater and/or soils ` within the property boundaries through a review of regulatory information and a reconnaissance of the subject and vicinity; • evaluate historical conditions to identify previous usage that could impact on the environmental condition of the site; • determine, if contamination is believed to have occurred, the potential on -site and off.- site source material(s), location(s) and activities; and, • provide an evaluation of the potential for environmental impact at the site and a list of specific conclusions and recommendations. 2.3 Limitations The ESA involved a reconnaissance of the site and contiguous properties and a review of regulatory and historical information in general accordance with the ASTM standard. No non -scope considerations or additional issues, such as asbestos surveys, radon testing or wetland delineation were investigated, unless otherwise described in Section 8.0 of this report. The conclusions and/or recommendations presented within this report are based upon a reasonable level of investigation within normal bounds and standards of professional practice for a site.in this particular geographic and geologic setting. The intent of this assessment is to identify the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the site; however, no environmental site assessment can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the site. The findings of this ESA are not intended to serve as an audit for health and safety or regulatory compliance issues pertaining to improvements or activities at the site. ECS, Ltd. is not liable ECS Project No, 8232 March 23, 2004 for the discovery or elimination of hazards that may potentially cause damage, accidents or injury. All observations, conclusions and/or recommendations pertaining to environmental conditions at the subject are necessarily limited to conditions observed, and/or materials reviewed at the time this study was undertaken. It was not the purpose of this study to determine the actual presence, degree or extent of contamination, if any, at this site. This could require additional exploratory work, including sampling and laboratory analysis. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made with regard to the conclusions and/or recommendations presented within this report. ASTM E-1527-00 defines a "recognized environmentalcondition" as: "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of anv hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term includes. hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies." This report is provided for the exclusive use of The Tower Companies and their partners, assigns or clients involved with the acquisition and development of the subject. This ESA should not be used or relied upon in connection with other projects or by other unidentified third parties. The use of this report by any undesignated third party or parties will be at such party's sole risk and ECS, Ltd. disclaims liability for any such third party use or reliance. ECS Project No. 8232 March 23, 2004 • 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Location The site is located approximately 1 mile east of Interstate 81 and 2.5 miles north of Stephens City, Virginia. (Figure 1). The tract is further described as the former southwestern 169.01- acre portion of the . Artrip Farm as indicated on tax map number 75-A-99A. The property is bounded to the north by the Opequon Creek with the remainder of the Artrip farm beyond; to the east by the Artrip Farm with U.S. Route 522 beyond; to the south by the Lakeside subdivision and a Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) easement and sewage lagoons; and to the west by undeveloped wooded land with residential properties beyond. Adjacent properties are discussed.in more detail in Section 6.2. 3.2 Physical Setting and Hydro2eoloZy The property is situated at a maximum elevation of about 730 MSL with gently sloping hills in the southwestern portion of the site. The central portions of the site tend to slope slightly to moderately towards the lower lying regions while the northern portion of the site slopes very steeply towards Opequon Creek. In this setting, the residential properties to the southwest are generally cross gradient of the site with the remainder of the site being up gradient of adjoining properties. Runoff from the northern half of the site flows directly into Opequon Creek while in the southern half of the site runoff flows toward an unnamed tributary of Opequon Creek. Based on regional topographic mapping and our site reconnaissance we have identified that there are intermittent creek beds in the drainage ways of the site, a spring located in the northwestern corner of the site, flood plains mapped along Opequon Creek and a centrally located pond. According to the Geologic Map of the Virginia Portion of the Winchester 30x60 Quadrangle, (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy; Division of Mineral Resources, 2001), the property is underlain by the Martinsburg Formation. The Martinsburg Formation consists of. upper 100 to 200 feet brown, medium - to coarse -grained sandstone, may be fossiliferous. Middle 3000 to 4500 feet: olive-green, silty shale, -dark-gray siltstone, and medium- to coarse -grained sandstone, locally contains pebbles. Lower 400 to 900 feet: Stickley Run Member (Epstein and others, 1995), medium - gray to grayish -black, very -fine-grained, very -thin- to thin -bedded, argillaceous limestone with interbedded medium- to dark -gray calcareous shale. Thickness ranges from an estimated maximum of 5200 feet in the Massanutten Synclinorium to about 2000 feet in the western outcrop areas. According to the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia (USDA-SCS, 1987), soils found within the subject site include the Berks channery silt loams in the higher elevations, Clearbrook channery silt loam in the moderately sloping wooded southeastern portion of the site, and the Weikert-Berks channery silt loams in the on -site drainage ways and steeply • ECS Project No. 8232 _ 5 _ March 23, 2004 -10 sloped areas. These soils are described as varying from poorly to well -drained with bedrock being found at a depth of 27 to 30 inches. The major development limitation in these soil types is related to shallow bedrock. In this geologic terrain a shallow water table usually develops near the saprolite (Le., weathered rock) and fresh bedrock contact at depths of 15 to 25 feet. Groundwater tends to flow laterally along the soil/rock interface, generally mimicking topography. Usually a persistent water table occurs only in low-lying areas and adjacent to creeks; otherwise, it is related to rainfall and thus only transient in occurrence. Impervious layers combined with highly permeable fracture zones can distort seepage patterns; consequently, only the lover limits of the saprolite remain saturated for extended periods. • ECS Project No. 8232 March 23, 2004 -6- °i 4.0 PREVIOUS WORK ECS was not provided with previous environmental, engineering or similar studies on the subject at the time this report was completed. Additionally, we have not performed prior environmental investigations of the subject. We have, however, performed ESA's on several properties in close proximity and no environmentally remarkable conditions or activities were discovered during the course of those assessments. ECS Project No. 8232 March 23, 2004 -7- c0 5.1 Records Review 5.0 REGULATORY REVIEW Public records were reviewed to identify evidence of past or present activities on or near the site which may have resulted in soil, surface water and/or ground water contamination or the generation, use, storage or disposal of hazardous waste, chemical or petroleum products/materials. This information was obtained from EnviroData. The EnviroData report is based on an ASTM standard radius search centered on the geographic coordinates of the site and includes the following databases: • Superfund National Priority List (NPL): The "Superfund" NPL List is a compilation of properties considered by the EPA as being either uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites that require priority consideration for remedial action under the Federal Superfund Program. These sites are considered to pose a significant risk of stigmatizing surrounding properties and potentially impacting property values. • State Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLAJCERCLIS) LIST: CERCLIS sites are those that �i • the EPA has investigated or is currently investigating for a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance pursuant to the 1980 CERCLA Act. The Commonwealth of Virginia does not have a formal State Superfund Program; therefore, the federal CERCLIS database is considered to be the equivalent of a State Hazardous Waste Sites List. Fi Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA-TS, -LG and -SG): RCRA regulations apply to facilities that the EPA designates as storing, transporting, generating, treating or disposing of hazardous waste. RCRA facilities include large quantity generators and small quantity generators: Non -compliant RCRA sites, RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System (RAATS) and treatment storage and disposal (TSD) sites are also monitored under this program. The RCRA Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS) list contains information about TSD facilities that have performed remediation due to a release of hazardous waste or due to a violation of RCRA. Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS): contains information on releases of oil and hazardous substances. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LPSTs/LUSTS): contains summary information pertaining to reported leaking underground storage tanks. The information contained in this database is a combination of LUST lists maintained at the State Department of Environmental Quality Offices. ECS Project No. 8232 March 23, 2004 c� ® Above Ground/Under round Storage Tanks g g (ASTs/USTs): a comprehensive list of all registered active and inactive underground storage tanks (USTs) located within the Commonwealth of Virginia. • Solid Waste Facilities (SWF): Under Subtitle D of RCRA, the EPA establishes technical standards for the operation of solid waste management facilities (transfer stations and landfills). • No Further Remediation Action Planned Sites (NFRAP): also known as the CERCLIS archive, contains information pertaining to sites that have been removed from the CERCLIS database. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, either no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Superfund action or NPL consideration. • The Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) lists properties that are either undergoing or have completed voluntary g g p remediation. overseen by the VDEQ. • The VDEQ maintains a pollution response or PREP database to track surface spills of oil and hazardous substances. w Some of the listings identified as "unmapped sites" are not plotted due to inadequate address and geocoding information. ECS reviewed and field -checked the list of "unmapped sites" to verify their location and possible impact to the subject. Finally, ECS reviewed the Pollution Complaint ("PC")' database pertaining to LPSTs at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) offices. "PC" incidents can include surface spills, LRSTs and other environmental releases that may be responded to by the local Fire Department or VDEQ. 5.2 Regulatory Summary There are no regulatory listings that apply to the property under consideration. No sites within the ASTM-designated search radii were identified on the NPL, CORRACTS, RCRA (TSD), RCRIS generators, CERCLIS/NFRAP, ERNS, VRP or PREP notices. No RSTs or LRSTs were identified on the current listing for contiguous or nearby properties. Three ASTs were observed on the southern adjoining FCSA property; however, this property is well down slope so it is not deemed to be a potential threat. Given the age of the surrounding community, it is likely that some nearby older homes and farms may have heating oil ASTs or USTs that do not appear on State databases. No home heating oil tanks, however, were observed in close proximity. ECS Project No. 8232 March 23, 2004 -9- c� Finally, based on our review of "Unmapped Sites" there are no other listings within the ASTM-specified search radii. ECS Project No. 8232 March 23, 2004 • 6.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 6.1 On -Site Features Stuart Mayberry (ECS, Ltd.) conducted the field reconnaissance on March 18, 2004. Weather at the time was generally cool and cloudy. The reconnaissance was performed to search for evidence of. hazardous waste/material, chemical and/or petroleum storage, leak or spill; stressed vegetation or soil discoloration; drinking water/environmental monitoring wells; environmental remediation activities; storage drums; industrial or commercial refuse; herbicide or pesticide containers; farm waste; septic systems; above -ground storage tanks (ASTs); underground storage.tanks (USTs); pipelines; asbestos containing material (ACM); industrial/manufacturing or similar environmentally -sensitive operations or conditions; rail spurs; ruins; landfills or illicit dumping; air emissions/waste. water discharge; wetlands or jurisdictional Waters of the US; leachate or seeps; surface or ground water contamination; and/or PCB -containing articles. A site plan illustrating property features is presented as Figure 1. The following narrative is a description of the property: . Access to the site is very limited due to the adjoining Opequon Creek and Artrip farm. Also, there is no roadway access from the southern Lakeside subdivision. The entire site is surrounded by a barbed-wire fence; however, this fence is currently in dilapidated condition with numerous openings in it. Property boundaries and lines were identified from a site plan prepared by Dewberry, LLC. The site encompasses 169.01-acres of land which was formerly the southwestern portion of the Artrip farm. The majority of the site is comprised of moderately sloping hills covered with grass and widely spaced cedar trees. Areas containing steeper slopes are forested with hardwood trees. There are currently no structures or utilities located on the site. A former dwelling area is located in the northwestern portion of the site. The former dwelling is no longer present; however, a hand -.dug well associated with it was found. Based on an interview with Mr. Frank Artrip, there is a private cemetery on -site which contains approximately three graves identified with small weathered limestone markers. This cemetery was not located during our site visit; however, it was marked during the boundary survey by Dewberry. The best access to the site is through the FCSA easement located to the southeast of the property. The site contains a centrally located pond which is mapped as wetlands. In addition, we have identified that there are intermittent creek beds in the. drainage ways of the site, a spring located in the northwestern corner of the site, and flood plains mapped along the Opequon Creek. No petroleum sheen or unusual discoloration/odor was apparent in the exposed soil or areas of standing water or flowing. No electrical transformers or similar potential PCB -containing equipment is located on the site. No liquid petroleum pipelines or overhead high -voltage electric lines were marked or observed on or near the site. No other buried utilities were observed or marked on the premises. r• ECS Project No. 8232 1 1 - March 23, 2004 i -0 :14 1 I• Small piles of tires were located throughout the site. An empty 55-gallon drum, apparently used as a burn barrel, was located on the dam of the pond. Also a small dumping area was identified in the northeastern portion of the property. It is our opinion that the tires, burn barrel and dumping area, which contains an automobile body, household rubbish, and waste associated with 'farm activities, does not constitute a "recognized environmental condition" at this time. However, the tire piles and dumping area should be cleaned up and the contents of them disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. If, during the cleanup of the dump area, a "recognized environmental condition" is encountered that was not apparent during our site visit, the environmental condition should be treated or cleaned up in an environmentally sound manner also. Vegetation, exposed soil and ground cover on -site appeared to be generally healthy and free of obvious staining, odor or similar signs of potential environmental degradation. No other remarkable or unusual features or uses of the site were apparent. Based on our observations, the following conditions or materials were not observed on -site: • Drums or smaller containers for hazardous or chemical substances; • USTs or ASTs; • hazwaste transportation, storage or disposal; • buried waste disposal areas; • chemical/petroleum smells, foul odors or distressed vegetation; • chemical/petroleum stains on soil or other surfaces; • ground water or surface water contamination; • oil or chemical pipelines and related bulk storage facilities; • surface impoundments or holding ponds for liquid waste; • monitoring wells, injection wells or remediation systems; • septic systems; • asbestos waste; • incinerators, recycling or waste treatment processes; • junk or scrap yards; • industrial or manufacturing activities; • motor vehicle repairs or maintenance operations; • air emissions, leachate, seeps, or waste -water discharge requiring special permitting or consideration; • pesticide or herbicide misuse or over application; • oil/natural gas or mineral exploration, mining or benefrciation activities; • evidence of discharges, leachate migration, or run-off of potential contaminants from an off -site source onto the subject; or, • high voltage power lines or electrical transmission towers where electromagnetic fields might pose a concern. 6.2 Nearbv Properties A reconnaissance was made of contiguous and nearby properties. These properties were viewed from public streets or accessible vantages without trespassing. Based on topography ECS Project No. 8232 March 23, 2004 -12- and surface drainage patterns, residential properties to the southwest are at the same elevation as the site or down slope. Unless otherwise noted, no opportunistic dumping, drums, USTs, monitoring wells, remediation systems or other environmentally suspicious conditions or activities were observed on adjacent properties The property is bounded to the north by Opequon Creek with the remainder of the Artrip farm beyond; to the east by the Artrip Farm with U.S. Route 522 beyond; to the south by the Lakeside subdivision and a Frederick County Sanitation Authority easement and sewage lagoons; and, to the west by undeveloped wooded land with residential properties beyond. . ASTs were observed on the adjoining FCSA property. These ASTs are down slope of the site and appeared to be in good condition with no readily apparent release having occurred. There were no commercial or industrial facilities observed in the vicinity of the property. ECS Project No. 8232 March 23, 2004 -13- c� 7.1 Title Information 7.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION Attempts were made to obtain Chain -of -title information at the Office of the Clerk of Frederick County Circuit Court. The chain -of -title information found indicates the property is currently owned by Winchester Artrip LLC and is recorded in Deed Book, 713 on Page 471. This deed book reference is incorrect as it refers back to Brookland Heights Section III property located south of Valley Mill Road near Winchester, Virginia. Due to this the previous ownership of.the property was established through an interview conducted with Mr. Frank Artrip. Mr. Artrip indicated that he purchased the property in 1962 from the Sloanacker family whom owned the property since 1892. Mr. Artrip also indicated that the property was sold to Louggia development in 1988. 7.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map and City Directory Review Given the rural nature of the subject and considering there has been no prior development of the property, there were no city directories or insurance maps available in the local library or other readily obtainable sources. I-, 1• ECS Project No. 8232 - 14 - March 23, 2004 c 7.3 Aerial Photol4raph and Topol4raphic Map Review Historical records were reviewed to identify past activities of potential environmental significance on or near the site. Aerial photographs (Years: 1950, 1958, 1972, and 1995) were examined at the following offices: • Natural Resource Conservation Service • Frederick County Planning & Zoning. A review of aerial photographs indicates that the property has remained unimproved and used primarily for pasture since 1950. There are no suspicious disturbances or activities evident in the photographs .examined. No feed lots, manure pits, poultry houses, dairy operations, orchards or similar intensive agricultural activities are evident on the subject. This observation is consistent with the recollections . of area residents and other persons knowledgeable about local history. Most of the community at this time is characterized as rural farmland. The only major change in the photographs is that the on -site pond is not present in the 1950 photograph, 4 7.4 Local Sources An interview was conducted with Mr. Frank Artrip, a previous owner. Mr. Artrip indicated that he owned the property from 1962 to 1988 and that it was used exclusively as pasture land. He also indicated that prior to his ownership, the land was also used exclusively as pasture. Mr. Artrip was not aware of any environmental issues related to the site. He indicated that a late 19`h century dwelling area including a well and cemetery were located on the property. 7.5 'Interviews and FOIA Requests Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were either made in person or via facsimile to the following County agencies for information concerning environmental incidents' on or near the subject. • Stephens City Fire Hall • Frederick County Division of Environmental Health The Health Department reports that no records are maintained for the site. We are still awaiting a response from the Stephens City Fire Hall. If additional information is received, it . will be forwarded promptly. ECS Project No. 8232 March 23, 2004 -15- Ce 8.0 OTHER SERVICES ASTM guidelines identify non -scope issues that are beyond the scope of this practice. Some of these non -scope issues include; asbestos -containing material survey, soil and groundwater testing, radon survey, lead -based paint testing, lead in drinking water testing, wetlands delineation and regulatory compliance audits.. None of these non -scope issues were requested, proposed or included in our scope of work. ECS Project No. 8232- March 23, 2004 c� ~' 9.0 CONCLUSIONS ECS, Ltd. has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on the Winchester Artrip LP property located in Frederick County, Virginia. The ESA was completed in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-00. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 2.3 of this report. To conclude, this assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions; therefore, no further environmental investigation is recommended for the subject. Although not within the scope of services for this assessment, documented wetlands were noted, as well as possible additional wetlands which were observed during our site visit in the drainage ways and low lying areas. As such, ECS, Ltd. recommends that a wetlands delineation be performed prior to the development of the site. I• ECS Project No. 8232 _ 17 - March 23, 2004 10.0 REFERENCES ASTM, 2000. ASTM Standards on Environmental Site Assessments for Commercial Real Estate. ASTM E 1527-00. Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Holmes, R.L. and D.L. Wagner. 1987. Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 206 pp. plus appendices. Geologic Map of the Virginia Portion of the Winchester 30x60 Quadrangle, (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy; Division of Mineral Resources, 2001) APPENDIX I FIGURE • The Villages atArtrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 • APPENDIX D HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES REPORT • �trt i r a I r' a s:o u r c e m a,.n a g e m e n t a n d 'p r e s e r-v.a t 19 n p'I a n n' i n g. RECEIVED' May 26, 2004 ; ;.MAY '2 7 2004 Mr. Michael T. Wiley, Vice President & Branch..... alter Dewberry-Winchet�� Dewberry ' 611 West Jubal-Early Drive ; :. Building B, Suite'C Winchester, Virginia 22 601 g RE: Draft Historic sits and structures report for the Proposed Villages at Artrip Development, Frederick County ia... ::. :., :... t- ! Dear Mr. R_ Christopher Goodwin& Associates, Inc. is=gleased to "'i" xt this letter report,.detailin findings of the historic sites and structures 'report for; the appraxiztiate .1 :the ly 170 acre ArUrtp property, F1�l.d" k County, Virginia. A combined.",` and residential development is planneii qr the axea Tin det�olgpxnent will necessitate the co comitaut creation of in'Jffa uctur� includin access, roh s 'and" Par lots g P la water and sewer facilatres, as well as oc�in9". 0. cWnof buildings ,and and:lanti5cape modification. Tliis stud�r IS designet�'ao identify areas of historical and arclle ogic l potential; order to guidance for plannmg J ttis investigation was cqg. ucted following secretary of the. Intertox's' Standards'. and Guidelines, and those promulgated by the: �epxrtruent o£$tsforic Resources (V. I)R). `This letter report will review the fmdmgs of the preluninary study, and discuss the potential mipacis to cultural resources withinahe proposed development area. R. Christopher Goodwin'& Associates, Inc is pleased to..have had the opportunity to work with Dewberry - Please feel free to contract us if you have any .'O stibns concerning ;.' this historic sites and structures study or. the mformation provide.in this letter report. Vitae are at your. :... Si cerely,,` Suzanne Sanders; M.A. . Senior Project Mana er - Historic Sites and Structures Report Introduction This summary report presents the results of the desktop study and historic sites and structures analysis for the proposed development of the Artip Property, Frederick County, Virginia. This study was prepared for Dewberry by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Conducted in April 2004, the analysis included a review of archeological site files at VDHR; a brief review of historic maps and documents on file in Frederick County, Virginia; a review of previous archeological and historical studies related to this portion of Frederick County; and, an on -site reconnaissance to assess the integrity of the previously documented archeological resources within the property. In this Historic Sites and Structures report, a discussion of the previous archeological and architectural investigations that have been conducted in the area is presented first, followed by a discussion of the previously recorded archeological and built resources in the vicinity. This summary is followed by a discussion of the results of preliminary deed research for the property, and research into the families that formerly owned or occupied the property. The final section presents a summary description of the archeological sites that have been recorded within the project area, and a discussion of the potential effect of the planned development, and management recommendations for those resources. The Project Area Located southeast of Winchester, the proposed development area encompasses approximately 170 acres, south of Opequon Creek, between Highways 81 and 522. (Figure 1). Development plans include the construction of combined commercial and residential areas that include both detached, single-family dwellings, and townhome and apartment complexes. Topographically the area is composed of rolling hills, surrounding two deeply cut drainages that drain northward into Opequon Creek, which forms the northern boundary of the parcel. Current vegetation consists of open grassy areas that mark abandoned agricultural fields or pastureland. Several fence lines cross the area, with ten to twenty-year growth and some older growth trees interspersed. Due to the rolling topography, there are several ridges and knolls within the proposed development area. Generally, these are broad and are covered by grasses and a scattered 20-40 year growth of cedars and volunteer hardwoods. Some hardwood thickets have developed in some areas. Within the drainages on the north, vegetation consists older growth hardwoods with an understory of vines and grasses. I• Previous Investigations Five previous surveys or studies have been conducted in the immediate vicinity. One of these surveys included portions of the project area. In 1991, a survey group from James Madison University and Shenandoah University conducted survey of 4,900 acres along Opequon Creek. Field archeologists from James Madison University and Shenandoah University conducted the survey between December 1, 1990 and April 1, 1991. Of the 147 prehistoric archeological sites and 165 historic archeological sites identified, the team identified five historic archeological sites: 34-0080, 34-0112, 34-0116, 34-0117, and 34-0118 (Geier et al. 1991). Four of these sites are within the current project area, and will be discussed below. In 1997, Gray & Pape Inc. conducted Phase I and If cultural resources investigations as part of a project to build a Route 37 bypass east of Winchester. The Phase I investigation identified one archeological site in the immediate vicinity, 44FK0539, a portion of Civil War Camp Russell. Following a Phase II investigation, the firm recommended for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, C, and D. Also as.a result of the Phase II investigation, sites 44FK0062, 44FK0063, and 44FK0072 were examined. Site 44FK0063, a Civil War fortification, was recommended for listing on the National Register of Historic Places .under Criteria D_• Gray & Pape recommended that three resources in the immediate vicinity of the project location be listed together on the National Register of Historic Places as the Camp Russell Historic District. The structures, Hillandale House (34-126), Hillandale Earthworks (34- • 321), and Camp Russell (44FK539), were recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for their part in Sheridan's Valley campaign. They also were determined eligible under Criterion C as a well-preserved example of a Civil War encampment in the Shenandoah .Valley, and under Criterion D for their potential to yield information on Civil War camps. Although the Camp Russell District is not listed on the National Register, an MOA, developed in 1999, between Federal Highway Administration and. the Virginia SPIPO recognizes Hillandale House, the earthworks, and 44FK539 as contributing elements to the proposed Camp Russell District. This recognition requires that the resources be treated as though they are National Register properties. An earlier cultural resources study of Route 37 bypass alternatives identified one site (44FK0085) northeast of the current project location, consisting of a small dam installed to create a pond for livestock (Geier et al. 1992). Architectural historian Maral S. Kalbian conducted two architectural surveys that encompassed the project area and the immediate vicinity. Kalbian conducted a three-phase survey of rural landmarks in Frederick County from fall 1988 to fall 1992. She identified no structures within the project area, but recorded eight structures in the immediate vicinity: Smith -Wakeman House (34-1342), Sam Plasters House (34-1340), t =. Hillandale (34-0126), Steele -Clark House (34-1339), Ralph Wakeman House (34-1343), Craig House (34- 1341), and Carysbrook Redoubt (34-320) (Kalbian 1992). 93 Also in 1992, Kalbian conducted an overlapping architectural survey to evaluate effects on architectural resources of proposed corridor alternatives to a Route 37 bypass. Three structures Kalbian identified as potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are located in the immediate vicinity: Hillandale (34-126), Carysbrook Redoubt (34-320), and Parkins Mill Battery (34-458). Kalbian suggested that Hillandale might be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, B., and C, and suggested that Carysbrook Redoubt and Parkins Mill Battery were eligible under Criteria A and C. Previous investigations also include the preparation of an impact analysis statement for the neighboring Crosspointe Center Property. That document discussed the presence of four rural landmarks within the property. Of those four, two have been evaluated as potentially National Register eligible. Furthest from the Artrip property and closest to Interstate 81 is the Hillandale House, begun in the late eighteenth century, the farmstead also is a part of a larger area identified as Camp Russell. This National Register eligible complex includes, earthworks and campsites, and the creation of a National Register District has been recommended. All of these resources will be discussed below, in more detail. Of note in the previous Impact Statement are the observations that the area that includes the Artrip property is a part of the very extensive Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic Landmark District. This district, created in 1997, includes all of Frederick County, as well as seven other. counties that occupy the Shenandoah Valley. Sze The NHL includes 162 National Register listed properties, one National Landmark, and one National Park.. The Immediate Vicinity Previously Identified Sites All of the archeological sites within the project area, and in the immediate vicinity were identified in late 1990 and early 1991 by a team affiliated with the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at lames Madison University. Ten sites have a historic connection to Civil War encampments and battles; one of these has been recommended for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Nine relate to local agri cultural or industrial activities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and have prehistoric components. Previously identified prehistoric sites indicate a high activity level associated with Opequon Creek. All of the previously recorded prehistoric sites are north of Opequon Creek. One is to the east, one is directly north of the project area, and two are to the west, nearer to Interstate 81. Located north of Opequon Creek, :_.I • across from the northeastern corner of the project area, the unnamed prehistoric site, 44FK0079, comprised 4 a thin scatter of lithic artifacts. No date has been assigned to the site, and part of the site has been destroyed. Directly north of the project area, 44FK0064 is amulti-component site that includes evidence for eighteenth and nineteenth century activities, as well as prehistoric cultural materials. The site lies on propery first patented by James Vance in 1752; artifacts and the site's setting suggest that this is the original Vance homesite. Two prehistoric sites of unknown date are located to the west of the property. Both sites are listed as lithic scatters. Site 44FK0070 is closer, to the project area, and site 44FK0074 is further west, nearer to I80. Historic period activity included a concentration of military sites along Opequon Creek. Eight Civil War - related sites are clustered to the northwest of the project area, within the boundary of the Camp Russell Historic District. These include five earthworks, two campsites, and a domestic site that includes evidence of Civil War activity. The archeological site for Camp Russell is located across Opequon Creek, immediately north of the project area. Camp Russell Historic District Immediately to the northwest of the proposed development area, four Civil War -related structures and sites were included in the proposed Camp Russell Historic District; these include one structure, two redoubts/batteries, and an earthwork. Upon completion of a Phase I and R survey and evaluation in 1997, the recommendation was made that three resources be listed together on the National Register. of Historic Places as the Camp Russell Historic District (34-5036)(Gray & Pape, Inc. 1997). The resources, Hillandale House (34-126), Hillandale Earthworks (34-321; 44FK63), and Camp Russell (44FK539), were recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, C, and D. Under Criterion A, the resources were evaluated as significant for their part in Sheridan's Valley campaign; under Criterion C, they are considered a well-preserved example of a Civil War encampment in the Shenandoah Valley; and, under Criterion D these resource are significant for their potential to yield information on Civil War camps.' Other resources within the proposed boundary include earthworks, encampment sites, and' domestic sites. Contributing Resources Within the District The first of these resources, the Hillandale/Crawford House (34-126), near I81, was built between 1780 and 1800. The complex consists of a dwelling, a smoke/meat house, a springhouse, a carriage house, a shed, a silo, and a barn. Other relevant construction dates are c. 1875-1890 and c. 1910-1930. During the Civil War, Union General Emory may have camped in the front yard. This structure was recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The second resource, the Camp Russell/Hillandale Earthworks (34-321; 44FK63), north of the project area, is an example of one of the several Union earthworks built in this part of the Shenandoah Valley during the Civil War, and one of the 5 largest. Many of the 40,000 hoops in the area camped here. The one -square mile site was considered to be in good condition. The site has been recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places because of its national significance in military history. The third resource is the archeological site for Camp Russell (44FK0539), believed to have been part of a Union Army camp in 1864. Surface features indicate that tents or huts were located here. The site yielded bottle fragments, one buckle, brick fragments, bone, and miscellaneous metal fragments. After a Phase II investigation, consultant Gray & Pape Inc. recommended in 1997 that the site be listed on the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, C, and D. Non-contributing Resources Within the District Within the Historic District, five archeological sites contain various types of earthworks related to Civil War encampments in the area. These sites are not included as contributing elements to the proposed District. Closest to the project area are earthworks (44FK0067) related to the Union Army XIX Corps' winter 1864 defenses; and a 100 by 100-foot site (44FK0071) that contains a pair of parallel set shallow trenches that intersect an old road. Dating from an unknown historic period, the trenches might have been a timbering chute or a pair of shallow, nested rifle trenches built during the Civil War and used as outer defenses against movements into more complex forts to the west. (� Slightly.further west, and still north of Opequon Creek are two more earthworks. The first is an L- shaped remnant of a Union fortification, that covers a 400 x 400 foot area (44FK0063), and has been described as part of the Union Army XIX Corps' winter 1864 defense after the Battle of Cedar Creek; this resource is associated with the Camp Russell/Hillandale Earthworks built resource described above. Only the southernmost tip of the fort was observed; additional data was obtained from mapping. conducted earlier. The second is a roughly circular earthwork (44FK0072) with outer walls two feet tall. This feature initially was interpreted as a possible Union Army XIX Corps base. However, subsequent investigators suggested that this site actually might be a massive animal burrow, with road spoil deposited on top of it, and determined that it was not significant (Gray & Pape 1997). One additional Civil War era earthwork (44FK0073) is listed further west, near 18L This 30-foot by 100- foot site has been interpreted as the possible remains of a Civil War rifle trench that has been impacted by plowing. General Emory, commander of the Union Army XIX Corps, had his base of operations at Hillandale, located 400 feet west of this site. Within the Historic District Boundary, two additional, adjacent sites have been recorded that may reflect Civil War era encampments. Both sites are on the extreme southwestern edge of the District, near I 81. Just east of Interstate 81, 44FK 0075 yielded debris that might be from the Union Army encampment in the area. The 50-foot by 35-foot site yielded five pieces of large handmade brick, some grit -tempered, and • 6 fragments of bottle glass, including two black glass pieces, two amber pieces, and one bottle base from a blue-green bottle. These fragments are believed to be ale, porter, or other beverage glassware of the mid - nineteenth century. Also just east of I81 and adjacent to 44 FK0075, 44FK 0076 contains debris from the Union Army military camp of winter 1864. The 36-foot by 36-foot site yielded handmade brick pieces, a black glass bottle lip fragment, and a body fragment to an amber bottle. Also within the district boundary, one domestic site (44FK 0077) also contains components related to Civil War activities. Located north of the two campsites described above, this 600-foot by 400-foot farmstead consists of a single dwelling and support structures that might have been built in the late eighteenth century by William Chipley. The farm complex was used during winter 1864 as a center of operations for General Emory, commander of the Union Army XIX Corps. A large platform that has been cut into the yard, west of the house, and might have been the location of Emory's personal tent, or might have been a summer kitchen built before the Civil War. Other Resources Archeological Resources Outside of the Historic District, eight additional historic period sites have been listed. One comprises Civil War earthworks, one each has been classified as domestic, industrial, and transportation, and three are classified as agriculturally related. Five of these sites are located east or southeast of the project area. These include the industrial site (44FK0078) that was the location, east of the northeastem corner of the project area, of a dam and race for Parkins Mill in the nineteenth century. It contains the remains of an earthen dam and associated millrace. It was one of three dam complexes built to control and channel water for use at Parkins Mill.- The second site is the agriculturally related site (44FK0113) that contains the dilapidated remains of three feeding troughs. The third site, on the southeast, is the transportation site (44FK0114) that consists of the remains of a bridge and road, dating from 1900 to 1950, that were part of the original passage of Route 522 over the stream. The 40-foot by 20-foot site consists of a pair of vertical cement abutments 20 feet wide on both sides of a stream. A 20-foot wide macadam. roadbed extends from both abutment faces, The two remaining agricultural sites comprise a small twentieth-century earth -surfaced dam (44FK0085) that holds water for a small pond for livestock, and an irrigation facility (44FK0110) of unknown date, built in connection with a farm pond. One domestic site (44FK0062) is located north of the northwestern corner of the project area, across Opequon Creek. This site, dating from the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, contains evidence of a 150- �. • foot by 120-foot dwelling. The west side of the site contained a raised flattened and landscaped area that 7 � 4 might have been a house floor. Cultural materials included brick, lead glazed red earthenware, and flow blue pearlware. There also is one agriculturally related facility north of the property. This site comprises an irrigation facility (44FK0083) of unknown date that consists of a 33-foot by 25-foot scatter of limestone and sandstone blocks. Other materials present included a piece of pane glass and a piece of brown salt_ glazed stoneware. One Civil War era site is listed west of the project area, and south of Opequon Creek, outside of the Camp Russell Historic District. This site (44FK0111) was one of three major forts built at the eastern end of a complex defensive system constructed as part. of the Union XIX Corps' Winchester defenses in winter 1864. The 400-foot by 300-foot site consists of a massive earthwork/fort in the shape of a fishhook. Entrenchments are worn, but a shallow exterior depression and interior rifle trench were observed. There is no evidence of an encampment associated with the entrenchment. Built Resources No structures identified in Virginia Department of Historic Resources files are located on the property. Fifteen structures are located in the immediate vicinity. Five are related to the Civil War, and four of those . have been recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, including two (Hillandale House and Hillandale earthworks) that are within the boundaries of the Camp Russell District, and are discussed above. The other ten structures are houses that either have not been evaluated for National Register eligibility or have been recommended ineligible. Those resources closest to the project area are described below. Two resources are structures that relate to Civil War activities. Parkins Mills Battery/Fort Hill (34-458), east of the project area, served as a prominent Confederate Army defensive point. The 1860 structure consists. of eight bunkers within a circular fort formed by a deep ditch. The earthworks remain intact, though obscured from view. It has been recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The second resource, west of the property and south of the proposed district, Cary's Brook Redoubt (34-320), is a defensive structure probably built in fall 1864 after Sheridan secured this part of the Shenandoah Valley. Built by Union soldiers, it is one of several earthen entrenchments and forts in the area, and It appears to be one of the best preserved. This structure has not been evaluated for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. Ten structures are domestic in nature or are farmsteads. These are in three general groupings: on the northeast in the vicinity of Parkins Mill; on the west, near I81; and, on the south between the project area and Stephens Mill. Fy 1-0 On the northeast, there are four structures listed, clustered around Parkins Mill. These include two nineteenth century structures, the Frederick Hall/Parkins Mill, an unnamed log residence; and two, related, twentieth century dwellings, the Solenberger Farm and Tenant House. The earliest of the four structures is the Frederick Hall/Parkins Mill (34-143) domestic/industrial complex. The site name refers to Alfred Parkins, a miller who obtained the property in 1842 and operated a mill here. At the time of his purchase, a mill already was operating, built on this site in approximately 1780 by John Sowers. The original portion of the dwelling dates from 1802 and comprises a two-story brick building with a side gable roof and a wood porch. It is a well-preserved example of Federal architecture, a style unique in the area. In addition to a main dwelling, this complex included several outbuildings: an icehouse, some ruins, a cistern, a dairy, and a privy. Other building dates for the dwelling are the 1820s and the 1930s. Although the structure has not been evaluated formally for National Register of Historic Places eligibility, Virginia Department of Historic Resources staff members have determined that it is potentially eligible. South of Parkins Mill, and east of the property, is an unnamed log residence (34-434) that was built c. 1820-1840 of squared logs clad in wood shingles. The two-story, three -bay building has a one-story porch and a side gable roof of standing seam metal. Other significant building dates are c. 1900-1920 and c. 1950-1970. Although this site is included in the inventory, it has not been evaluated for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. North of Parkins Mill, there are two related domestic sites, the Solenberger Tenant House and the Solenberger farm/Fort Hill farm. Both are early twentieth century dwellings/complexes. The Solenberger Tenant House (34-454) was built in 1923 to replace a log dwelling tom down in approximately 1914. The dwelling has not been evaluated for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. The Solenberger Farm/Fort Hill Farm (34-455) has been in the Solenberger family since 1866. Activity on the property has included activity related to both the Civil War and World War I. The complex was used as a part of the general defense of Winchester during the Civil War, and members of the United States cavalry camped on the farm shortly before the United States entered World War I. The current farm complex dates from 1910 and consists of a dwelling and several early twentieth-century outbuildings, including a garage, smoke/meat house, silo, barn, and poultry shelter. The property has been determined not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. On the west, two nineteenth century structures are listed: Cary's Brook and the Steele — Clark House. Both are located east of Interstate 81 and west of the current project area. Cary's Brook (34-319) is a c. 1840 dwelling consists of a two-story central section of frame on a stone foundation, and two one-story side wings of frame with brick nogging. Associated outbuildings include a smoke/meat house and some ruins. The dwelling has a gable roof of standing seam metal. Its architectural form and use of two construction methods is unique for the area. However, the house has been gutted, and is in poor condition; a windows, doors, siding, and the fireplace mantle are missing. The Steele -Clark House (34-1339) is an example of a vernacular, folk Victorian style. The 1'/Z-story house was built in 1870 of wood frame clad in asphalt shingle. A smoke/meat house is also present on the site. The dwelling has not been evaluated for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. A group of four structures are clustered approximately one mile south of the project area. These include nineteenth and twentieth century dwellings. Two have been assessed as not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The oldest of these four structures is the Smith -Wakeman House (34-1342), a vernacular log dwelling built in about 1800. The dwelling features a late nineteenth-century frame addition. It is one of the few remaining in an area surrounded by modern development. Other structures associated with the dwelling include a c. 1900 barn, a shed, and a mobile home. This structure was recommended not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The second oldest dwelling is the Craig, H.W. House/Craig-Wakeman House (34-1341). This two-story vernacular Colonial Revival house was built c. 1870 of wood frame clad in aluminum siding. Other structures on the site include a shed, an office, a barn, and a silo. The dwelling was altered and possibly converted into apartments, and was recommended not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The two twentieth century buildings are the Sam Plaster House and the Ralph Wakeman House (34-1343). The Plaster House (34-1340) is a'vemacular hip -roofed dwelling that was built between 1920 and 1940. The building is a wooden frame clad in vinyl siding. Other structures present on the site include a barn, a foundation, and a garage. The dwelling was recommended not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places in 1994. The Ralph Wakeman House (34-1343), a 1%-story vernacular wood -frame house built in 1900, also was evaluated as not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Artrip Property Results of Deed Research The Virginia site fonn identified the farmstead as the William Albin farm, based on the presence of a headstone in the graveyard for William Albin, said to have dated to the late eighteenth century. A cursory examination of land transfer documents pursued land transactions associated with the proposed development area into the middle of the nineteenth centwy, and did not find reference to William Albin. 10 1 5 4 is There is some indication that during the early portion of the nineteenth-century the property may have been associated with the Parkins Mill properties to the northeast. However, by the middle of the nineteenth century, upon the death of Albert Parkins, Sr., the parcel was treated as a separate tract. The records indicate the project area has changed hands five times since the late nineteenth century. Most of these transactions were in the latter half of the twentieth century, culminating with the creation of the Artrip Limited partnership in 1989. The earliest records examined as a part of this survey dealt with a parcel that Phillip Williams sold to Alfred Parkins; Mr. Williams foreclosed on a deed of trust of the Sowers family. John Sowers may have obtained the property in two transactions conducted in the late eighteenth century: in 1779, James Knight sold 100. acres to Sowers, and in 1788, James Knight's estate sold 116 acres to Sowers (Quarles 1990). The property in question included a merchants' mill, a fulling mill, and milling -related equipment. The deed also mentions an adjoining 150-acre tract with water rights on the Opequon (Quarles *1990); this parcel may have included the Artrip property. The property is not identified on Varle's 1809 Map of Frederick County (Figure 1), nor does it appear on Wood's 1860's Map of Frederick County (Figure 2). Thirty-five years later, in 1877, property belonging to Alfred Parkins was sold, upon his death, to Robinson Keyser. Mr. Keyser apparently bought 500•- 570 acres, and a share of corn and wheat crops for $4,500:00. The parcel was described as a tract along Opequon Creek, five miles from Winchester. This tract, including his house, apparently was a portion of the properties Parkins owned at his death; it adjoined a tract that contained Frederick Mills that had been sold to Alfred Parkins, Jr. Five years later, in 1882, Robinson and Elizabeth Keyser sold 575 acres to Jesse R. Bailey. This tract is described as located along the Winchester Front Royal Tumpike. Thirty years later, Jesse and Carrie Bailey sold 476 acres to Albert Slonaker. This transaction, in 1912, included "all those certain tracts or parcels of land with buildings and improvements 5.5 miles from Winchester, along the Winchester Front Royal Road" In 1951, Albert Slonaker sold the property, with the exception of two parcels totaling six acres, to Hugh and Naomi Slonaker. In 1962, the Slonakers sold the 450-acre property to W.F. A trip, Jr. Family Research Books, manuscripts, and other materials were examined at the archives at Handley Library in Winchester to determine if additional information concerning past occupants of the project area was readily available. No significant information was found about the Artrip family, which owned the property from 1962 to 1989. The Slonaker family, owners of the property from 1912 to 1962, was the subject of an extensive genealogy of Slonaker descendants in the United States written in 1941, A History and Genealogy of the Slonaker Descendants in America since Early 1700 (Slonaker 1941). According to this genealogy, the family has a 11 long history in Virginia and West Virginia. Albert L. Slonaker, who purchased the property in 1912, was listed in the genealogy as a farmer born in 1869 in Cold Stream, West Virginia. He conveyed the property to his son and daughter-in-law, Hugh and Naomi Slonaker, in 1951, but lived in Sir Johns Run, West Virginia, when the genealogy was published in 1941. However, earlier census records list Albert and Elizabeth Slonaker and their children, including Hugh, as Frederick County residents. Apparently, Albert and Elizabeth Slonaker raised their children on the property, and then moved to West, Virginia while maintaining ownership. When Albert Slonaker sold it, he was a widower. Hugh and Naomi Slonaker owned the property for 11 years, from 1951 to 1962. It is not clear whether they lived on the property. No substantial information was found that revealed potential significance of the Slonaker family. One brief 1977 recollection in the library's manuscript file revealed that Albert's first cousin was Adam C. Slonaker, who came to Winchester in 1898 from Hampshire County, West Virginia, and purchased a local coal company, Miller Supply Co. The business also sold farm supplies and bark for use in tanning. Upon his death in .1928, the Winchester Evening Star called him a "prominent businessman." The business was sold to the Canter Oil Co. in 1968 but was still operating under the Slonaker name in 1980. There is no evidence that Adam C. Slonaker had any connection to the project area. Little information was found for other owners of the project area, including Jesse R. Bailey and Robinson Keyser. D.J. Lake's 1885 Atlas of Frederick County, Virginia .(Figure 3) indicates the lo residence just west of the Winchester -Front Royal cation of Bailey's Turnpike, on land that probably was part of his purchase described in the 1882 deed, which included the project area. Previously Identified Sites within'the Property Although extensive evidence exists for intensive prehistoric and historic period activity along Opequon Creek, to date, no evidence has been found of prehistoric activity within the Artrip parcel. The previously identified sites date from the historic period, and reflect eighteenth, nineteenth or twentieth century activity. Historic period activity along Opequon Creek has included domestic; agricultural, industrial, and transportation -related sites that span the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Five previously identified archeological sites are present within the proposed development area; at least four of the five sites are interrelated and represent a possible district associated with the eighteenth through twentieth century occupation of the William Albin Farm. All of these sites are located in the central and north - central portion of the property, along the well -established drainages that drain northward into Opequon Creek. The central site is the Wiliam Albin Farm (44FK112); which was recorded.in 1991 as an eighteenth and �• nineteenth century rural farmstead. A James Madison University survey (Grier 1991) identified the site as 12 an approximately 140' x 150' area that included a depression that represented the former location of a dwelling or large outbuilding; this feature currently is not visible (Figure 4). Limited testingat that a t time produced a relatively high quantity of historic period cultural materials. These included architectural items reflective of the presence of buildings, including cut nails, window glass, brick, stone and other construction rubble. Other materials included kitchen ceramics and glasswares. Some of these material types reflected late eighteenth to early nineteenth century activity, including pearlware, lead glazed red earthenwares, and mold blown glass. The site form also references the potential for the presence of an abandoned roadway along the eastern side of the site, and identifies the road as the possible location of the Valley Pike to Parkins' Mill Road (Geier 1991). An ancillary site to the central farmstead is the well, or sink (44FK116) located slightly to the west of the core farm. complex. This site also was identified during the James Madison College survey in 1991. At that time, it was described as a square feature excavated into the ground to collect water from one of the many seeps and springs that drain across the property, and into Opequon Creek (Geier 1991). At that time, the feature was described as an eight foot square limestone lined cistern, with a three foot opening, that was covered by logs (Geier 1991). A third component of the Albin farm complex comprises an earthen dam (44FK117), built across the major • drainage on the northwestern side of the complex. When recorded in 1991, the feature was described as a ca. 50 foot length of earthwork placed across the drainage to create a farm pond (Geier 1991). Examination of the property in 2004 indicated that although the end portions of the dam still are present, the water from the seeps above it have cut through its center (Figure 5). The feature also is covered with various vines and grasses. The final component of the Albin farm complex is a small graveyard (44FK118) in the northeastern portion of the area. This feature also was recorded in 1091; at that time,'it was identified as a small, family plot containing a minimum of two graves, and possibly more. Local informants indicated that the graveyard contained burials dating from the early nineteenth century, with one from the late eighteenth century (Geier 1991). Although the presence of a headstone (for William Albin) was recorded, and later reference indicated that the headstone was broken and resting against a nearby tree, a reconnaissance in April 2004 failed to relocate the headstone. There is deep leaf litter covering the ground, and the headstone may have fallen and been covered (Figure 6). The two graves were relocated, along with the possible location of a third. The initial record indicated that the graves were oriented north —south; they actually are oriented east -west. _ A fifth site within the proposed development area comprised a late historic period dump (44FK115) in the 1. extreme northeastern portion of the property. This site was identified in 1991 as a possible mid -twentieth 13 I 1 • century dump, covering a 20 x 60 foot area located at the head of a deeply cut drainage that feeds into Opequon Creek (Geier 1991). Planned Development Undeveloped Areas The present concept plan calls for the creation of a combined residential and commercial development that encompasses most of the 170-acre site area. The two major drainages that feed Opequon Creek on the north, and the steeply sloped areas that flank them are excepted from the design plan, as are the smaller drainages that cross the property on the south and southeast. Two of the previously identified resources, the Graveyard and the Dump Site, are located within the northern area, outside of the planned development. Recommendation for the Graveyard (44FK11S). The site is outside of the planned area for construction, and may.not be impacted by construction. However, the immediate vicinity should be cleared of brush and examined through remote sensing to determine the extent of the graveyard, and an estimate of the number of interments within it. Then the boundaries should be clearly marked, and the area fenced for controlled access. Recommendation for the Dump Site (44FK 115). This site may require reexamination to. determine its true age, and whether it exhibits either significance or research potential. However, it appears to be outside of the planned construction area. If the site is not to be affected by construction, then its location and boundaries should be clearly marked for avoidance. Landbay A Covering 90 acres, the largest portion of the proposed development, Landbay A, occupies the northern and central portions of the property. In this area a combination of detached single family, townhome and apartment -style dwellings are planned. Some commercial activity also is planned. The development of this area includes the installation of infrastructure and parking, as well as landscaping, and the creation of a park that will occupy the northwestern portion of Landbay A. Three of the previously identified cultural resources, the William Albin Farmstead (44FK112), the Earthen Dam (44FK118), and the .Well/Cistern (44FK116), are located within this portion of the property. Recommendation for the William Albin farm (44FK112). Although a reconnaissance of the site area in April 2004 failed to relocate the exact location of the foundation, the other landscape signatures were present, including the road trace and the large pine tree on the eastern side of the site. Currently, the site is covered in vines and grasses, reflective of abandoned pasture, with occasional cedar and hardwood scrub thickets. The site appears to have been largely undisturbed since the initial site form was recorded; 14 I� however, the cellar hole appears to have filled in. Within Landbay A, the site area is located within the western portion of the area designated for single-family apartments. Construction in this area includes landscape modification, buildings, parking, infrastructure, landscaping. Evaluatory testing would be required to determine the exact site boundaries, and whether the site retains sufficient integrity and research potential to require mitigation prior to construction. Recommendation for the Well or Sink (44FK1161. This feature was not relocated during the field reconnaissance. The vicinity in which the site is mapped is slated for open area surrounding single-family detached homes. Depending on its actual location, the site may be avoided during construction, and appropriately fenced for avoidance by future residents. Alternatively, the site may be evaluated to more accurately assess its significance and research potential, and then avoided or mitigated as necessary. Recommendation for The Earthen Dam (44FK118). Like the well/sink, this feature is located in the northwestern portion of Landbay A, on the eastern edge of the single-family housing development. The feature is located in the drainage and may not be directly affected by construction and landscape modification for the single-family homes, but may be affected by the activity for the apartment complexes directly to the south. The boundaries for this site should be clearly identified and the site avoided during construction. Landbay B Landbay B is a much smaller area that occupies approximately 20 acres of the southwestem corner of the property; several groups of single=family homes are planned for this area. There are no previously identified cultural resources in this portion of the property. Landbay C D E. F Landbay C, D, E, and F are smaller parcels that occupy the southeastern comer of the property. Together, these areas occupy just under 16 acres. In this portion of the property, recreational and commercial developments are planned for Landbays C and D, and garden apartments are planned for Landbay F. No previously identified resources have been recorded in these areas. Summary and Conclusion This summary report presents the results of the desktop study and historic sites and structures analysis for the proposed development of the Artip Property, Frederick County, Virginia. Five previous investigations have been conducted in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Previous investigations also include the preparation of an impact analysis statement for the neighboring Crosspointe Center Property. All of the archeological sites within the project area, and in the immediate vicinity were identified in late 1990 and 15 - early 1991 by a team affiliated with the Department of Sociology gy and Anthropology at James Madison University. Sites The high density of archeological sites to the north and northwest of the project area reflects intensive prehistoric and historic period activity, especially during the Civil War. In the immediate vicinity, ten sites have a historic connection to Civil War encampments and battles; one of these has been recommended for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Nine relate to local agricultural or industrial activities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and have prehistoric components. All of the prehistoric sites are north of Opequon Creek. Eight Civil War -related sites are clustered to the northwest of the project area, within the boundary of the Camp Russell Historic District_ These include five earthworks, two campsites, and a domestic site that includes evidence of Civil War activity. Immediately to the northwest of the proposed development area, a complex of Civil War -related structures and sites were included in the proposed Camp Russell Historic District. Outside of the Historic District, eight additional historic period sites have been listed. These sites reflect the variety of economic activities in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. One site comprises Civil War earthworks, one each have been classified as domestic, industrial, and transportation, and three are ( classified as agriculturally related. Five of these sites are located east or southeast of the project area. These include the industrial site (44FK0078) that was the location, east of the northeastern corner of the project area, of a dam and race for Parkins Mill in the nineteenth century. Structures No structures identified in Virginia Department of Historic Resources files are located on the property; 15 structures are located in the immediate vicinity. Five are related to the Civil War, and four of those have been recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; including two (Hillandale House and Hillandale earthworks) that are within the boundaries of the Camp Russell District. The other ten structures are houses that either have not been evaluated for -National Register eligibility or have been recommended ineligible. The planned development will not have an effect on any of these resources. Artrin Property A cursory examination of land transfer documents pursued land transactions associated with the proposed development area into the middle of the nineteenth century. The earliest records examined as a part of this survey dealt with a parcel that Phillip Williams sold to Alfred Parkins; Mr. Williams foreclosed on a deed of trust of the Sowers family. John Sowers may have obtained the property .in two transactions conducted (• in the late eighteenth century. Thirty-five years later, the connection appears to become a little stronger 16 is is when, in 1877, property belonging to Alfred Parkins was sold, upon his death, to Robinson Keyser. Five years later, in 1882, Robinson and Elizabeth Keyser sold 575 acres to Jesse R. Bailey. Preliminary examination of materials at the archives at Handley Library in Winchester provided little information concerning past occupants of the project area.. No significant information was found about the Artrip family; the Slonaker family, owners of the property from 1912 to 1962, was the subject of an extensive genealogy. No substantial information was found that revealed potential significance of the Slonaker family. Little information was found for other owners of the project area, including Jesse R. Bailey and Robinson Keyser. D.J. Lake's 1885 Atlas of Frederick County, Virginia depicts Bailey's residence just west of the Winchester -Front Royal Turnpike, on land that probably was -part of his purchase described in the 1882 deed, which included the project area. Although extensive evidence exists for intensive prehistoric and historic period activity along Opequon Creek, to date, no evidence has been found of prehistoric activity within the Artrip parcel. The previously identified sites date from the historic period, and reflect eighteenth, nineteenth or twentieth century activity. Five previously identified archeological sites are present within the proposed development area; at least four of the five sites are interrelated and represent a possible district associated with the eighteenth through twentieth century occupation of the William Albin Farm. All of these sites are located in the central and north -central portion of the property, along the well -established drainages that drain northward into Opequon Creek. The central site is the William Albin Farm (44FK112); which was recorded in 1991 as an eighteenth and nineteenth century rural farmstead. An ancillary site to the central farmstead is the well, or sink (44FK11t7 located slightly to the west of the core farm complex. A third component of the fann complex comprises an earthen dam (44FK117), built across the major drainage on the northwestern side of the complex. The final component of the complex is a small graveyard (44FK118) in the northeastern portion of the area. A fifth, unrelated, site within the proposed development area comprised a late historic period dump (44FK115) in the extreme northeastern portion of the property. The present concept plan calls for the creation of a combined residential and commercial development that encompasses most of. the 170-acre site area. The two major drainages that feed Opequon Creek on the north, and the steeply sloped areas that flank them are exempted from the design plan, as are the smaller drainages that cross the property on the south and southeast. Two of the previously identified resources, the Graveyard and the Dump Site, are located within the northern area, outside of the planned development. Avoidance has been recommended for the dump, and evaluation of its extent and integrity has been recommended for the graveyard, along with fencing for controlled access. Three of the previously identified cultural resources, the William Albin Farmstead (44FK112), the Earthen Dam (44FK118), and 17 the Well/Cistern (44FK116), are located within the onion of the property • p p p riy identified as Laridbay A. Determination of boundaries, evaluation of integrity and research potential have been recommended for these three sites. References Consulted Botwick, Brad, and Ashley M. Neville, with contributions by Robert D. Clarke and Debra A. McClane 1997 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations, Route 37, Frederick County, Virginia. Gray & Pape, Inc. Prepared for Michael Baker Jr., Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia. Ebert, Rebecca A., and Teresa Lazazzera . .1988 Frederick County, Virginia. from the Frontier to the Future. The Donning Company, Norfolk, Virginia. n.a. 1997 Hammond's Edition of the 1885 Atlas of Frederick County, Virginia, with Added Map and Index. G.P. Hammond Publishing, Broadway, Virginia. Geier, Clarence R. and Warren R. Hofstra, with contributions by Joseph Whitehorn, James Wilson, and Leila Wood. 1991 An Archeological Survey of and Management Plan for Cultural Resources in the Vicinity of the Upper Opequon Creek. Submitted to Frederick County Board of Supervisors. Geier, Clarence R., Ph.D., Warren Hofstra, Ph.D.,.and Joseph Whitehorne 1992 A Phase I Evaluation ofArcheological Cultural Resources in Place on Terrain Lying within Corridor Alternatives of the Route 37 Winchester Bypass, Frederick County, Virginia. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Submitted to Maguire and Associates, Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia. Maral S. Kalbian 1992 Rural Landmarks Survey Report, Frederick County, Virginia. Winchester - Frederick County Historical Society, Winchester, Virginia. Prepared for the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 1992 A Phase I Architectural Resource Survey Report of the Proposed Route 37 Corridor Study of Frederick County, Virginia. Prepared for Maguire Associates, Inc. Slonaker, James Rollin, Ph.D., ed. -if- 1941 A History and Genealogy of the Slonaker Descendants in America since Early 1700. • Lyday Printing Company, Los Angeles, California. HO Sullivan, Jessica • p. 22. 1980 "Remember When `Coal Was King' T' The Winchester Star, 18 December 1980, Lehman, Sam 1989 The Story of Frederick County. Winchester, Virginia. Quarles, Garland R. 1990 Some Old Homes in Frederick County, Virginia, revised edition. Winchester - Frederick County Historical Society, Winchester, Virginia. Varle, Charles 1809 Frederick, Berkeley, and Jefferson Counties, Virginia.. Wood, John . 1860s Frederick County, Virginia, from Wood's map. Land records, Frederick County Courthouse Manuscript file, Handley Library I �• r• 19 I �• Appendix I Partial Chain of 'Title 15 May 1989 713/417 GRANTOR: W.F. Artrip, Enid R. Artrip GRANTEE: Winchester Artrip Limited Partnership and David S. Holliday, homme sole, party of the third part --Tract One: Land in the Shawnee Magisterial District containing 157.009 acres, and being a portion of the parcel conveyed to W.F. Artrip by Hugh G. Slonaker et ux dated 20 August 1962 and recorded in 281/221 -Tract Two: 0.915 acres 20 August 1962 281/221 GRANTOR: Hugh G. and Naomi F. Slonaker GRANTEE: W.F. Artrip Jr. --450 acres on the west side of Route 522/Winchester-Front Royal Road --same property conveyed by Albert L. Slonaker to Hugh and Naomi Slonaker 4 December 1951 and recorded in 221/345 4 December 1951 221/345 GRANTOR: Albert L. Slonaker (Sloanaker) GRANTEE: Hugh G. and Naomi F. Slonaker -=450 acres on the west side of Route 522 --same property conveyed to grantors by Jesse R. Bailey et ux on 27 February 1912 and recorded in 133/453 (corrected 2 March 1914 in 1361100) --except two parcels, 4 acres and.2 acres 2 March 1914 136/100 --Correction of 133/453. Deed should have conveyed 456'/a acres, not 474 acres .27 February 1912 133/453 GRANTOR: Jesse R. Bailey and Carrie B. Bailey GRANTEE: Albert L. Slonaker --All those certain tracts or parcels of land with buildings and improvements 5%2 miles from Winchester along the Winchester and Front Royal Road (Route 522), totaling 476 acres --First: 474-acre tract with buildings and improvements, conveyed to Jesse R. Bailey by Robinson Keyser et ux 10 May 1882 and recorded in 97/497 --Second: 2'/a acres along Front Royal Road conveyed to Jesse R. Bailey by James W. Bayliss et al. 7 April 1900 and recorded in 120/282 --Third: water rights 10 May 1882 97/497 GRANTOR: Robinson and Elizabeth Keyser 20 is GRANTEE:'Jesse R. Bailey --575 acres along the Winchester to Front Royal Turnpike, except: 10 acres east of the turnpike conveyed to Keyser by John J. Williams, E.H. Boyd, and Holmes Conrad on 13 December 1877, 129 acres conveyed by Keyser and wife to Samuel R. Smith on 8 April 1882 and recorded in 97/460 3 acres conveyed by Keyser et ux to W.A. Crawford 27 April 1882 and recorded in 97/43 8 13 December 1877 94/46 GRANTOR: John J. Williams, Holmes Conrad, and E.H. Boyd, special commissioners (?) GRANTEE: Robinson Keyser --Chancery case related to Alfred Parkins, deceased. Court appointed grantors to sell his property --Grantee obtained by submitting a private bid after an auction failed. Bid was $4,500 for 500 to 570 acres and landlord's share of 1877 corn crop and growing crop of wheat --Tract is along Opequon Creek, five miles from Winchester, a portion of what Parkins owned at his death, and it contained his house. Tract adjoins a tract belonging to Parkins containing Frederick Mills and sold in chancery case to Alfred parkins Jr. but not yet conveyed to him --This sale is subject to water rights and rights of entry for repairing waterways belongingto the mill and sold to said Parkins 23 July 1842 71/263 GRANTOR: Philip Williams, foreclosing on a deed of trust of the Sowers family GRANTEE: Alfred Parkins --Purchase of a merchant's mill, a fulling mill, and other milling -related equipment, as well as an adjoining 150-acre tract with water rights on the Opequon. (This could be the Artrip property) --Source: Garland R. Quarles, Some Old Homes in Frederick County, Virginia (1990). According to Quarles, John Sowers obtained Parkins Mills in two purchases. These also t have included the Artrip property; migh --On 6 April 1779, James Knight sold 100 acres to Sowers, recorded in 18/129 --On 3 October 1788, James Knight's estate sold 116 acres to Sowers, recorded in 21/986 21 lU 1 —4 I-* :y APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROJECT AREA ZA ter ARTRIP-VA Excerpt from Varle's1809 Map of Frederick County, Virginia DATE: 5/03/04 PREPARED BY: BAS 0 0.5 1 O R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. MILES 8� 241 East Fourth Street, Suite 100 Frederick, MD 21201 Figure 1. Excerpt from Varle's 1809 Map of Frederick County, Virginia r t R � p .. ,.. :'wWatL„u.-._ �:L..-ma�Y.d ..t u7w•<e.t a.'. r.: Q ��•' � % .� yr SQL � �jA Cd � r¢ r APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF cps. PROJECT AREA 'C ••'•••.• �, .Jc� ,� `�ooL �. 'tea. ..`9�� - t•p DNS ,• .r����.. .�. �6='Ye,,,�i. t �trl? G a At ARTRIP-VA Excerpt from Lakes 1885 Atlas of •�•,.�r a p Frederick County Virginia �''�► Lh r70 lop% DATE: 5/03/04 PREPARED BY: BAS 0 3000 J .� R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. ��. FEET 241 East Fouts street. su— — Frederick, Mn 2t 7 , Figure 3. Excerpt from Lake's 1885 Atlas of Frederick County, Virginia �y'i�4'ata'''.It,.'w � i f�£,t.�ti�+�e LVVVVVV f %e F W.r'L yti. ;.i ft'yti, «5 _ � r. • J' ' r A ^S.:l I u 7 1 1 Iy d� �:��:������:�d��. 2: .�}� : � % m� u2 y� � '� � «� . �®`�3� � � � � /� �:: :ED% ,,� : � ,.� ,�-� �$\� /.2.� & /� �f.> .. 2« « 3 7{� \ w�w:� z ��� � � �7 » ;� . �w �,. �«��/��� �m&�#\�>J1� � z;a«m. �)�� 2\� %� � $��� yam\ ;} Dewberry (0 The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 SECTION 4 FREDERICK COUNTY FISCAL IMPACT MODEL is • • 6 0 nUTOUT MODULE I APPLICANT; Tuwar Arinp Mel FI_: Ilmpr,rl I (AND v.-r TYPE 1,11..vd U;n Ra Ca;Iq Of Imnaal Crodll: Godl • 7agen fot FUIUfe Tenna I REAL EST VAL 503,M-1,o00 RcgUlmd (Pnlercd paid INPVI Total Fohntl3l Adiu .Imenl Fer In Cur, Oudyat CN. 9ud d ca , FIEF 8 RESCUE = 11 OApl(el Facj14D� col aUm onlyl VRHr a F 9 P 4_Unly E.cgnd(OnhLS T:Y.9a Fulvm CIP/ Taa ClerHla Other fie+cmre• NOCapi61 Nql GAM Der I Flm ana Fo;cua Uitpariment 3455,7 tlfi Un-file ,.JA C.n: [35,Njio Fn 1111n- __S_j_...zULrp.AL$ Ds- vnumrl+ r(LII, I Elam�nlary Echo-13 52,3U2,1 J7 I nuudlg5nheelc So $n 345I 5 Y0P E1,15o,ebJ }352,96Y I a1,713,024 Hlgh Ss.'n001a 31,564,2a1 a1,i B2, 24i ....32ne5 83,06a,4n5 33•: an I FalAs and PtlMaalind 3977,1y8 ---. I I Public Llbrnry $161.100 :200,957 S208;?97 }1 WI:.:07 _ -1749,922 ' :0 I ,hefili: Offins< F9$4JA01 3116,467 Sd 545,1+91 }30,dn1 1 5122..99 5• ;H I AdminralralicnDUllpinp 5122,d2d 518,40: 5195,951 bIt7.205 sn Dlhcr fAi°cdlanepu8 Fg,.IIIUOA 515ti, 193 A224,420 $247.779 8U n To to 5172,421:16 9 .1 Ed72,hn4 S4rrr.353 60 In nUBTCTAl I y7,o(ja,9;,7 SC9:Li 7a LESS: PIET FIpCAL IMPACT so 81,960,903 $273,623 &2i922o?? 5=,5GH.f)jo 54,533,970 I I NET CAP. FACILITIES IA1P,4C7 }p ;p 5a,r • , 17 I 0 34,793,97r1 33 C�15 I INDEX; "1,IY' If Cap, EgUlp IAGUd?d I I 114DE\; "1.0" If RBrGa;( 9a1,'•0.0" If Refio (o Go Avy: 0.0 1 PLANNING DEPT PR.EFE{1(_NCEE 1.01.0 R¢v.Cosl Dal v u.d45 ......................................... .................... R.U. N Avn I rAE7HODOLOOY: I. CaPllal raNlll (BS rt•aulromvnh are Inptll to the flrsl caluum as calculalcd In (hq In0(1a1. --•---•••...... .. .—............... I --""'--'-"""""---- I A Not Flacal rmpool NPV from epem@one cIA11141ion5 I:Inp9(In f0Y7 (Dist of camnd I colU(nn itanga0va); Included are (ha anpllme IOYe!u`MA5 for an0 yF3r only a( full value. I I 3. NPV at fUb.,m oper rap QgUlp Iu).U9 p,ld In Inlyd column ae wlcVlaArjd In Ilecel impacts. I I 4. NPV nr MUM wpit+l ovpandllure N%L%, paid In foudh col 43 oolculetad In OyuBl impacts. I S. NFV of IUIUre l9wea paid to briny cUaehl county up tv slundird for rmw )aolnucu, na I calculalod mr utl.;h no:, faolnb. I B Column; Ihl❑o Ihn;Uah I, am added ao pvlenliol rrodlb. aU=lnvl (h:) (AIrlaled cap!lol I I 1011111.10 raquirel.=I.. Thadn a . ediucloi for I)in;AM of coat mwrgd liy U16 mvamla; I `ram In? I pnly;t (acNel, m a; roUn In sv0• 16f all n ?IOvnllyl dnvelvpmcnl). I NOTE: P• ffrF wlculppon5 do nUl indudo Include Inhtrdal bCPt❑ia Uscy nfo cash paymanls Up ROM. Cmdlts do Include inemsl I I —............... ....... .................. ......................... ._—_., It the proJed3 ufb debt nnunmj , U FS: IAndgl kVr1 111M n3/1q/o5 MTn........... I __....... .................... ..... I Fro•;ca Daauiplhn, Option A 6UHlor no WIr- manp f26 toR4 vdlh 199 dIRQk family dalgcbed homne. 10 single family ellAohod homu., 530 multifamily hpmaa, I 1 numia davlcp I I I I I Den !4 channlnq condlllvn8 9a4aciotnd n101 do11c10pAinnt in Inc county, Iho rdaulla or Ih)y ! I nuluul A+Ogprla may W ba valid beyond a porlod of vv dnya from Ina m❑dol run dale. I I-' ----•..................................................................... I I I I I I I � 0 .:x Dewberry io 5 The Villages atArtrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 0 SECTION 5 PROFFER STATEMENT C-1 PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # RA to R4 PROPERTY: 169.924 acres +/-; Tax Map & Parcel 75-A- 99A (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia Corporation APPLICANT: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company PROJECT NAME: Villages at Artrip ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 2004 REVISION DATA: May 20, 2005 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced 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 upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board") grants the rezoning. 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, assigns, and successors j in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Master Development Plan" shall refer to the 1/ plan entitled "Master Development Plan, The Villages at Artrip" prepared by Dewberry (the "MDP") dated May 20, 2005, sheets 1-4; provided further that sheet 5 thereof, entitled General Development Plan ("GDP"), shall not be deemed a part of the MDP submittal but is otherwise proffered as set forth herein. 1. LAND USE 1.1 The project shall be designed so as to establish interconnected mixed - use villages in conformance with the MDP and the GDP, and as is specifically set forth in these proffers. 1.2 Except as modified herein, areas of commercial development on the . Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, as set forth in • the Frederick County Code Article VII, § 165-67 through § 165-72, as cross-referenced to Article X, § 165-82, Sections A through D inclusive, and § 165-83. All commercial development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be otherwise approved by Frederick County. 1.2.1 Commercial, retail, restaurant and office development on M, the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 118,550 square feet, and shall be provided within the Core Area. 1.3 Except as modified herein, areas of residential development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Planned Community ("RV) zoning district, including permissible housing types, including those set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, § 165-67 through § 165-72, as cross-referenced to Article VI, § 165-58, through § 165-66, including as set forth in Appendix A. In the event that the Applicant elects to construct any of the unit types that are set forth on Appendix A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, such units shall conform to the development standards established therein. Unit types and lot layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the permitted unit types identified for those ' Landbays as set forth on the MDP or as are otherwise authorized for the ;. Sr RP district as it is incorporated by reference into tTie R4 district. 1.3.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a . yl,t t t jmaximum of 905 dwelling units, with a mix of housing — n types permitted in the R4 district, subject to the '�t ; ' modifications as set forth in Appendix A, and dwelling oil a S types shall be constructed in the locations generally depicted on the MDP and as further set forth herein: VL I- (00 S 1.4 Development of commercial, residential and community uses within the nf"' r r ' area identified on the MDP as the "Core Area" shall generally conform �" t K �'' to a grid lot layout, and the street layout and unit types depicted therein: on the MDP. Not fewer than two housing types shall be provided in the r Core Area. The layout of the Core Area shall be constructed in general e� conformance with the GDP, provided that reasonable adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. 15 t : , ! ,�y 1.5 Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area ` shall generally conform to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP; provided that minor adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. Unit types and lot ,4: ; ' layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the permitted unit t ,• types identified for those Landbays on the MDP and authorized herein or subsequently approved by the Frederick County Planning Office. �0 . 2 1.6 Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, rental apartments, condominium units and rental apartments over retail and office uses shall be permitted. 1.7 The gross density of residential units shall not exceed 5.40 units per acre. / 1.8 Shared parking shall be provider201 r-1, restaurant and office uses V within Landbay "A" such thateduction or increase of the " required parking spaces shall be pe tted. 1.9 The Applicant shall make reasonable attempts to preserve the specimen Delaware Pine on the general vicinity of the cemeteryon the property. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT 4. 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances and regulations for the R-4 zoning district, the MDP, and this Proffer Statement as it may be accepted by the Board. 3. PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT 3.1 The residential portions of the Property are proposed to be developed in • three phases, with the commercial portions of the Property to be developed in Phases II and III. The three phases shall be authorized as follows: • 3.1.1 Phase I. Residential development shall not exceed 300 dwelling units. !� , r 3.1.2 Phase II. Residential development shall not exceed an additional 380 dwelling units, for a total of 680 dwelling units. Commercial development shall include a minimum of 10,000 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant gross leaseable floor space. 3.1.3 Phase III. Residential development in Phase III shall not exceed the remaining permitted dwelling units. Because the Applicant cannot anticipate either market conditions; or the timing of the completion of a through connection of Warrior Drive from Interstate 81, through Crosspointe Boulevard (as presently named) and Wakeland Manor to Tasker Road and Route 340/522, the Applicant cannot commit to the construction of additional commercial at any fixed point in time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and except to the extent set forth in the proceeding proffer, the Applicant may construct all or any portion of the commercial development authorized in these proffers at o any time. l C, 3 • t 3.1.4 Community improvements. �\ ;Community -serving improvements such as playing fields, community center, tennis courts and similar improvements as shown on the MDP shall be constructed in conjunction with the Landbay with which such improvements are associated. 4. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING: 4.1 The following building materials may be used for construction within the Property, and no others: 4.1.1 Pavements / Curbing shall consist of cast in place concrete, natural and colored; aggregate concrete; precast concrete, natural and colored; concrete pavers; brick pavers; stone pavers; asphalt pavers; granite; ceramic tile; asphalt. 4.1.2 House sidings shall consist of EFIS; stucco; brick; cementious siding; cedar siding; -stone veneer; painted wood; vinyl siding; stained wood; aluminum; hardy plank; PVC trim''—` 4.1.3 Decking and fencing shall consist of pressure treated wood; stained wood; painted wood; PVC fencing; IPE decking; cedar decking; TREX decking or similar recycled product. 4.1.4 Miscellaneous materials that may be used shall consist of standing seam metal roofing, colored; slate roofing; asphalt Nil roofing; powder coated steel, colored; galvanized steel; ; L aluminum brushed; anodized aluminum, colored; 304 c ` stainless steel; chrome; canvass; neon. 4.2 Vinyl siding shall not be used on the front elevation of residential structures facing Warrior Drive or on the fronts of residences located on corner lots that intersect with Warrior Drive. The side of the residential structure that faces Warrior Drive, located on a corner lot that intersects Warrior Drive is not permitted to have vinyl siding on that elevation. 4.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, materials used for exterior facades of the commercial buildings shall include but not be limited to concrete masonry units (CMU) split -faced block, architectural block, dryvit, or other simulated stucco (EFIS), real or simulated wood and/or glass. Standard concrete masonry block shall not be used for the front facades of any buildings. 4.4 All buildings within the development on the property shall be constructed using compatible architectural styles. The Applicant shall establish one or more Architectural Review Boards to enforce and administer a unified development plan. n • 4.5 All signage within the project shall be in substantial conformity with r the comprehensive sign plan incorporated herein as part of the Rezoning an , prove e that the Director of Planning may n ` - authorize alternative signage that is substantially consistent with the t- - aforesaid sign plan. 4.6 The major collector roadways (Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road Extended) in the Villages at Artrip shall be constructed with a minimum 20' width buffers adjacent to dedicated rights -of -way and, except at entrance locations, shall be improved with landscape features and lighting to create a "boulevard" appearance. Illustrative details of such buffers are as set forth on the MDP. O 5. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL, SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 5.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail ` system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and commercial areas within the development. Said trails �- shall be in general conformance with the South Frederick Land Use _ ij s Map and shall be in the locations generally depicted on the MDP. Five foot sidewalks shall be constructed on all public streets and a minimum of four foot sidewalks shall be constructed on private streets. �-, -' The pedestrian/bicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive shall be 10 feet wide, and shall have an asphalt surface. 6. FIRE & RESCUE: 0 P, 6�.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $537 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7. SCHOOLS: 7.1 Upon written request therefor, the Applicant shall dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately eleven (11) acres of land as depicted on the MDP for use as a future elementary school site in conjunction with the adjacent property of others; provided further that the Applicant shall be permitted to retain an easement thereon for the construction of stormwater management facilities. The Applicant shall coordinate any such facilities with the County to assure that such facilities do not materially impede the use of the property for an elementary school, and that, to the extent possible, such facilities may serve both the Applicant and any school constructed thereon. In the event that such property is not used for an elementary school within 15 years from the date of the Final Rezoning, title to the property shall revert to the Applicant. 11 a. 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $337 per dwelling unit for educational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $847 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 9. LIBRARIES: 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $137 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 10. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $144 to be used for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 11. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: . 11.1 The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to one or more homeowners' association(s) (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public ' use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella HOA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters. 11.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use specifically including the "Village Green" area as depicted on the MDP, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) private streets serving the residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling • programs, including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse collection company, and (v) responsibility for the perpetual R • maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument. 11.3 The commercial elements of the development shall be made subject to one or more property owners' association(s) (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as 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 that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters. 11.4 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, a POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of commercial lots; (iii) private streets serving the businesses and/or residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs to include dumpster and contract carrier services provided by a private refuse collection company, and (v) 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 commercial or other lots, or parcels, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12. WATER & SEWER: 12.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection at the property boundary. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 13. ENVIRONMENT: 13.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, • Table 2-3 for the purpose of providing the highest order of stormwater 7 • • 13.2 control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. Stream preservation buffers shall be constructed in general conformance with the MDP, so as to create buffer requirements established by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to protect Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to Opequon Creek from disturbance. No clearing or grading shall occur within those buffers, except for the construction of road crossings, trails, water lines, f. c� �V V, sanitary sewer, or other utilities. 1.' TRANSPORTATION: 14.1 Transportation improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with each phase of the development as set forth below. Design of the roadway system shall be phased as set forth in these Proffers and shall be substantially consistent with the study entitled "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of The Villages at Artrip," prepared by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, dated May 6, 2004 (the "TIA"). The exact location and design of proffered improvements shall be subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof. 14.2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for residential uses on streets to be placed into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 144-17 (A) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. For the purposes of these Proffers, construction of any road or street referenced herein shall mean construction consistent with the requirements of that section. 14.3 Phase I road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated from Wakeland Manor: The following traffic improvements shall be designed and constructed during Phase I if construction thereof shall begin at the southernmost portion of the Property. 14.3.1. Prior to the issuance of the first residential occupancy permit for the project, the Applicant shall construct an extension of Warrior Drive in a northwesterly direction from Point A to Point C as depicted on the MDP, as a full section of a four lane divided roadway, including construction of a full section of a roundabout �or traffic signalized intersection as may be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation, at the intersection of Warrior and Parkins Mill Road. 14.3.1.1. In conjunction with such construction, the Applicant shall connect Warrior Drive into the • adjacent property known as Wakeland Manor, so as . to match the pavement widths of that portion of Warrior as constructed by others. The bridge crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon on the southernmost edge of the Property at Point A shall be constructed to accommodate the ultimate design of Warrior Drive. The right-of-way for the ultimate design of Warrior Drive shall be 100' in width. 14.4 Alternate road phasing for Phase I of Warrior Drive if constructed from Wakeland Manor: As an alternative to the foregoing phasing schedule for Phase I of Warrior Drive, and at the sole discretion of the Applicant, the Applicant shall construct a full section of Warrior Drive as a full four lane section roadway, including the bridge crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon from Point A to a full section of the roundabout or signalized intersection at Point B, and shall further construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill Road from Point B to Point B 1, (or from Point B 1 to B if construction access is obtained through Canter Estates), as depicted on the MDP. y14.5• Phase II road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is s - initiated from Wakeland Manor: The following traffic - improvements shall be constructed as part of Phase II if construction • °' thereof shall begin at the southernmost portion of the Property. 14.5.1. Prior to the issuance of the 301" occupancy building permit, the Applicant shall construct Warrior Drive as a full four lane divided roadway from Point C to Point D, as generally depicted on the MDP or from Point B to Point C if not already constructed. • 14.5.2; At the Applicant's �� rr�ti�n, ;f +t,P Applicant has not akeaEly dane-so-in accordancj� with the foregoing proffers, then prior to the issuance of the 301" occupancy building permit, the Applicant 5AY construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill fj,�Road Extended, from its intersection with Warrior Drive at Point B to Point Bl, as generally depicted on the MDP. The right-of-way for Parkins Mill Road shall be 80' in width. 14.6 Phase III road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated from Wakeland Manor: The Applicant shall construct the following traffic improvements prior to the issuance of the 681" residential occupancy permit as Phase III of the said improvements if construction thereof shall begin at the southernmost portion of the Property. X 14.6.1. The Applicant shall construct the remainder of Warrior Drive to Point E as a full section of a four lane divided roadway. 14.6. If not already completed, the Applicant shall construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill Road Extended, from its intersection with Warrior Drive at Point B to Point B 1, as generally depicted on the MDP. The right-of-way for Parkins Mill road shall be 80' in width. 14.6.3. The Applicant shall reserve not more than fifty feet of right-of- way for the possible future construction of Lakeside Drive by (: ,`-others, in the general location depicted on the MDP, and shall provide such temporary easements as may be required for such construction. 14.7 Road phasing if construction of Warrior Drive is initiated from Crosspointe: 14.7.1. In the event that others have constructed Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Center to the Property boundary, and Warrior is to be constructed from that boundary to the south, then prior to the issuance of the first residential occupancy permit for the project, the Applicant shall construct Warrior Drive in a southeasterly direction from Point E to Point C as Phase I of its road improvements. The Applicant will be allowed a minimum of 300 residential building permits within this Phase. r� 14.7.2. In the event the Applicant has constructed Warrior Drive from G ' r Points E to C as aforesaid, then prior to the issuance of the 301" residential occupancy permit, the Applicant shall construct Warrior Drive from Point C to Point B as Phase II or its road improvements. The Applicant will be allowed to build (A-S f jda minimum of 380 additional residential units in this Phase. 14.7.3. In the event the Applicant has constructed Warrior Drive to Point B as aforesaid, then prior to the issuance of the 681 st residential occupancy permit, the Applicant shall construct Warrior Drive from Point B to Points A and B 1 as Phase III of its road improvements. The Applicant will be permitted to build out the remainder of the residential units and commercial square footage in this Phase and prior to the completion of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. 14.8 All left and right turn residential and commercial entrances to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road shall be limited to those locations as generally depicted on the MDP. 10 • 14.9 The Applicant shall make no connection from Parkins Mill Road extended to CantQy Estates until such time as Warrior Drive has been constructed to permit traffic access through Wakeland Manor except for construction purposes. �� P 14.10 The Applicant shall construct its internal road network as public or private roads as they are depicted on the MDP. In the event that the Virginia Department of Transportation declines to accept neo- traditional road designs for any such internal streets, the Applicant may construct such streets as private roads. 14.11 All public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to Frederick County as part of the subdivision approval process, consistently with applicable Virginia law. 14.12 All public streets and roads shall be designed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation specifications, and subject to review and approval by the Frederick County and VDOT. 14.13 All private streets and roads shall be constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation standards therefor as set out on Sheet 3 of the MDP, and as modified thereby, and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners or property owners association Isserved by such streets or roads. 14.14 No construction traffic shall be permitted through Lot 121 in the adjacent Lakewood subdivision. In no event shall a permanent interparcel connection be made through said Lot. 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION 15.1 The Applicant shall preserve the Artrip Family Cemetery. The Applicant shall further create a,0.05 acr reservation park surrounding the Cemetery, as generally depicted on the MDP. 16. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 16.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date 30 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the 11 • • date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 5% per year, non - compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE 12 • • • WINCHESTER ARTRIP, Limited Liability Company Jeffrey Abramson Title: Managing Member COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; CITY/COUNTY OF : to -wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by My Commission expires: Notary Public 13 0 APPENDIX A The following development standards shall apply to development within each Landbay for the following housing types listed below: SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER FRONT LOAD 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 3) MIN. LOT AREA 4) MIN. YARDS: - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW - SIDE YARDS - REAR YARD 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 35' 20' 10, 5' 25' 25' 60' 60' 30' 30' 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER REAR LOAD 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE EXISTING PROPOSED 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 10,000 SF 10,000 SF is 3) MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 14 :7 4) MIN. YARDS: - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 15' - SIDE YARDS 10, 5' - REAR YARD 25' 20' 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60' 6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 30' 30' 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT REAR LOAD EXISTING PROPOSED 1) MIN. LOT SIZE 3,750 SF 3,750 SF 2) OFF STREET PARKING SPACES 2 2 3) SETBACK FROM STATE ROAD 25' 25' 4) SETBACK FROM PRIVATE ROAD 20' 15' 5) REAR YARD 15' 15' 6) SIDE YARD 5' 5' SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER REAR LOAD W/DETACHED GARAGE 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 3) MIN. LOT AREA 4) MIN. YARDS: EXISTING PROPOSED 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 15 • 10 • - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 15' - SIDE YARDS 10' 5' - REAR YARD 25' 15' 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60' 6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 30' 30' 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT MULTIPLEX STACKED FLATS EXISTING PROPOSED 1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW N/A 35' 2) SETBACK FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY N/A 25' 3) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 15' 4) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 25' 5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING N/A 30' MULTIPLEX BACK TO BACK UNITS EXISTING PROPOSED 1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW N/A 35' 2) SETBACK FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY N/A 25' 3) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 15' 4) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 25' 5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING N/A 30' APARTMENTS/CONDOS APARTMENTS/CONDOS EXISTING PROPOSED 1) FRONT SETBACKS - FROM ROAD ROW 35' 35' - FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY 20' 10' 2) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER 16 0 BOUNDARIES 50' 50' 3) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER • • BOUNDARIES 50' 50' 4) MIN. BUILDING SPACING 50' 50' 5) SETBACKS FOR OTHER USES NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED - FRONT 35' 35' - SIDE 15' 15' - REAR 50' 50' JA00\00419 Tower\004\Application SubmittalsTROFFERSTROFFERS 052005.doc 17 The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 0 SECTION 6 AGENCY COMMENTS C] • �J REZONING APPLICATION AGENCY REVIEW COMMENTS • Rezoning Comments r3EC"f"IVED II II 9 3 2004 Nact=.n<ratr.,ouiv[v ]Historic Resources Advisory Board 111 Mai to: Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5651 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Co. Administration Building, 4th Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip Limited Telephone: (301) 984-7000 Partnership Mailing Address: c/n Tbt- Tnwor f nm naniPs 11501 Huff. Court North Bethesda, NID 20895 Location of roe South Frederick Land Use Plan area east of I-81 property- rtY= � west of U.S. 522 on Tax Map 75((A)), Parcel 99A Current zoning: RA Advisory Board Comments: Signature & Date: Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 19 iaii COUNTY of FREDERIC Department of Planning and Developmei August 5, 2004 Mr. Mike Wiley Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester, -VA 22601 RE,: Request for Historic Resources Advisory $oard (HRAB) Comments Villages at Artrip; Rezoning Proposal; PIN# 75-A-99A Dear Mr. Wiley: 5401665-56: I FAX: 540/ 665-63! �� 9 A UG 2004 Dewberry-Wi Chester Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by 0 the HRAB. 10 Rural Landmarks Surrey and the Comprehensive Policy Plan do not identify any significant historic structures or battlefields located on or adjacent to the property. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Candice E. Mills Planner I CEM/bad • 107 North Kent Street m Winchester, Virginia 22601-50®® May 19, 2005 Mr. David L. Frank, CLA Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Suite C Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Rezoning Application for the Village at Artrip Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Frank: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 [MAY 1 9 2005 We have reviewed your responses to our initial review comments dated December 20, 2004, and offer the following: 1. Your response to our cornment (#2) related to cornpletion of the bridge over the unnamed Opequon tributary indicates that the project will provide four (4) paved lanes for the full length of Warrior Drive prior to the issuance of the 681s` residential permit in Phase III of the project. The actual revised proffer indicates that the applicant will design and bond the traffic improvements prior to the issuance of the 681" residential building permit. The proffer statements related to residential development should indicate that the infrastructure associated with roads and drainage shall be constricted in accordance with Frederick County's current erosion and sediment control ordinance prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Your response to our comment (#3) concerning the use of Lot 121, Section VIII in Lakewood Manor as temporary access is not satisfactory. As we had previously indicated, Frederick County will not approve the use of this lot as a permanent or temporary access to the proposed project site. This conclusion applies to any access including limited use by certain constriction equipment. We will not grant a temporary construction access through this lot. In your response to our comment (#8), you have indicated that the HOA will be responsible for maintaining the BMP facilities that will not be maintained by the county. First, Frederick County will not maintain any of the BMP facilities 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • Village at Artrip Rezoning Comments Page 2 May 19, 2005 proposed for this project. Secondly, this requirement should be indicated in the proffer statement. 4. Your response to our comment (#9) does not address the impact on solid waste disposal. It is suggested that you reference the impact on our local landfill as well as the requirement to provide curbside trash pickup as indicated in the proffer statement. We will grant our approval of the subject rezoning when the above issues have been satisfactorily addressed. l IES/rls cc: Planning and Development File A:\villageatartriprucom.mvp(I Sincerely, Harvey P. trawsnyder, Jr., P.E.. Director of Public Works r� • is Rezoning Comments Frederick County Fire Marshal Mail to: Frederick County Fire Marshal 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-6350 Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Hand deliver to: Frederick County Fire & Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal County Administration Bldg., 1 st Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A))_ Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176) Current zoning: RA I Fire Marshal's Comments: 11 Fire Marshal's Signature & Date: Zoning requested: 22 R4 Acreage: 169.924 Form to'the ApplYca Control number RZ04-0021 R Project Name Winchester Artrip LLC Address 611 West Jubal Early Drive Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation 0 Emergency Vehicle Access Siamese Location Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Frederick County Fire and Rescue, Department Office of the Fire Marshal, Plan Review and Comments Date received 5/6/2005 City Winchester Tax ID Number 75-A-99A Date reviewed 5/17/2005 Applicant Dewberry State Zip VA 22601 Fire District 11 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System No Requirements Hydrant Location Roadway/Aisleway Width Date Revised 511/2005 Applicant Phone 540-678-2700 Rescue District 11 Election District Shawnee Residential Sprinkler System No Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Additional Comments wil! 0 1' V I Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature Yes Timothy L. Welsh Title um' 81 t� pv�,',, on • 9 Rezoning Comments Ed - Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County i Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5678 Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 54 0— 6 7 8— 2 7 0 0 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldp B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of roe Prh' South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)), property: Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176) Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: i SEE ATTACHED Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: Notal`Mi W > ?' } ei: etu h Nr� :t �Jp� %4 a .0 . � 1 �J `' Q tirk ...,.,4 tlp Rea rrr- ------- l 23 MAY 1 9 2005 ! Dewberry-Winchea'6er PRINTED DEC 0 8 2004 Dewberry -Winchester REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS ARTRIP Department of Parks and Recreation's P Comments: • The area identified as a school site and open space for use by the Parks and Recreation Department does not appear to be adequate to accommodate both uses. • The typical section on page three of five of the Master Development Plan, indicates trails to be between five and ten feet in width. The Parks and Recreation Department recommends all trail to be a minimum of ten feet in width. The revised proffer statement has modified proffer 5.1 to reflect ten foot bike trails. • The Proffer Statement should include language which indicates the bridge design (the proffer statement, section 14.2.1.1) will accommodate bicycle lanes. • The proposed monetary proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be less than what the impact model would indicate is needed to offset the impact of this development. Signature and Date: UWO-7m4l�- % 7, • 9 �WdC11iA /iU �_ e C' _�y1C� WF c IE�PS. Frederick County Public Schools Administrative Assistant to Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us the Superintendent December 3, 2004 Winchester Artrip LLC c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Wiley: RE: The Villages at Artrip Project e-mail: kaPoCsis@frederick.k12.va.us This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning application for the proposed Villages at Artrip project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 190 single-family homes, 438 town houses, and 272 multi -family homes will yield 91 high school students, 91 middle school students, and 251 elenientary school students for a total of 433 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the f nrnnnc.h E CC✓W82004 Dewberry -Winchester SMK/dkr Respectfully yours, Stephen Kapocsi Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent cc: William C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools 0 540-662-3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-662-3890 9 Rezoning Comments ;GYt�.n.,..r�i:i: '.v'. v : Y :{ .. Y••Y!:{:: {: {•:{{;. . 3w,:'>.Y...v....r.,v..n>.:ri:rr.....vY,•).axT..�i�i:C:•..::i'/,.{iiYi.^•,:.':'lii!+vt.:::i<�$f:� "':ri'i '� .. <: YY. . .. oo...S•�iw's4«frr>!:�.a.,s•ixai:r»a�..•/,2:::n::xir.:,:<;<.:K:v;7.......:.....i'�:Y' Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Shnitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868-1061 Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T: Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, -Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 Sanitation Authority Comments: Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: r" "' ..... <:::>:>::>:::>:::::::>�����::<;:>::>� �:::;;::::::>:•:<:::::>:<:;::;::;:;<:>;Y::�>;::::;:;:;:<><:::::::::!;<::::'YY:.«::<;{..>::>;::.:�:.:;;.YY:>:.:.:.;:.>:.:.Y:.YY>:.:;�:.:;{.;:;{.>:.;>::<.:,:{.:i{.::{::Y:.Y.Y:.;:;-<.Y:{:.�.::.,.,. 25 :- NOV 1 63 20N. Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Dr. Bldg B Suite C, Winchester, VA 22601 'iJ.1.; Transmittal ; MAY Phone 540.678.2700 T t Fax' . 7 2 0' 7� Atlanta, GA 0 Fairfax, VA 1� Gaithersburg, MD � Manassas, VA Chicago, IL Leesburg, VA Baltimore, MD Fredericksburg, VA 0 Lanham, MD ' Winchester, VA To: lFrederick County Sanitation Authority Date: 1 5/6/2005 Project No: 1276014 P.O. Box 1877 Project Name: Villiages at Artrip Winchester VA 22604 Reference: ;Carbon Copy:l i Attention: John Whitacre We Transmit: the following: for: 1* as per your request 0 prints ® your approval 0 as IN under separate cover It specifications ® your review and comment requested by 0 by mail change order ® your file/use ® as approved by ❑d by messenger shop drawings ® revision and submission 0 by pick up ® reproducibles ® distribution ® as submitted for approval by —JJ31fl byovemight ® samples ® ® please acknowledge receipt of 18carrier product literature enclosures 0va ® computations Q return enclosures to us descriptions Copies: Dote: Number: Description: 1 5/6/2005 Master Development Plan 1 5/6/2005 Proffers Statement 5/6/2005 Comment Response Letter If enclosures are nut as noted, please notify us at price 4509 Transmittal # berry & Davis LLC is an equal opportunity employer and, as such, complies with of Executive Order 11246 as amended by Fxecutive Order 1135?.-- Sent Y.- -Dc cRank -I • • 0(oc,oylO 7/ JA Comments Tom . 7 -`� A — T9A Frederick -Winchester Health Department ail to: Frederick -Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 722-3480 Hand deliver to: Frederick -Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Suite 201 Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land' Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176) Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage:169.924 Fred er'ck-WinchestePealth Department's Comments: Lull C� �E' c✓tom.%y ( 5e% 01 i 100,70 /'lf.� /'� L� C"f�,27s s7 �cz �_ tl-f'..' Health Dept. Signature & Date: I JJrKtQ;t l DEC 0 1 2004 Di:w bent' Wig _ _ Rezoning t ti, '14e> Y;I y,t•:14 A c V,nti•,,s: - �,. .a,�,, "T'• 4!ii :CxY; ,i�S:aR. ,Y.; '.,. ,�,'!"r�fi` 0 Town of Middletown Mail to: Town of Middletown Attn: Town Manager P.O. Box 96 Middletown, Virginia 22645 (540) 869-2226 Hand deliver to: Town of Middletown A.ttn: Town Manger Middletown Town Hall 7875 Church Street Middletown, Virginia Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 • Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)) Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176) Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 Town of Middletown's Comments: Town of Middletown's Signature & Date: X /7/v y lxca�f�i?Tawn of'IYcletawu'', ,Please RetuiriY This Form to the Applicant; 27 0 DEC 08204 Dewberry -Winchester limms Comments . Town of Stephens City • Mail to: Town of Stephens City Attn: Town Manager P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 (540) 869-3087 Hand deliver to: Town of Stephens City Attn: Town Manager Stephens City Town Hall 1033 Locust Street Stephens City, Virginia Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75-((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176) Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 . Acreage: 169.924 Town of Stephen City's Comments: Town of Stephens -City's / Signature & Date: Z�li "_/Gt p,T�- ti c-i %/ : // 5 I-Ir'",;� f't�7`. i S v a q p 1� x :: s� T F sot s.,. -, • +'i ��ns�G#y����leaseR��rnForm'to r�pplican 0 28 Rezoning Comments I 3eia c�v i : ::..sV.. � �var.;: Y� :..r,�':.. [-,�::�� :. t .yY.':. .:��!-.. �u� • ".t� �_d • n, � . w - + r�i, `e'a s7.',tF: - ,+ fi. • City of Winchester • Mail to: Winchester City Planning Department Attn: Planning Director 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-1815 Hand deliver to: Winchester City Planning Department Attn: Planning Director Rouss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)), P Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 City of Winchester's Comments: ar(lor r►✓p wh /e �rl�e !S h�PNeC�' CLL gL SO 2n TA/S2S c6P,62rn5 !-1 �P%'15 e �!��rC <^4CrS , City of Winchester's Signature & Date: S o Nof�'c a „CL :o tWi9- 9-90e e'Retvrg ' has Form` to th�'Applicant • 29 w i rrcne5 ram!- !-i i r�ur1 1 4 ! YUG/ 11Y iUt:,: t Iy PIll r . u, L Rezoning Comments • Winchester Regional Airport Mail t Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 662-2422 —Uland-Ye to. Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road (Rt. 645, off of Rt. 522 South) Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Narne: Winchester Artrip LLC Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)), • Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road _ (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 Winchester Regional Airport's Comments: AeCL t es� Winchester Regional Airport's Signature & Date: • 30 0 DEC 0 9 2004 "I 1-pul 1L, L11O1 UJ IL---; L—pill r , U14 . .�� WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT y 491 AIRPORT ROAD seRVW. TMp \OP OF VIaN WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 q��oar�� (540) 662.2422 December 8, 2004 Michael T. Wiley % Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Building B, Suite C Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Application Master Plan Development Plan Comments The Villages at Artrip Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Wiley: The above referenced Rezoning Application/Master Plan has been reviewed and it appears that the proposed site plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport as the majority of the subdivision falls outside of the airport's Part 77 surface. • No special requirements or conditions are requested on behalf of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, 's Pcn am.�-k- Serena R. Manuel Executive Director • I DEC 0 9 Z004 RECEIVED 2¢ - Request Master Development Plan Comments N0V 2004 • Department of GIS (Geographic Information System &wberry-Winchester Mail to: Hand deliver to: Department of GIS, Attn: GIS Manager Department of GIS 107 North Kent Street 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5614 (540) 665-5614 The GIS Department will review the proposed street names for this project to ensure their acceptability into the Frederick County Street Name System. Proposed street names will also be routed through the Communication Center Supervisor for review. This step will prevent duplicate street names from being entered. Please attach one copy of the plan indicating proposed names. Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Phone number: 540-678-2700 Winchester, VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of the request: . The Villlages at Artrip Location of property: Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649) and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). GIS Dept. Comments: No road names present for comment. Possibility of 21 road names evident. Road names are not to cross major arterial streets such as Warrior Drive or Lakeside. Warrior Drive does not appear to match plans submitted for Wakeland. 0 • N R COMMENTS: DEPT. OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA STREET NAME COMMENTS SUBDIVISION COMMENTS DATE: May 10, 2005 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Villages at Artirp STAFF MEMBER: Marcus Lemasters, Director 1. Frederick County Code, Chapter 56, Buildings, Numbering of; Roads, Naming of, 56-4: "Any master development plan, subdivision plan, or site plan submitted for review by the Department ofPlanning and Development shall also be submitted to the Department of Geographic Information Systems to review proposed road names and road name requirements." A. The Department of GIS is not required to review Re -zoning Requests or Re -zoning Proffer Statements. B. Chapter 56 of the County Code does not specifically state that road names are required in a Master Development Plan (MDP), but allows GIS to review a plan if it does present roadways and road names. MDP requirements are set forth by the Department ofPlanning and Development. IfPlanning and Development mandates that road names are not required for a MDP, road names will be reviewed during the subdivision process of development. GIS reviews and comments on MDP information as provided. If road names are not presented, they cannot be checked against the Official Road Name List. Therefore no comment can be presented on the road names. The Department of GIS will comment on road layout ifit affects or regulates road name suffixes, roadway and name breaks, and numbering. C. The County Code requires structure numbering to be assigned during the subdivision phase. Structure numbering is not complete until an appropriate road name has been assigned. Therefore a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) may not be issued without road naming being complete. 2. Noting comments stated in section 1, the following comments are given concerning the proposed MDP, dated 05/04/05: A. Warrior Drive and Lakeside Drive are continuations of existing roadways and names. Villages at Artrip MDP Comments (Cont.) Page 2 B. Parkins Mill Road will not be accepted as a road name, It conflicts with roadways and names already in the system, and is not considered an extension of an existing roadway name C. The potential for up to 21 road names has been noted. D. Any "Private Road" that is the primary entrance for four or more properties must be named before numbering/addressing can be completed. E. This MDP is presented as a suburban setting and not a rural setting. Therefore, future road name with such suffixes as Road, Lane, Loop, Trail, Bypass, Grade, Highway, Interstate, Overlook, Pike, and Turnpike will not be accepted into the system. F. Acceptable road name suffixes for this development include Alley, Avenue, Boulevard, Circle, Court, Drive, Place, Plaza, Square, Street, Terrace, and Way. 3. The Department of GIS maintains a current Official Street Name List in the department's web page within the Frederick County web site. Future names maybe checked against this list to avoid duplication and possible rejection. Chapter 56 of the Frederick County Code contains the regulations and requirements for naming new roadways. This information may also be found in the GIS Department's web pages. Frederick County Planning and Development, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601, (540)665-5614 �it•o-t-, Dewberry Transmittal 49 611 West Jubal Early Dr, Bldg B. Suite C, Winchester, Va. 22601 Phone 540.678.2700 ❑ Atlanta, GA ❑ Fairfax, VA ❑ Gaithersburg, MD ❑ Chicago, [L ❑ ❑ Baltimore, MD ❑ Fredericksburg, VA ❑ Lanham, MD Leesburg, MD TO• FAx 540.678.2703 ❑ Manassas, VA LXJ Winchester, VA 1,red—Wine Service Authority Date:1 08 NOV 04 Project No: 76030007 107 North Kent Street Project Name: The Villages at Artrip Winchester VA 22601 Reference: Carbon Copy: Charles A. Segerman, P.E. Attention: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director John H. Foote, Esq. We Transmit: the following: for: ❑ as per your request ❑ prints ❑ your approval ❑ as requested by ❑ under separate cover ❑ specifications ® your review and comment '' 1 by mail ❑ change orders ❑ your file/use as approved by ® by messenger ❑ shop drawings ❑ revisions and submission ❑ as submitted for ❑ by pick up re roducibles ❑ p ❑ distribution approval by ❑ please acknowledge receipt ❑ by overnight carrier ❑ samples ❑ of enclosures ❑ product literature ❑ return enclosures to us ❑ ❑ computations ❑ descriptions Copies: Date: Number: Description: 1 76030007 Rezoning Application, Impact Annalysis Statement and Master Development Plan for The Villages at Artrip Comments: Olosures are not as noted, please notify us at once. sent by: Michael T. Wiley Dewberry & Davis LLC is an equal opportunity employer and, as such, complies with Section of Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11357. z•d rnT T 771 n-6c 1 I TMnw i nu A>l7c 'ltITm rr73vJ nit J_ ri.n t.. • Dewberry Michael T. Rudy, AICP Deputy Planning Director County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester VA 22601 611 West Jubal Early Drive 540 678 2700 Suite C 540 678 2703 fax Winchester, VA 22601 www.dewberry.com Re: Additional Preliminary Comments Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application Dear Mike: Comment: 1. The Comprehensive Plan provides two clearly stated goals that pertain to planned communities which seek to encourage large scale new communities that are creatively and •appropriately designed to provide the highest possible quality of development and seek to ensure that new planned communities do not have adverse impacts on the community. • Response: The revised submission attempts to address the Planning Office comments made here and in our meetings, to increase the Applicant's level of commitment to specific design elements with respect to the critical "Core Area" of the proposal, to refine commitments to other Landbays outside the Core Area, and to refine the draft proffer statement to reflect construction requirements for significant roadways, and dedication of land to public use for an elementary school. Comment: 2. The mixed use concept is intended to promote land use patterns that allow for internal service, employment and intermodal transportation opportunities with public open space linkages between various developments. The concept is offered as a diversion from the typical segregation of land uses into specific zoning districts that are often unrelated to each other such as is presently evident in the County. The approach offered with this application seeks to achieve this desirable concept and is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Response: No comment necessary. Dewberry & Davis LLC 2 Comment: 3. From a land use planning perspective the location and scale of this project may present a unique opportunity to implement a truly mixed use project into Frederick County. The property is centrally located to the developing areas of the County at the future confluence of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. The prominent visibility and strategic location that will ultimately be provided at this location should be advantageous to the success of this concept and project. Such a creative approach or concept would be more preferable and acceptable than a rezoning that would simply enable more of the existing pattern of development to occur. Recognizing the desirability of the concept, many of the following comments seek to ensure that the impacts associated with such a project are addressed to the greatest extent possible. Response: The Applicant shares a desire to create a unique community in Frederick County, and to advance the County's long-term planning and transportation goals. Comment: 4. The narrative describing the development proposal of the project and the residential uses is extremely flexible. It states that the uses may include and are not limited to the noted housing types. Further, the description of the unit types depicted on the MDP is clear in that it is for illustrative purposes only. This lack of commitment or specificity with the housing units and the MDP would appear to leave the ultimate mix of units and the overall design of the project open to significant modification that may ultimately frustrate the concept and design that has been presented to the County. The applicant should evaluate if it would be more appropriate to provide a greater level of specificity and commitment regarding the housing units and MDP. The more certainty that the Planning Commission and ultimately Board of Supervisors has regarding the ultimate outcome of the project may result in a greater comfort level in the disposition of the application. Response: As noted, the revised Rezoning Application and Master Plan have refined the design concept P for The Villages of Artrip community Core Area. The Core Area as depicted in the revised Master Development Plan dated May 20, 2005 will consist of a minimum residential unit count of 174, commerciaVretail/office/restaurant space totaling 118,550 square feet, and the community open space areas integral to the ecological redesign concept for the Village Pond. The residential unit breakdown specified in the Core Area will consist a minimum of 78 Townhouse units with the remaining 96 residential units being multifamily. Comment: 5. throughout the application there are requests to modify certain elements of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as enabled by Section 1.65-72.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. As required, the applicant shall demonstrate that the requested modification is necessary or justified. It would be helpful for the applicant to consolidate all of the requested modifications in some form of justification statement or document. Further, an alternative dimensional requirement plan and alternate buffer and screening plan should be prepared that clearly identifies the modifications or alternatives that are being requested and the justification for such modification. Presently the various requests are located throughout the application and in the proffer statement. The above would provide clarity in the review and potential ultimate endorsement of modifications and would be most helpful to the rezoning and MIP administration. As we had previously discussed, please find enclosed with these comments a copy of a similar document that was accepted by the County with the Stephenson's Village rezoning application for your information. Dewberry Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan have consolidated residential design criteria in Appendix A of the draft proffer statement. This revised proffer statement requires all residential development to strictly adhere to the Frederick County ordinances, and where applicable to the design guidelines of Appendix A of the proffer statement where innovative housing alternatives are proposed in future Subdivision Design Plans presented for review and approval by Frederick County. These modifications to standard design guidelines are critical to the creation of a viable neo-traditional development. Detailed justification of each revision does not, under such circumstances, seem required but can be discussed further with the Planning staff. Comment: 6. A listing has been provided within the narrative that identities the dimensional standards for which the applicant seeks modification. It is suggested that a separate document is created that would stand alone from the application and also have the ability to be attached by reference to the proffer statement. The justification for the modifications should be addressed in the application. Response: See comment response #5. Comment: 7. It would be desirable for the applicant to expand upon the brief justify action offered for the modifications to the dimensional standards. Further, there does not appear to be a real nexus between the design standard modifications and the design and construction of a portion of Warrior Drive, a major collector road. It may be more appropriate and helpful to the application to recognize the Warrior Drive improvement in relation to older project benefits or modifications such as the overall project density. Response: The revised Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan has committed to the full construction of the bridge for Warrior Drive through the Wakeland Manor subdivision, the full construction of Warrior Drive to the applicants property to meet with the section of Warrior Drive proffered with the Crosspointe Rezoning Application, and the dedication of an elementary school site. This application is therefore justified in proposing the residential densities requested in this application. (Which seems to be more than the other guys have proffered in the past) Conzntent. 8. The applicant has proposed a modification which would result in a reduction of the required parking for the commercial elements of the plan. It may be helpful to expand upon the rationale and justification for this modification request. Further, it is offered that the potential may exist for a further reduction in the visibility of the parking area in front of the core commercial structures. This could be achieved by relegating this parking to an area behind the core commercial buildings and moving the core commercial buildings in a southerly direction or slightly closer to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, further promoting the neo traditional concept. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan have modified the commercial component of the central core of the community. As a result of an extensive market study on the commercial viability of retail in this location, which accounted for already approved retail nodes in immediate site vicinity, the revised Master Development Plan has reduced the total square footage of retail/office space, and in turn reduced the total parking lot surface area supporting the non-residential component. The Rezoning Application currently proposes the development of a total of 118,550 square feet of retail/office space. The Applicant is also proffering to conduct a parking study at the time of final development plans, should it be required to demonstrate the propriety of parking reductions ,,tlSat -may be sought. The applicant requests the modification to reduce or increase the parking requirements by 10% t� better align with current or future market Dewberry 0 • Comment. 9. With regards to the commercial uses in general, and on alternative Landbay D in particular, the application has not committed to the design and layout of the commercial uses and structures. Architectural design standards could be considered as a proffer that would ensure the character and integrity of the design program that has been represented with this application. The concepts and renditions presented would appear to be highly desirable in such a community. However, it should be recognized that as proposed there is no guarantee that the architecture and design would be achieved. The concept presented stands out above the typical suburban developments with unlimited access that is currently prevalent. It is the desire of the County to ensure that what is presented in support of this application is guaranteed with the mechanics of the rezoning application. Further, that the innovative approach offered by the application is ultimately fulfilled. Response: The revised Rezoning Application proffer statement has added a list of building materials to be acceptable for the commercial and residential construction. Comment: 10. It may be appropriate to ask the applicant which scenario is their preferred option for Landbay D and why. The result of the implementation of the option would be a decrease of 80 units, from 900 to a total of 820, and an increase in the commercial square footage of 43,560, from 175,700 to 219,260 square feet. It should be pointed out that the MDP included with the application does not accommodate the commercial conversion of Landbay D. A mechanism to effectuate this should be provided in the proffers or as an alternative section of the MDP in anticipation of this being the preferred scenario. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan no longer have multiple versions planned for former Landbay D. Comment. 11. An important request of the application is that which requests flexibility to change and/or relocate housing types, and as necessary, neighborhood alleys and streets, provided that the total number of residential units and densities set forth for each landbay shall not be exceeded, and that primary access points to proffered roads be similarly maintained. The substantial flexibility that this request offers is extremely problematic when considering this application and its illustrated concept. An extreme result of this flexibility could be a completely different project with only the total number of units as the guiding element for the design. This issue needs to be resolved in favor of the ultimate implementation of the illustrated concept depicted in the Concept and Master Development Plans. The concept that has been presented to the County is in general terms positive and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the requested flexibility leaves open the opportunity to change the project beyond the design and context of the presented project. Response: As noted in comment #4 response, the Rezoning Application is committing of the development concept for the Core Area. This area, as reflected graphically in the revised Master Development Plan, will insure that the concept design remains intact in the community Core through the development process. Dewberry • Comment: 12. An exhibit has been provided that shows conceptual building elevations of the various product types anticipated to be constructed within this development. This exhibit reflects a positive image for the project and would be desirable. However, no commitment has been made in the application to guarantee the successful inclusion of the various product types. It may be desirable for the applicant to proffer the various design elements illustrated in the exhibit. In particular, the urban core of Landbay A with its mix of commercial and residential uses in a well planned and designed environment warrants consideration for such an approach. This focal element of the project is most critical to ensuring the character and function of the mixed use village concept that has been introduced with this application. Response: See response to comment #11. I. Transportation. Comment: 1. It is imperative to call attention to the fact that the Concept Plan, the MDP and its associated road designs, or the proffered transportation improvement program do not address the need to connect the Warrior Drive improvements into the existing and/or approved off -site Warrior Drive improvement projects. The assumptions of the TIA provide for this connection to occur in one direction or another and ultimately in both directions is safe to say that the validity of the project and rezoning application depend on the connection of Warrior Drive to existing sections of Warrior Drive. Coordination should occur with adjacent development projects and satisfaction of this issue should be completely secured with future modifications to the application. I have provided a copy of the adjacent Wakeland Manor projects Warrior Drive design and commitments for your information. Response: The revised Rezoning Application, proffer statement and Master Development Plan have added language and graphic typical sections indicating that the connections to the existing segments planned for Warrior Drive will occur as a result of this application. The following comments relate to the details of the proposed transportation improvements. Comment. 2. Consideration should be given to construction of the ultimate roadway cross section designed for the Warrior Drive improvement portion of this project in a similar manner to the Crosspointe project and the Warrior Drive project south of Route 277 recently completed by the County and VDOT. It is recognized that the design of the typical sections provide for an initial and future typical section. While the initial section for Parkins Mill Road would suffice for a more significant length of time, the importance and location of Warrior Drive, and the projected traffic volumes, would suggest a need to implement the ultimate design of Warrior Drive within a shorter time frame. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan now indicate that the full section of Warrior Drive will be completed prior to the issuance of the 681" residential construction permit. The full pavement section will match the existing pavement section of Warrior Drive constructed through Wakeland Manor. Conversations have been had with representatives of Centex Homes, developer of Wakeland Manor, and Centex has indicated a willingness to assist in constructing the linkage of Warrior Drive to the south. Dewberry I • • Comment: 3. The proposed typical sections indicate the provision of gravel shoulders with the interim and future sections of portions of both Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. This approach is not conducive to bicycle travel. As you are aware, Warrior Drive is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a Bicycle Route. Any accommodation that could be made to facilitate this designation should be considered. Additional paved width in the travel lane or the provision of a paved shoulder consistent with Virginia Department of Transportation guidelines could be introduced into the typical sections. Response: We are aware of the need for bicycle travel opportunities in Frederick County. It is the intent of this development to provide for bicycle travel in trails adjacent to but separated from the northern boundary of Warrior Drive. Comment. 4. Based upon the existing location of the Warrior Drive hiker/biker trail and proposed expansions to the trail it would be appropriate to designate and design the trail along the east side of Warrior Drive through the limits of the property to a point where the transportation improvements connect into the existing or proposed road system. The typical road sections on the MDP should be modified accordingly and should reflect the appropriate width hikeribiker trail. Response: In the process of revising the Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan in response to all agency comments, the Applicant will continue to provide for pedestrian and bicycle circulation separated from the proposed vehicular transportation improvements. Typical sections for proposed trails are included in the Master Development Plan. Comment: 5. The responsibility of the design, dedication, and construction of Lakeside Drive should be further elaborated on with this application. The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes this road connection and the application indicates a recreational use of adjacent Landbay C with access from this road. The ultimate use of the area south west of Warrior Drive in the vicinity of Lakeside Drive may evolve and the connection to existing Lakeside Drive may not be timely, however, access to this portion of the project should be addressed further. Response: Upon further review, the applicant finds that it is appropriate to reserve a 50' the Right-of-way for a possible future connection of Lakeside Drive to Warrior Drive. However, the design and construction of this road does not appear appropriate at this time, when considering that the future access and environmental impacts from the south approaching the applicant's property raise a significant number of planning and design issues. Without adequate information, design and construction of this roadway is premature but the right-of- way will be provided. Comment: 6. Accommodations for the ultimate design of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road should be provided throughout the limits of this property to a point where the roads connect with adjacent projects commitments. This should include accommodations for drainage and trails. { 1f Dewberry 7 • Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan accommodate for the ultimate design of Warrior Drive as detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by PHRA and accepted by VDOT. This includes the construction of Warrior Drive so as to not leave any unconnected segments of this major collector from the terminus points proffered by the Wakeland Manor and Crosspointe Development Plan Applications. Parkins Mill Road will be constructed to the extent of the applicant's property limits as depicted on the revised Master Development Plan. All final road designs, public and private, shall be in accordance with current VDOT design standards and engineering principles, to include accommodations for storm drainage and trail interconnectivity where planned and appropriate, except to the extent modification of those standards for private streets is authorized. Comment. 7. Consideration should he given to extending Parkins Mill Road to a more logical terminus beyond the access point of the final private driveway that is depicted on the MDII. The adjacent Canter Estates V project will provide for the necessary right-of-way dedication for the extension of Parkins Mill Road to accommodate this expansion. I have provided a copy of the adjacent Canter Estates V subdivision design plan for your information. Response: The applicant proposes to extend Parkins Mill Road to the limits of the applicant's property. Comment: 8. The opportunity exists to further address identified community facility needs by anticipating potential locations that may be appropriate for future public uses. Such locations would appear to be adjacent to • existing publicly owned land and land proposed to be provided for recreational uses. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan have added the dedication of land for an elementary school site. This dedicated site would also serve as a community facility through the creation and use of soccer fields and playground equipment. Additional tot lots and 25 meter outdoor pool and bath house as shown on revised MDP. • III. Proffer Statement. Comment: 1. The initial and perhaps most significant proffer is Land Use Proffer 1 .1. The language contained within this proffer is extremely permissive and provides complete flexibility to modify the design, layout, and concept of the project from what is promoted with the. rezoning application. As presented, the language opens up the core concept of the application to be frustrated. The County is in general support of the mixed use village concept proposed with the application and would seek to ensure its completion with a commitment to a project that is in conformance with the initially presented MDP. Response: Revisions to both the Proffer Statement and the Master Development Plan have addressed the staff s expressed concerns and have committed to specific development details within the Core Area and other portions of the development. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. IF Dewberry 8 . Comment: 2. The commercial development of the property should be in a style consistent with that presented in the application. The proffers do not ensure that this will occur. No architectural details and site design elements have been proffered and secured. It would appear as though the core commercial area is integral to the design of the project and the success of the concept. It may be appropriate for the applicant to consider this within the proffer statement. Response: How far are we committing here? Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. c Comment. 3. It has been suggested that the alternative development standards included in the proffer statement be detached from the statement and stand alone. The proffer statement should then make specific reference to the stand alone document as an attachment to the proffers and would therefore be recognized as an integral part of the proffer package. Response: The revised Proffer Statement is providing a comprehensive description, Appendix A, in order to clarify the details of the alternative development standards. Appendix A will function as a stand alone design guide for the future site engineering and subdivision process. Refer to�the revised Proffer Statement. Comment. 4. It would be helpful for the application t further describe the shared parking concept proposed for the commercial areas of this application. A re ction in the amount of 20 percent may be appropriate. However, no justification has been provided for t ' reduction as required. Response: Recent Master Development Plan revisio have reduced the quantity of retail/office area to the extent that the applicant will no longer require any spe ' consideration for shared parking arrangements. The development project will provide parking in sufficie quantities as required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 5. A phased approach to the development of this project is desirable. The details of the phasing program offered warrants modifications to ensure that an increased amount of commercial comes on line earlier in the development process. Particular attention should be paid to providing for the inclusion of the core commercial area as early as possible in the projects lifecycle. This would provide for a key component of the overall concept of the project. Presently, 577 residential units could be in place prior to the inclusion of 10,000 square feet of commercial. The entire 900 units could be developed prior to the initiation of the remaining commercial product being introduced. In fact, there appears to be no guarantee that the commercial will be provided. Certainly, there is no assurance that the commercial will be provided in the preferable manner represented in the concept plan. Response: The Applicant proposes to develop the property in three Phases, and is now committing to the construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial development prior to the initiation of Phase III. Because the economic viability of the project for commercial uses is so dependent upon the completion of Warrior Drive through Crosspointe as well as through Wakeland Manor, the Applicant does not believe that it is reasonable, or even possible, to commit to additional commercial development, while at the same time making specific provision for it when the market permits. It can be fairly anticipated that such development will occur once the necessary road connections are in place, and if the market permits earlier development, it will be constructed. In order to address this, the Applicant has employ fiscal impact modeling that assumes no commercial development, for purposes of calculating reasonable financial commitments through the proffer statement. Refer ~' Dewberry E �J Comment. 6. Please correct the reference in proffer 3.1.5 regarding the early construction of Warrior Drive and its connection to area roads. Response: The revised proffer statement accommodates this concern. Warrior Drive is extensively treated elsewhere. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment. 7. Connection should be provided for the provision of necessary community facilities in relationship to the phasing program. A summary of the requirements of the Ordinance should be provided which would include consideration of the additional recreational units for the small lot single family housing alternative. It may be appropriate to further clarify the commitments regarding community facilities in the proffer statement. An elaborate arrangement of community facilities has been expressed in the Concept Plan. However, the flexibility proffered by the applicant may enable a substantially alternative approach to be provided. Response: The final development plans for all phases of this application shall be fully compliant with the Frederick County recreational unit requirements set forth in the zoning ordinances. Refer to the Proffer Statement. Comment: 8. The architectural, signage and landscaping proOrs could be more illustrative and committal to achieving a certain design for the Villages project. The proXered buffering should be consistent with the alternative buffer and screening plan that is developed for Xproject. Also, please provide the comprehensive sign plan that is referenced in proffer 4.3. Response: Again I must ask if we are committing tj these elements. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement Comment: 9. It should be noted that the minimum acceptable standard for hiker biker trails is ten feet in width. Proffer 5.1 should reflect this requirement. Response: The revised proffer statement has modified proffer 5.1 to reflect a Hiker biker trail width of ten feet. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 10. It would be appropriate for the application to address the full impacts on the Community Facilities of the proposed project. Presently, the values have been omitted from the proffer statement. A significant relationship exists between the phasing of the project, the inclusion of the commercial land uses, and the impacts to community facilities. The identified fiscal impacts of the project should be fully addressed with this application. A reevaluation of the phasing may assist in addressing the impacts of the residential components of the project. Alternately, it may be appropriate to offset the impacts of the residential components of the project by contributing a corresponding amount that represents the impact of only the residential components of the project. This may ease any concern regarding the timing of the inclusion of the commercial components of the project. Dewberry 10 • Response: The revised rezoning application and proffer statement, in conjunction with the Fiscal Impact Model run by the Frederick County Planning Department, proffers monetary contributions to off -set impacts that the proposed development may have on the community. In addition to the proffered monetary contributions, the Applicant would construct the ultimate design of the connection of Warrior Drive from the Wakeland Manor Subdivision to the Crosspointe Subdivision, which includes an off -site $2.5 million bridge improvement in the Wakeland Manor right-of-way dedication accessing the Applicant's property. This capital improvement to community facilities significantly contributes to the greater transportation needs of Frederick County. The Applicant is further willing to provide land for construction of an elementary school. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 11. A fine example of a specimen Delaware Pine tree is identified in the application and exists on the property in the general location of the original home site and gravesite. Further consideration should be given to the preservation of this tree and the incorporation of the tree into the overall design of the project. Response: In the process of revising the Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan, open spaces have been created in the vicinity of the specimen tree noted. It is the intent of the Applicant to attempt to preserve this tree during the preparation of final engineering documents and construction. Comment: 12. The character of the environmental areas adjacent to the steep slope areas and the mature woodlands that exist in this vicinity are dramatic examples that should be incorporated into the project. Serious consideration should be given to adjusting the limits of development to minimize the impacts on these resources. This appears to be a more critical concern adjacent to the Opequon Creek. Such modifications would appear to have a minimal impact on the overall development of the project and would result in enhanced areas of environmental protection. Response: Specific attention has been given to the wooded slopes near the Opequon Creek boundary in the Master Development Plan revisions. Additional separation has been achieved in some areas of noted concern. Specifically, the limits of development have been moved further away from Opequon Creek to further protect the identified environmental resource. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan. Comment: 13. The notations regarding the proffered transportation improvement should be modified to ensure that the road improvements related to a specific phase of the development are substantially completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for that particular phase of the project. This is consistent with existing policy of the County Department of Public Works. The design, bonding, and platting of the phases of the project will occur prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project consistent with customary land development practices and County policy. Response: The Applicant acknowledges that prior to building permits, related road improvements must be designed, bonded and platted consistent with Frederick County land development policy. } Dewberry 11 Comment: 14. Specific language should he included regarding the roundabout intersection improvement project at the intersection of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. In addition, accommodations should be provided for the connection of Lakeside Drive, or an alternative entrance to this area of the project, into the roundabout intersection. Response: The proposed Warrior Drive roundabout will be designed to all applicable VDOT design criteria and standards. The review and approval process will involve key VDOT personnel having expertise in roundabout design and construction. As the County is likely aware, VDOT has materially changed its policies on the use of roundabouts because evidence has demonstrated that they can be safer and more effective in moving traffic than stop signed or signalized intersections. Should VDOT decide not to have a roundabout, then the intersection with Lakeside Drive will be signalized. The Applicant proffers to build Lakeside Drive north of Warrior Drive (Parkins Mill Road) to the Applicants property line; or the Applicant will provide the right-of- way required to connect to Cantor Estates where construction at the property line cannot be completed at the point in time when build out is finished. Comment. 15. It may he appropriate to consider advancing the substantial completion of the transportation improvement package for the entire project with the initial phase of the projects development. Response: The phasing of the transportation improvements and have been revised to satisfy the needs of VDOT as determined through the analysis of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for this rezoning application. Comment: 16. Proffer 15.4.1 should be revised to reflect the correct number of units as the approach appears to be cumulative. Also, as previously mentioned, consideration should be given with this section to the completion of Warrior Drive and the extension of Parkins Mill Road to a more logical terminus. Response: Proffer 15.4.1 has been revised to reflect the revised Rezoning Application and MDP. The Applicant proffers to build Warrior Drive from Wakeland Manor to the Warrior Drive roundabout location as a full -section. Comment: 17. It would be appropriate for the purpose of clarity to proffer the width of the right-of-way that is to be dedicated in conjunction with the transportation improvements for this project. Response: The revised Proffer Statement has specified where appropriate the width of the Right -of -Way to be dedicated for the future construction of Warrior Drive, Parkins Mill Road and Lakeside Drive. P Dewberry 12 The applicant has revised the RezoningApplication Proffer Statement and Pp Master Development Plan in response to multiple reviewing agency comments. We offer the following resubmission as a result of these application modifications. The applicant appreciates the opportunity to resubmit the revised Rezoning Application Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan to your office for additional review and comment. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to review or discuss the resubmission of this Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan. Sincerely, David L. Frank, CLA Project Manager Enclosure: P:\Project\76030007\Admn\5-4-05response revisions\8-Ruddy-Planning-5-5-05.doc • Dewberry 11P Dewberry 0 Record of Communication • Topic ARTRIP REZONING PACKET Greg said he would not sign off on the comments because no amount of funds for the Volunteer fire dept. was designated as a contribution. According to Greg: The VFD are volunteers and receive no compensation for their fire fighting, but they buy the equipment (engines, ambulances, etc) and house and maintain them while the Fire and Rescue get all the funds. The VFD have had no funds for 3 years while the F&R have had 3 raises and get the money in the proffers. They will have to refuse to cover the Artrip area, because without any funds they won't have the equipment needed to do so. They want an amount designated at a contribution for the VFD stated in the proffers. I spoke to Mike about this situation the next day and he said they could state their objections and what they want as their comments. I have called Greg on his pager and left a message. So far I have received no answer. updated 1/03 0) .: Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984-5600 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)) P P�Y� , Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81. 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north .of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached letter from VDOT to Mr. Michael T. Wiley of Dewberry dated VDOT Signature & Date: < D Notice to VDOT - Please Return Form to Applicant 17 COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA Philip A. Shucet COMMISSIONER March 17, 2005 Mr. Michael T. Wiley C/O Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Drive Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031.'OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 Ref The Villages at Artrip TIA/Proffer Review Dear: Mr. Wiley: JERRYA. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 642 and 719 These routes: are the VDOT roadways which has been'. considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation. proffers offered in the Villages at Artrip rezoning application dated November 3, 2004 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. The following are comments -we feel need to be addressed. The first and second phase of the TIA identify. the southern connection to Warrior Drive as their planned access corridor and not until Phase 3- is a connection to the north included into the TIA. The current proffer statement dose not address any verbiage of how this access will be constructed. The Developer should be aware that the Wakeland portion would not extend to their northern property line due to the agreement that the connection to Tasker Road is built in lieu of extending Warrior north of the Vincent Drive intersection. Phase 1 (Projected to be completed by the end of 2006) • It appears the impact to the Tasker/Warrior intersection is acceptable but it is not clear if the Wakeland Manor traffic is included in the intersection assessment. • The bridge at the southern. property line will need to be designed and built to the ultimate build out of the roadway. • Asphalt widths of the 2-lane portion of the 4-lane roadway'to match that of the Wakeland Manor section. VirgiriiaDOT.org WE KEEP;VIRGINIA MOVING Mr. Michael T. Wiley Ref: The Villages at Artrip March 17, 2005 Page #2 Phase 2 (Projected to be completed by the end of 2009) • The ADT generated by this development will place close to 7,000 trips on the section of Warrior and Tasker. This combinedwith the traffic generated by Wakeland Manor will have the portion of Warrior Drive between Vincent Drive and Tasker exceeds the 8,000 ADT cap. • Warrior is approaching 8,000 trips per day within the Artrip footprint and raises the issue of the acceptance of a partial roadway.per the acceptance standards. Partial acceptance is not acceptable if the projected ADT. is:expected to exceed 8,000 ADT'within 10 years. (24 VAC 30-91-70). • Due.to the above mentioned bullet; Warrior Road will need to be paved to the full 4-lame configuration bythe end of Phase 2 : or.to the connection of the Crosspointe Subdivision, whichever occurs first. • The proffers currently do -not .offer any off -site improvements. Off -site intersection improvements may be required as the.development's traffic impact increases. • Signalization agreements for the intersections of Warrior Drive within the development's footprint are required. Phase 3 (Projected to be completed by the end of 2012) • This phase assumes Warrior Drive to Crosspointe Boulevard corridor has been completed. While this relives the pressure on Tasker west of Lakeside Drive by a third, it will place almost.12,000 trips of background traffic through this development. • With proper traffic signal placemenfand intersection improvements, as deemed necessary from Phase 3 development & site plan, the project's development phasing appears to be acceptable. 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: Severith.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: Sincer y, Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer LAI/rf Enclosure — Comment Sheet xc: Mr. Eric Lawrence Mr. John Callow MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGENCY REVIEW COMMENTS • • May 19, 2005 Mr. David L. Frank, CLA Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Suite C Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Rezoning Application for the Village at Artrip Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Frank: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 -.. _! MAY 1 9 2005 I We have reviewed your responses to our initial review comments dated December 20, 2004, and offer the following: 1. Your response to our comment (#2) related to cornpletion of the bridge over the unnamed Opequon tributary indicates that the project will provide four (4) paved lanes for the full length of Warrior Drive prior to the issuance of the 681" residential permit in Phase III of the project. The actual revised proffer indicates that the applicant will design and bond the traffic improvements prior to the issuance of the 681` residential building permit. The proffer statements related to residential development should indicate that the infrastructure associated with roads and drainage shall be constructed in accordance with Frederick County's current erosion and sediment control ordinance prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Your response to our comment (#3) concerning the use of Lot 121, Section VIII in Lakewood Manor as temporary access is not satisfactory. As we had previously indicated, Frederick County will not approve the use of this lot as a permanent or temporary access to the proposed project site. This conclusion applies to any access including limited use by certain construction equipment. We will not grant a temporary construction access through this lot. In your response to our comment (#8), you have indicated that the HOA will be responsible for maintaining the BMP facilities that will not be maintained by the county. First, Frederick County will not maintain any of the BMP facilities 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • Village at Artrip Rezoning Comments Page 2 May 19, 2005 proposed for this project. Secondly, this requirement should be indicated in the proffer statement. 4. Your response to our comment (#9) does not address the impact on solid waste disposal. It is suggested that you reference the impact on our local landfill as well as the requirement to provide curbside trash pickup as indicated in the proffer statement. We will grant our approval of the subject rezoning when the above issues have been satisfactorily addressed. HE S/rl s cc: Planning and Development File A:\vitlaheatnrtriprucom.wp i S incerely, Harvey E'! trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Fire Marshal Mail to: i Hand deliver to: Frederick County Fire Marshal 1 st Floor Attn: Fire Marshal 107 N. Kent Street 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-6350 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Phone Number: 540-678-2700 Winchester, VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of the request: The Villlages at Artrip • Location of property: I-81, and Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road 150' north of Fair Lawn Court C Fire Marshal's Comments: Page 26 One mile west of (VA Route 649) A Route 1176). n.A Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department •Office of the Fire Marshal Plan Review and Comments VIRGINIA Control number Date received MDP04-0021 R 5/6/2005 Project Name Winchester Artrip LLC Address City 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester Type Application Tax ID Number Master Development 75-A-99A Current Zoning Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation • Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Date reviewed 5/17/2005 Applicant Dewberry State Zip VA 22601 Fire District 11 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System No Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway/Aisleway Width Not Identified Date Revised 5/1 /2005 Applicant Phone 540-678-2700 Rescue District 11 Election District Shawnee Residential Sprinkler System Yes Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards No Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature+ • • Yes Timothy L. Welsh Title �uvg1� r"y'tiuy/!'5r 7) • • 0 REZONING COMMENTS ARTRIP Department of Parks and Recreation's Comments: • The area identified as a school site and open space for use by the Parks and Recreation Department does not appear to be adequate to accommodate both uses. • The typical section on page three of five of the Master Development Plan, indicates trails to be between five and ten feet in width. The Parks and Recreation Department recommends all trail to be a minimum of ten feet in width. The revised proffer statement has modified proffer 5.1 to reflect ten foot bike trails. • The Proffer Statement should include language which indicates the bridge design (the proffer statement, section 14.2.1.1) will accommodate bicycle lanes. • The proposed monetary proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be less than what the impact model would indicate is needed to offset the impact of this development. Signature and Date: • Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent • s�dente tii �(. o1F c Ps' Frederick County Public Schools Visit us at w'ww.frederick.k1Zva.us December 3, 2004 Winchester Artrip LLC c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Wiley: RE: The Villages at Artrip Project e-mail: kapocsis@frederick.k12.va.us. This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning application for the proposed Villages at Artrip project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 190 single-family homes, 438 town houses, and 272 multi -family homes will yield 91 high school students, 91 middle school students, and 251 elementary school students for a total of 433 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. DtC 0 8 2004 Dewberry -Winchester SMK/dkr Respectfully yours, Stephen Kapocsi Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent cc: William C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools 540-662-3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-662-3890 • • Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: i Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority 315 Tasker Road Attn: Engineer Stephens City, Virginia P.O. Box 1877 (540) 868-1061 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Sanitation Authority with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the MDP with the sheet. Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Phone Number: 540-678-2700 Winchester, VA 22601 Name of The and/or description of the request: Lges at Artrip Location of ro Tax Map property: I-81, 3/4 mile and 150' north 75— A , Parcel 99A. north of Tasker Road of Fair Lawn Court C One mile west (VA Route 649 A Route 1176). of Frederick County Sanitation Authority's Comments: 1. 1n cm mr arpa XMffr dnpc rent al JOW water rx] sewer 1 i nes in hei r ri ght-of=rav 2. You will need to run a hvdraulic model for the water system A lamer distribution line may be required. 3. Connections to existing water lines from adjacent Page 22 may oe required. w� r NOV 1 5 2004 '_:� Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Dr. Bldg B Suite C, Winchester, VA 22601 Atlanta, GA EA Fairfax, VA 0 Chicago, a. Baltimore, MD IN Fredericksburg, VA �,i� •. r, ka f Transmittal j MAY 0 ?_ t�5 t Phone 540.678.2700 x' 477703"' Gaithersburg, MD � Manassas, VA Iffl Leesburg, VA 0 Lanham, MD 0 Winchester, VA To: !Frederick County Sanitation Authority :Date: 5/6/2005 Project No: 1276014 P.O. Box 1877 Project Name: Villiages at Artrip Winchester VA 22604 Reference: jCarbon Copy:1 ttention: (John Whitacre We Transmit: the following: as per your request R] prints ® under separate cover specifications ❑� by mail ® change order 0 by messenger ® shop drawings by pick up ® reproducibles byovemight ® samples �® carrier product literature N Q computations ® descriptions 0 for: your approval your review and comment FU your file/use ® revision and submission ® distribution Fail Was requested by It as approved by ® as submitted for approval by please acknowledge receipt of enclosures 0 return enclosures to us Copies: Date: Number: Description: --� 1 5/6/2005 Master Development Plan 1 5/6/2005 Proffers Statement 15/6/2005 Comment Response Letter r ments: If enclosures are not as noted, please notify us at pnce Transmittal # 4509 SFZ& Davis LLC is an equal opportunity employer and. as such. complies with Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11357. Sent `C-- D.cTv1dctFrank17w— Jun --- T-0. - _r { Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County -Winchester Health Department, Mail to: Frederick -Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Hand deliver to: 2nd Floor, Suite 200 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia (540) 722-3480 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with the sheet. Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Phone Number: 540-678-2700 Winchester, VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of the request: The Villlages at Artrip Location of property: Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649) and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court VA Route 1176 . Frederick County -Winchester• Health Department's Comments: .LS 6 n j r-c .,2,0- e C� ✓V.4: Page 29 DEC 0 1 2004'j • Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Town of Middletown Mai to: i Town of Middletown Attn: Town Manager P.O. Box 96 Middletown, Virginia 22645 Hand deliver to: 7875 Church Street Middletown Town Hall Middletown, VA (540) 869-2226 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with the sheet. Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Phone Number: 540-678-2700 Winchester, VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of the request: The Villlages at Artrip Location of property: Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649) and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176) Town of Middletown Comments: r nCO004 Dewberry -Winchester Page 35 • Request Master Development Plan Comments Town of Stephens City Mail to: Town of Stephens City Aft: Town Manager P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Hand deliver to: Town of Stephens City Stephens City Town Hall Stephens City, VA (540) 869-3087 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible to assist the agency with their review. Please attach three copies of the MDP with the sheet. Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Phone number: 540-678-2700 Winchester, VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of the request: The Villlages at Artrip Location of property: Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649) and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Town of Stephens City Comments: ti cyl,} r� • • Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments City of Winchester Ma' to: i Hand deliver to: Winchester Planning Department 15 N. Cameron Street Attn: Planning Director Rouss City Hall 15 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-1815 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with the sheet. Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley _ 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Phone Number. 540-678-2700 Winchester VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of the request: The Villlages at Artrip Location of property: Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649) and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176) W I I I�_I ICE I E'1' H 11'FJLII- I ��'+�L��C�GL� �•O 0 is I+rederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Applicatpon Package Request f9r, Plan Comments Winchester Regional Airport Mail to: i eland deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport 491 Airport .Road Attn: Executive Director (Route 645, off of Route 522 South) 491 Airport Road (540) 662-2422 Winchestcr, Virginia 22602 Plcasc fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach owe (1) copy of the MDP with the sheet. Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg _ B, Suite C Phone Number: 540-678-2700 Winchester, VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of the request: The Villlages at Artrip Location ofproperty: _ Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A One mile west of I-81, 3 4 mile north of Tasker Rood VA Route 649 and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176) Winchester Regional Airport Comments: 1151ce__x4r,-C:� 4-1 6( I c Page 30 DEC 0 9 lF,4 I ---_ _------- --i • s� SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA / WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT December 8, 2004 Michael T. Wiley 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Building B, Suite C Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Application Master Pian Development Plan Comments The Villages at Artrip Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Wiley: The above referenced Rezoning Application/Master Plan has been reviewed and it appears that the proposed site plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport as the majority of the subdivision falls outside of the airport's Part 77 surface. No special requirements or conditions are requested on behalf of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director DE • 14M COMMENTS: DEPT. OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA E STREET NAME COMMENTS SUBDIVISION COMMENTS DATE: May 10, 2005 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Villages at Artirp STAFF MEMBER: Marcus Lemasters, Director 1. Frederick County Code, Chapter 56, Buildings, Numbering of, - ,Roads, Naming of, 56-4: "Any master development plan, subdivision plan, or site plan submitted for review by the Department ofPlanning and Development shall also be submitted to the Department of Geographic Information Systems to review proposed road names and road name requirements." A. The Department of GIS is not required to review Re -zoning Requests or Re -zoning Proffer Statements. B. Chapter 56 of the County Code does not specifically state that road names are required in a Master Development Plan (NIDP), but allows GIS to review a plan if it does present roadways and road names. MDP requirements are set forth by the Department ofPlanning and Development. IfPlanning and Development mandates that road names are not required for a MDP, road names will be reviewed during the subdivision process of development. GIS reviews and comments on MDP information as provided. If road names are not presented, they cannot be checked against the Official Road Name List. Therefore no comment can be presented on the road names. The Department of GIS will comment on road layout if it affects or regulates road name suffixes, roadway and name breaks, and numbering. C. The County Code requires structure numbering to be assigned during the subdivision phase. Structure numbering is not complete until an appropriate road name has been assigned. Therefore a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) may not be issued without road naming being complete. 2. Noting comments stated in section 1, the following comments are given concerning the proposed MDP, dated 05/04/05: 0 A. Warrior Drive and Lakeside Drive are continuations of existing roadways and names. 0 Villages at Artrip MDP Comments (Cont.) Page 2 B. Parkins Mill Road will not be accepted as a road name, It conflicts with roadways and names already in the system, and is not considered an extension of an existing roadway name C. The potential for up to 21 road names has been noted. D. Any "Private Road" that is the primary entrance for four or more properties must be named before numbering/addressing can be completed. E. This MDP is presented as a suburban setting and not a rural setting. Therefore, future road name with such suffixes as Road, Lane, Loop, Trail, Bypass, Grade, Highway, Interstate, Overlook, Pike, and Turnpike will not be accepted into the system. F. Acceptable road name suffixes for this development include Alley, Avenue, Boulevard, Circle, Court, Drive, Place, Plaza, Square, Street, Terrace, and Way. 3. The Department of GIS maintains a current Official Street Name List in the department's web page within the Frederick County web site. Future names maybe checked against this list to avoid duplication and possible rejection. Chapter 56 of the Frederick County Code contains the regulations and requirements for naming new roadways. This information may also be found in the GIS Department's web pages. Frederick County Planning and Development, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601, (540)665-5614 i so Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Inspections Department Mail to: i Hand deliver to: Frederick County Inspections Department 4th Floor Attn: Building Official 107 N. Kent Street 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5650 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Inspections Department with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Phone Number: 540-678-2700 Winchester, VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of the request: The Villlages at Artrip Location of property: Tax Man 75—((A)) Parcel 99A One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176) Frederick County Inspections Department's Continents: �•f cdc' ick Count` ]nspi dons Departtuent use, Unly " D ate recc edA-410 � Nimtibet'. 1 2 3 45 Date reviewed 1, Date `ti,Gitov .d 'Ja�: Page 23 Re, ision required +����''t f Fw �. �, p'-� 611 West Juba[ Early Drive aY•, ,.•.a Suite C Dewberry Winchester, VA 22601 • May 6, 2005 Candice E Perkins Planner Il County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: The Villages at Artrip Master Development Plan Dear Candice: 540 678 2700 540 678 2703 fax www.dewberrycom On behalf of Winchester-Artrip LLC, applicant, we are resubmitting for additional review and comment the revised Master Development Plan. Upon receiving a letter for you office dated 02/15/2005, the applicant has revised the Rezoning Application Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan and offers the following responses to your comments: Preliminary Review Comments: Comment: Each page of the submitted MDP must include a signed certificate of a surveyor, engineer or architect. Response: The revised MDP` includes the requested information. Comment: Waivers. Please note that the following waivers will be required for this project: 44-24C of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance to allow private streets to serve as the access to the commercial areas and to waive the private road length minimums. 144-17G (1) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance to allow cul-de-sacs to be more than 1,000' in length (needed for landbay 3) 165-65D of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance for a waiver for the setbacks for single family detached cluster (detached garage) 165-65H to allow more than four units in a multiplex. 165-65H to allow more than 40% of the property to be developed with duplexes, multiplexes, atrium housed, weak -link townhouses, townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those housing types. Dewberry & Davis LLC Response: Proffer statement and MDP revisions now only require modifications to section • 165-65H of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Detailed descriptions of requested alterations of the multiplexe unit are found in Apendix A of the proffer statement. Comment: For each modification that is sought, the applicant must demonstrate why this modification is necessary and justifiable. Response: Justification for this request has been placed in the proffer statement. Comment: Adjoining Properties. Show the adjoining properties across the Opequon Creek. Also, for the adjoining properties under the uses, show the use as residential or agricultural not the code for the use. Response: We have added the requested information to the revised MDP. Comment: Residential Density vs. Commercial. Provide the overall residential density. 0 Response: We have added the requested information to the revised MDP. Comment: Road Right -of -Way. Show the acreage in private roads. Also, provide the width of the private roads. Response: We have added the requested information to the revised MDP. Comment: Utilities. Show the location of any existing easements as well as the location of all water and sewer mains and all other utilities. Notation must be placed on the plan that states that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority can serve this development. Response: We have added the requested information to the revised MDP. Comment: Riparian Buffers. The disturbance of natural waterways is prohibited except when necessary for public utilities, public facilities or public roads. Areas outside of the allowed disturbance areas must be shown within a riparian buffer. Response: We have added the requested information to the revised MDP. Comment: Environmental Features. Include a table that breaks down the following: total f Dewberry environmental features, total disturbed, total preserved, and total in open space. 0 Response: We have added the requested information to the revised MDP. Comment: Wetlands. Include the amount in wetlands. Response: We have added the requested information to the revised MDP. Comment: Commercial/Retail. Color for the commercial/retail office in the summary tabulations do not match the color on the plan. Response: The revised MDP. Comment: Required Parking. Include the required off-street parking calculations for each housing type. Response: We have added the requested information to the revised MDP. Comment: Adequate Distance. Please demonstrate that there will be adequate distance from the garages provided to the roads and alleyways to accommodate parking/ vehicular maneuvering. Also, these distances be adequate for installation of the required utilities? Response: Final site engineering shall conform to all applicable VDOT design standards and accommodate vehicular maneuvering. Comment: Setbacks. Clarify if the centerline of the alleys is the edge of the property. Response: No response. Comment: Road Efficiency Buffer. The road efficiency buffer must be placed on both sides of the road. Response: The revised MDP has added the requested information. 0 Comment: Buffer Width. The road efficiency buffers shown on sheet 3 of the Master Plan do E# Dewberry • not reflect what is being described in the proffer statement (section 4.4). The proffer statement states that a 35' buffer is being used; however, the plan shows a 50' buffer. Please clarify if a 50' reduced buffer is being utilized or if a 35' buffer is being asked for. Response: Revisions the both the MDP and the proffer statement now reflect a 50' reduced buffer. Comment: Residential Separation Buffers. Provide a detail for the residential separation buffer that would be required from the garden apartment area to the adjacent single family development. Response The revised MDP has provided a detail for the required residential separation buffer. Comment. Tree Preservation. A buffer area utilizing the existing woodlands should be considered along the single family development adjacent to the southwestern portion of the property (Lakewood Manor). Response: MDP layout revisions provide for a reserved oped space strip to buffer Landbay B to the existing Wakeland Manor. The applicant has revised the Rezoning Application Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan in response to multiple reviewing agency comments. We offer the following resubmission as a result of these application modifications. The applicant appreciates the opportunity to resubmit the revised Master Development Plan to your office for add ional review and comment. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to review or discuss the resubmission of this Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan. Sincerely, David L. Frank, CLA Project Manager Enclosure: 0 P:\Project\76030007\Admn\5-4-05response revisions\10-CommentRes onseArtri candice erkinsre P P p v.doc � 9) • • Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984-5600 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)) p Pert3'� , Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: I Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: R4 Acreage: 169.924 ISee attached letter from VDOT to Mr. Michael T. Wiley of Dewberry dated VDOT Signature & Date: Notice to VDOT - Please Return Form to Applicant 20 G aft COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY Philip A. Shucet 14031,01-13 VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22624 March 17, 2005 Mr. Michael T. Wiley C/O Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Drive Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Ref The Villages at Artrip TIA/Proffer Review JERRYA.COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 Dear.Mr. Wiley: - The documentation within the application .to rezone this property appears to have significant .measurable impact on Routes 642 and 719'. These routes' are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation_ proffers offered in the Villages at Artrip rezoning application dated November 3, 2004 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. The following are comments we feel need to be addressed. The first and second phase of the TIA identify..the southern connection to Warrior Drive as their planned access corridor and not until Phase 3 is a connection to the tiorth included into the TIA'. ........._.._..._.__..... The current proffer statement dose not address any verbiage of hove this access will be constructed. The Developer should be aware that the Wakeland portion would not extend to their northern property line due to the agreement that the:conneetion to Tasker Road is built in lieu of extending Warrior north of the Vincent Drive intersection. Phase 1 (Protected to be completed by the end of 2006) • It appears the impact to the Tasker/Warrior intersection is acceptable but it is not clear if the Wakeland Manor traffic is included in the intersection assessment. • The bridge at the southern. property line will need to be designed and built to the ultimate build out of the roadway. • Asphalt widths of the 2-lane portion of the 4-lane roadway to match that of the Wakeland . Manor section. VirgiriiaDOT.org WE KEEP'VIRGINIA MOVING Mr. Michael T. Wiley Ref: The Villages at Artrip March 17, 2005 Page #2 Phase 2 (Projected to be completed by the end of 2009) • The ADT generated by this development will place close to 7,000 trips on the section of Warrior and Tasker. This combined with the traffic generated by Wakeland Manor will have the portion of Warrior Drive between Vincent Drive and Tasker exceeds the 8,000 ADT cap. Warrior is approaching 8,000 trips per. day within the Artrip footprint and raises the issue of the acceptance of a partial roadway per the acceptance standards. Partial acceptance is not acceptable if the projected ADT is expected to exceed 8,000 ADY within 10 years. (24 VAC 30-91-70). • Due to the above mentioned bullet, Warrior Road will need to be paved to the full 4-lane configuration by the end of Phase 2 or.to the connection of the Crosspointe Subdivision, whichever occurs first. • The proffers currently do .not offer any off -site improvements. Off -site intersection improvements may be required as the. development's traffic impact increases. • Signalization agreements for the intersections of Warrior Drive within the development's footprint are required. Phase 3 (Projected to be completed by the end of 2012) • . This phase assumes Warrior Drive to Crosspointe Boulevard corridor has been completed. While this relives the pressure on Tasker west of Lakeside Drive by a third, it will place almost.12,000 trips of background traffic through this development. • . With proper traffic signal placemenfand intersection improvements, as deemed necessary from Phase 3 development & site plan, the project's development phasing appears to be acceptable. 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 ninusf 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. Sincer y, Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer LAUrf Enclosure — Comment Sheet xc: Mr. Eric Lawrence Mr. John Callow ;y Dewberry 1.0 The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 SECTION 7 PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT • • C] T A X R E C E I P T - Y E A R FREDERICK COUNTY C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 2004 REAL ESTATE TAXES 169.01 ACRES 75 A Acres: 2 0 0 4 Ticket #:00372480001 @C Date 5/24/2004 Register: JKM/JK Trans. #: 15163 Dept # RE200401 ACCT# 31977 Previous 99A Balance $ 2775.83 169.01 Principal Being Paid $ 2775.83 Land: 760500 Imp: 0 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .00 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC Amount Paid $ 2775.83 C/O THE TOWER COMPANIES *Balance Due 11501 HUFF CT as of 5/24/2004$ .00 N BETHESDA, MD 20895 1043 Check 2879.86 # BK OF NY Pd by WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and. Master Development Plan for The Villages at Artrip ' Tax Map 75-A, Parcel 99A Frederick County, Vi,rgiraia June.17, 2005 Revised September 9, 2005 Prepared by: Winchester Artrip Limited Liability Company c/o The Tower Companies 11501 Huff Court North Bethesda, MD 20895 301.984.7000 301.984.7601 fax Attn: Stuart Margulies . smargulies @towercompanies.com Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Drive' .Building B, Suite C . , Winchester, VA 22601 540.678.2700 540.678.2703 fax Attn: David L. Frank, CLA dfrank@ dewberry.corn Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich,.& Terpak, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway Suite 300 Pririce.William, VA 22192 703.680.4664 . 703.680.'2161 Attn: John H. Foote, Esq. lfoote @ pw.thelandlawyers.com Dewberry IMPACT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VILLAGES AT ARTRIP September 9, 2005 Introduction) The Winchester Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia corporation, has submitted its application for consideration of the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to rezone the Winchester Artrip Limited Partnership Property ("the Property" hereinafter) located in Frederick County, Virginia from Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Planned Community District (R4). The Property is identified in detail submissions that have been filed with the Planning Department. The Property is currently vacant and was formerly used for farming activities for at least the past 40 years. It is within the County's 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP) South Frederick Planning Area. In addition, the entire Property lies within the County's designated Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer & Water Service Area (SWSA) and is adjacent to several prominent developments either under construction or approved, including Crosspointe Center to the west, Canter Estates V to the east, and Lakewood Manor and Wakeland Manor to the south. The applicant believes this request is timely and will assure the County significant tax revenue, and more importantly, will provide an orderly development of this Property that provides a diverse mix of uses and products in accordance with the spirit, intent and goals of the CPP. Development Proposal The proposed project is aptly named for the various small villages contemplated for this nixed -use residential and commercial development. These villages include five (5) land bays that include single-family and multi -family residential uses, a neighborhood commercial center, a central "Core Area" integrating the commercial center, interior and perimeter "greens" or "commons" as depicted on the MDP, and a comprehensive road network to connect the villages and reflect master -planned roads designated on the CPP. A significant portion of the project is laid out on a grid pattern and is oriented with "true" north, similar to traditional development planning, both of which are characteristics of neo-traditional design. I This Executive Summary expands upon and describes certain details of the proposed project that have developed in detail during the Applicant's discussions with the various review agencies. This revised Executive Summary is substituted for previous versions, and the Exhibits heretofore filed are incorporated herein by reference. (00013264.DOC / 2 IAS Narrative 090905.doc 000419 000004) M The proposed gross residential density is 5.40 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC), with densities within the various land bays ranging from 2.59 to 21.08 DU/AC. The residential land uses will include a mix of single-family and multifamily products that are specified on the MDP and in the associated proffers. We note that two proposed residential products will be new to the Frederick County market, as well as product types not specifically listed within the Zoning Ordinance. These are the "stacked -flats" units, and apartments over retail. These multifamily product types have been successful in other areas within the region, and meet the need for variety and various price points of housing, which we believe is a key element to a successful mixed -use development. With the inclusion of the variety of housing types, the applicant has requested modifications to the bulk and dimensional standards to achieve the mixed -use and neotraditional design concepts that are important to achieving the correct land use balance. Moreover, the Applicant has committed to a residential phasing plan that is linked to the phasing of construction of proffered road improvements, including the extension of Warrior Drive referenced herein. The Applicant also requests a modification of the requirements of § 165-71 of the R4 District which provides that no more than 40% of the area of those portions of the planned community designated for residential uses shall be used, among other housing types, for townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those types. The ofcurrent layout of the Core Area and those elements of the associated Land Bays that provide higher density for single family attached units and multifamily units, are critical to the creation of that Core Area, and to the development of an integrated and "walkable" community. It permits the integration of the several linked communities in a far more attractive and functional manner than larger lot development would permit. Limitation of the area that may be devoted to such homes would actually produce more suburban sprawl than the County likely either anticipates or desires for this portion of the County. Given the residential densities approved in Wakeland Manor, and the densities to be developed in Crosspointe, most particularly the large amount of commercial space, a higher density of development serves not only this project, but the Warrior Drive/Crosspointe Boulevard corridor. The approval of this rezoning, as it has developed during consultation with the staff, will produce a unified and coherent series of communities that are unlike any other in Frederick County, both in the mix of uses, the innovative and attractive design of the Core Area and its supporting Land Bays, and the provision of much -needed public lands and roads as further detailed herein. These design elements, together with the Applicant's commitment to the provision of land for a school site, and construction of major elements of the County's road network, justify the additional density that is proposed. This project will include commercial/retail uses, though on a materially smaller scale than Crosspointe. Initially, the Applicant can only commit to construction of 20,000 square feet of commercial development before Warrior Drive is completed from (00013264.DOC/2 1ASNareative090905.doc 000419 000004)2 M Interstate 81 through to Route 340/522 creating a through road that will alleviate traffic on Tasker, and provide a well -designed and completed connection from one major County transportation corridor to another. Once that connection is made, however, the Applicant anticipates that the project will readily sustain the total commitment of 118,550 square feet of retail, office and restaurant space. Because of the integration of walking paths from adjoining residential areas to the retail, restaurant and office uses, as well as different time periods of the uses within these elements, and because the applicant is very sensitive to the appearance of providing a "sea of parking" for this area of the project, and strives to reduce total impervious areas for environmentally friendly design principles, shared parking for the retail, office and restaurant uses may be justified. Because of concern that the Property could develop almost entirely residentially without a northern connection to the Crosspointe property having yet been effected (thus limiting the amount of commercial development that can reasonably be expected to occur prior to the through -connection of Warrior all the way to Interstate 81 and properties to the south) the Applicant proposes to cap development at the end of Phase 2 until such connection is made. At the same time it would double the amount of commercial space to which commitment is made by the end of that Phase. In order to assure the County that the Core Area will develop consistently with the MDP, and in a timely manner, the Applicant has committed to certain aspects of the development of that Area. This includes specific commitment to commercial, residential and community uses within the Core Area, which is to conform to a grid lot layout, and to to the street layout and unit types shown. Not fewer- than two housing types will be provided in that Core Area. The Applicant shall commence development of the Core Area at the outset and not fewer than 30 residential units shall be built there as part of Phase I of the development. • Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area will also conform to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and to the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP. In addition to the MDP, the Applicant has proffered a Concept Development Plan as a separate attachment to the MDP, which gives specific guidance on the layout of the residential and other elements of the Core Area. Development of other Land Bays outside of the Core Area will occur within a defined road layout and limits of development, and the housing styles that are permitted within each Land Bay have been identified on the MDP. There are also specific project proposals that materially advance the County's planning needs, beyond the development of, and commitment to, an innovative and detailed land development plan. Warrior Drive (00013264.DOC / 2 IAS Narrative 090905.doc 000419 000004)3 The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Major Collector". 40 Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be closed section/urban in character. The adjacent development plans of record for Crosspointe Center and Wakeland Manor show this road in various functional classifications. The Applicant has committed to the phased construction of all of Warrior Drive on its Property, from its future connection with Crosspointe Boulevard through to Wakeland Manor. This will include the costly construction of a bridge crossing of a tributary of the Opequon, in the South and construction of full four lane sections of Warrior throughout. The Applicant has conservatively estimated the cost to construct Warrior Drive to a four -lane section through the project (approximately 3,700 feet), including the bridge crossing at approximately $6,000,000. Parkins Mill Road Extended The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Minor Collector". Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be open section/rural in character. The adjacent development plans of record for Canter Estates § V show this road as an 80' wide reservation, with no listed functional classification. The Applicant has committed to the construction of Parkins Mill Extended and connecting to Canter Estates. soDedication of Land for an Elementary School Site and Other Purposes As an integral part of its revised application, the Applicant will dedicate 11 acres of property to be used in conjunction with adjacent properties for the location of an elementary school site. The Applicant also proposes to offer to the County additional useable land adjacent to the school site, for addition to the elementary school site. Such dedication would be subject only to the preservation of a lovely tree area on a knoll on that property. L:1 Fiscal Impact The Applicant has also proffered to contribute funds to the County consistently with fiscal impact modeling provided by the Planning Department, and the proffers that are associated with this rezoning application. Summary Because of the unique nature of this proposal, and its inclusion of design elements that have not heretofore been accomplished in Frederick County, but which are desired elements of the County's CPP and which employ the County's amended R4 zoning classification to maximum benefit, the applicant also herewith requests an increase in the permitted density cap of 4 DU/AC per County Code, Article IV, § 165-72.C, an increase in the maximum permitted land use area of 40% of the total residential area for (00013264.DOC / 2 IAS Narrative 090905.doe 000419 000004)4 multifamily products, and modification of the previously -mentioned dimensional 40 standards to accomplish the Frederick County's outlined objectives. The justification for the modifications sought is essentially that a neotraditional development cannot be accomplished using the traditional Euclidian patterns of development, and standard public and private road and lot designs. Jurisdictions in which such developments have been approved have recognized the need for such modifications, and the County is aware that the recent revisions to the VDOT Secondary Road Standards now contains provisions for neotraditional street designs that accommodate the evolving development of such street patterns. The justification for the increased density beyond the 4 units to the acre contemplated for the R4 district can be found in the need for such increased density to finance the private construction of one of the County's principal arterial routes and the advancement of its transportation plans for this area of the County, and the dedication of a school site to service the already approved population in the area. Moreover, the use of neotraditional designs advances • The intent of the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan; and • Unification of architectural styles; and • A truly walkable community; and • Integration of residential villages and neighborhood commercial uses within one "community"; and • A balanced design of preserving environmental features, while meeting the intent of a mixed -use community for a variety of land uses, efficient layout of the transportation system and Land Bays, and providing a community that will not create a burden on the tax payers; and • Provision for multiple housing types to attract the largest variety of residential housing consumers; and • Completion of major CPP road links The Applicant respectfully requests approval of this Rezoning Application. Exhibits: Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Aerial Photograph Exhibit 3 Boundary Verification Exhibit 4 Topographic Survey Exhibit 5 Zoning Map Exhibit 6 2003 Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 7 Urban Development Areas and Sewer and Water Service Area Exhibit 8 Illustrative Plan Housing Types 100013264.DOC / 2 IAS Narrative 090905.doc 000419 000004} 5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VILLAGES AT ARTRIP Introduction) The Winchester Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia LLC, has submitted its application for consideration by the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to rezone the Winchester Artrip LLC Property ("the Property" hereinafter) located in Frederick County, Virginia from Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Planned Community District (R4). The Property is identified in detailed submissions that have been filed with the Planning Department. The Property is currently vacant and was formerly used for farming activities for at least the past 40 years. It is within the County's 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP) South Frederick Planning Area. In addition, the entire Property lies within the County's designated Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer & Water Service Area (SWSA) and is adjacent to several prominent developments either under construction or approved, including Crosspointe Center to the west, Canter Estates V to the east, and Lakewood Manor and Wakeland Manor to the south. The applicant believes this request is timely and will assure the County significant tax revenue, transportation improvements, and more importantly, will provide an orderly development of this Property that provides a diverse mix of uses and products in accordance with the spirit, intent and goals of the CPP. Development Proposal The proposed project is aptly named for the various small villages contemplated for this mixed -use residential and commercial development. These villages include six land bays that include single-family and multi -family residential uses, a neighborhood commercial center, a central "Core Area" integrating the commercial center, interior and perimeter "greens" or "commons" as depicted on the MDP, and a comprehensive road, bike path and sidewalk network to connect the villages and reflect master -planned roads designated on the CPP. A significant portion of the project is laid out on a grid pattern and is oriented with "true" north, similar to traditional development planning, both of which are characteristics of neo-traditional design. The proposed gross residential density is 5.40 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC), with densities within the various land bays ranging from 2.59 to 21.08 DU/AC. The residential land uses will include a mix of single-family and multifamily products that are specified on the MDP and in the associated proffers. 1 This Executive Summary expands upon and describes certain details of the proposed project that have developed in detail during the Applicant's discussions with the various review agencies. We note that three proposed residential products will be new to the Frederick County market, as well as product types not specifically listed within the Zoning Ordinance. These are the "stacked -flats" units, apartments over retail, and back-to-back town homes. These multifamily product types have been successful in other areas within the region, and meet the need for variety and various price points of housing, which we believe is a key element to a successful mixed -use development. With the inclusion of the variety of housing types, the applicant has requested modifications to the bulk and dimensional standards to achieve the mixed -use and neotraditional design concepts that are important to achieving the correct land use balance. Moreover, the Applicant has committed to a residential phasing plan that is linked to the phasing of construction of proffered road improvements, including the extension of Warrior Drive referenced herein. The Applicant also requests a modification of the requirements of § 165-71 of the R4 District which provides that no more than 40% of the area of those portions of the planned community designated for residential uses shall be used, among other housing types, for townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those types. The current layout of the Core Area and those elements of the associated Land Bays that provide higher density for single family attached units and multifamily units, are critical to the creation of that Core Area, and to the development of an integrated and "walkable" community. It permits the integration of the several linked communities in a far more attractive and functional manner than larger lot development would permit. Limitation of the area that may be devoted to such homes would actually produce more suburban sprawl than the County likely either anticipates or desires for this portion of the County. Given the residential densities approved in Wakeland Manor, and the densities to be developed in Crosspointe, most particularly the large amount of commercial space, a higher density development for this project is in keeping with the Warrior Drive/Crosspointe Boulevard corridor. The approval of this rezoning, as it has developed during consultation with the staff, will produce a unified and coherent series of communities that are unlike any other in Frederick County, both in the mix of uses, the innovative and attractive design of the Core Area and its supporting Land Bays, and the provision of much -needed public lands and roads as further detailed herein. These design elements, together with the Applicant's commitment to the provision of land for a school site, and construction of major elements of the County's road network, justify the additional density that is proposed. This project will include commercial/retail uses, though on a materially smaller scale than Crosspointe. Initially, the Applicant can only commit to construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial development before Warrior Drive is completed from Interstate 81 through to Route 340/522 creating a through road that will alleviate traffic on Tasker Road, and provide a well -designed and completed connection from one major County transportation corridor to another. Once that connection is made, however, the Applicant anticipates that the project will readily sustain the total commitment of 118,550 2 K • • f a square feet of retail, office and restaurant space. Because of the integration of walking paths from adjoining residential areas to the retail, restaurant and office uses, as well as different time periods of the uses within these elements, and because the applicant is very sensitive to the appearance of providing a "sea of parking" for this area of the project, and strives to reduce total impervious areas for environmentally friendly design principles, shared parking for the retail, office and restaurant uses may be justified. In order to assure the County that the Core Area will develop consistently with the MDP, and in a timely manner, the Applicant has committed to certain aspects of the development of that Area. This includes specific commitment to commercial, residential and community uses within the Core Area, which is to conform to a grid lot layout, and to the street layout and unit types shown. The Applicant shall commence development of the Core Area at the outset and not fewer than 30 residential units shall be built there as part of Phase I of the development. Not fewer than two housing types will be provided in that Core Area overall. Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area will also conform to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and to the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP subject to reasonable adjustment on final engineering. In addition to the MDP, the Applicant has proffered a Concept Development Plan as a separate attachment to the MDP, which gives specific guidance on the layout of the residential and other elements of the Core Area. Development of other Land Bays outside of the Core Area will occur within a defined road layout and limits of development subject to reasonable adjustment on final engineering, and the housing styles that are permitted within each Land Bay have been identified on the MDP. There are also specific project proposals that materially advance the County's planning needs, beyond the development of, and commitment to, an innovative and detailed land development plan. Warrior Drive The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Major Collector". Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be closed section/urban in character. The adjacent development plans of record for Crosspointe Center and Wakeland Manor show this road in various functional classifications.. The Applicant has committed to the phased construction of all of Warrior Drive on its Property, from its future connection with Crosspointe Boulevard through to Wakeland Manor. This will include the costly construction of a bridge crossing of a tributary of the Opequon, in the South and construction of full four lane sections of Warrior throughout. The Applicant has estimated the cost to construct Warrior Drive to a four -lane section through the project (approximately 3,700 feet), including the bridge crossing at approximately $5,000,000. 3 0 0 Parkins Mill Road Extended The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Minor Collector". Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be open section/rural in character. The adjacent development plans of record for Canter Estates § V show this road as an 80' wide reservation, with no listed functional classification. The Applicant has committed to the construction of Parkins Mill Extended to the edge of its property boundary, permitting an ultimate connection to Canter Estates. The proffered road section is indicated on the MDP. Dedication of Land for an Elementary School Site and Other Purposes As an integral part of its revised application, the Applicant will dedicate 11 acres of property to be used in conjunction with adjacent properties for the location of an elementary school site. The Applicant also proposes to offer to the County additional useable land adjacent to the school site, for public use. Such dedication is conditional upon the preservation of a superb tree area on a knoll on that property. Fiscal Impact The Applicant has also proffered to contribute funds to the County consistently with fiscal impact modeling provided by the Planning Department, and the proffers that are associated with this rezoning application. Summary Because of the unique nature of this proposal, and its inclusion of design elements that have not heretofore been accomplished in Frederick County, but which are desired elements of the County's CPP and which employ the County's amended R4 zoning classification to maximum benefit, the applicant also herewith requests an increase in the permitted density cap of 4 DU/AC per County Code, Article IV, §165-72.C, an increase in the maximum permitted land use area of 40% of the total residential area for multifamily products, and modification of the previously -mentioned dimensional standards to accomplish the Frederick County's outlined objectives. The justification for the modifications sought is essentially that a neotraditional development cannot be accomplished using the traditional Euclidian patterns of development, and standard public and private road and lot designs. Jurisdictions in which such developments have been approved have. recognized the need for such modifications, and the County is aware that the recent revisions to the VDOT Secondary Road Standards now contains provisions for neotraditional street designs that accommodate the evolving development of such street patterns. The justification for the increased density beyond the 4 units to the acre contemplated for the R4 district can be found in the need for such increased density to finance the private 4bconstruction of one of the County's principal arterial routes and the advancement of its 0 A • • transportation plans for this area of the County, and the dedication of a school site to service the already approved population in the area. Moreover, the use of neotraditional designs advances • The intent of the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan; and • Unification of architectural styles; and • A truly walkable community; and • Integration of residential villages and neighborhood commercial uses within one "community"; and • A balanced design of preserving environmental features, while meeting the intent of a mixed -use community for a variety of land uses, efficient layout of the transportation system and Land Bays, and providing a community that will not create a burden on the tax payers; and • Provision for multiple housing types to attract the largest variety of residential housing consumers; and • Completion of major CPP road links The Applicant respectfully requests approval of this Rezoning Application. Exhibits: 4bExhibit 1 Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Aerial Photograph Exhibit 3 Boundary Verification Exhibit 4 Topographic Survey Exhibit 5 Zoning Map Exhibit 6 2003 Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 7 Urban Development Areas and Sewer and Water Service Area Exhibit S Illustrative Plan Housing Types L-1 JA00\00419 Tower\004\Application Submittals\lAS Narrative 061905.doe WO E .VV,, Y Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement p Y and Master Development Plan for The Villages at Artrip Tax Map 75-A, Parcel 99A Frederick County, Virginia May 20, 2005 Prepared by: Winchester Artrip Limited Liability Company c/o The Tower Companies 11501 Huff Court North Bethesda, MD 20895 301.984.7000 •301.984.7601 fax Attn: Charles Segerman, P.E. csegerman@towercompanies.com Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Drive Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 540.678.2700 540.678.2703 fax Attn: David L. Frank, CLA dfrank@dewberry.com Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich, & Terpak, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway Suite 300 Prince William, VA 22192 703.680.4664 703.680.2161 fax Attn: John H. Foote, Esq. jfoote@ pw.thelandlawyers.com 0 "U�U The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 • REZONING APPLICATION, IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP • 0 i* The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 Table of Contents 1. Rezoning and Master Development Plan Applications 2. Impact Assessment Executive Summary 3. Impact Analysis Statement 4. Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model 5. Proffer Statement 6. Agency Comments 7. Property Tax Receipt S. Appendices: A. Property Deed B. Wetland Delineation Report C. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment D. Historic Sites and Structures Report Pockets: Master Development Plan, Sheet 1 of 4 Master Development Plan, Sheet 2 of 4 Master Development Plan, Sheet 3 of 4 Master Development Plan, Sheet 4 of 4 Core Area Concept Plan Conceptual Building The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 List of Exhibits Exhibit Number/Name 1. Vicinity Map 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Boundary Verification 4. Topographic Survey 5. Current Zoning Map 6. 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan, South Frederick Land Use Plan Excerpt 7. Urban Development Area/Sewer & Water service Area 8. Illustrative Plan -Housing types- Conceptual Building Elevations • 9. Surrounding Projects 10. Major Road Systems 11. Major Road Systems (Enlarged) 12. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 13. Floodplain Delineation for An Unnamed Tributary to Opequon Creek 14. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. 15. Steep Slopes 16. Mature Woodlands 17. County Soils Survey Excerpt 18. Geology Map 19. Surrounding Properties 0 The Villages atArtrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 List of Exhibits - continued Exhibit Number/Name 20. Existing Sewer Systems 21. Proposed Sewer Systems 22. Existing Water Systems 23. Proposed Water Systems 24. Existing Major Drainage Divides 25. Proposed Stormwater ManagementBMP Facilities 26. Historical Resources Sites 27. Field -surveyed Historical Resources Sites 28. School Districts 29. Police Service Facilities Locations 30. Fire & Rescue Service Facilities Locations 31. Parks & Recreation Facilities Locations 32. Solid Waste Disposal Locations The Villages at Ai -trip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 List of Tables Table Number/Name 1. Environmental Features 2. Adjacent Property Owners (with current uses and zoning classification) 3. Proposed Water Demand/Sewage Flow Generation 4. Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Data 5. Proposed Solid Waste Generation 6. Proposed Residential Students Generation • • 0 fi Dewberry The Villages atArtrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 i SECTION I REZONING & MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATIONS • • 0 • REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To _be.""completed by Planning: Staff ",:," �Fee;Ainount.Paid, $ Zoning Amendment Number =:Date Received PC,Hearing Date,.""BOS"Fiearing, ate ;" , The following information shall be provided by the applicant. - All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Winchester Artrip, LLC Telephone: 301-984-7000 Address: c/o. The Tower Companies 11501 Huff Court, North Bethesda, MD 20895 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Winchester Artri Telephone: 301-984-7000 Address: 11501 Huff Court, North Bethesda, MD 20895 3. Contact person if other than above David L. Frank, CLA Naive: Dewberry Telephone: 540-678-2700 611 West Jubal Early Drive, B1dg.B, Suite C Winchester VA 22601 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map _X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 0 11 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: Winchestpr Artrip, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tower Real Estate Group, LLC, the managing members of which are: Albert, Jeffrey, Gary and Ronald Abramson. Other non —managing members consists of additional family individuals. 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Vacant Residential,: Retail, B) Proposed Use of the Property: Restaurants and Office. 7. Adjoining Property: See Table 3 following PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). 0 10 E • Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 75 — (A) — 99A Districts Magisterial: Shawnee High School: Sherando Fire Service: Stephens City Middle School: James Wood & R. E. Aylor Rescue Service: Stephens City Elementary School: Armel 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 169.924 RA R4 169.924 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : 905 Residental units - Single Family homes: Non -Residential Lots: Office: Retail: Restaurant: Number of Units Proposed SFD/ Townhome/ MULTI . Family Townhome: Multi -Family: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses _ Service Station: Manufacturing: Warehouse: 118,550 SF Commercial/retail/office/ Other: Residental 0 13 Resend 5-19-OS; 2:31PM;DEWBERRY 540 678 2703 it 8/ 8 0 i 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understandthat the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Owner(s): i 12 Date: Date: Date: Sliq �b5 Date: 5-19-05; 2:28PM;DEWBERRY 540 678 2703 #k 2/ 8 J • 0 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package 1. Project Title: 2. Owner's Name: APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Villages at Artrip Wiichester Artrip, LLC (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: Winchester Artri , LLC Address: c/o The Tower. Companies, Inc. 11501 Huff Court, North Bethesda, MD 20895 Phone Number: 310-984-7000 4. Design Company: Dewberry Address: 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg. B Suite C Winchester VA 22601 Phone Number: 540-678-2700 Contact Name: David L. Frank. CLA Page 11 5-19-05; 2:28PM;OEWBERRY ;540 678 2703 # 3/ 8 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75 \((A),' Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3 4 mile north of Tasker Road, (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). 6. Total Acreage: 169.924 7. Property Information: a) Property. Identification Number(PIN): 75—((A))-99A b) Current Zoning: Vacant c) Present Use: Residentail, Retail, d) Proposed Uses: Restaurants and Office e) Adjoining Property Information: see Attached Table 3 North South East West Property Identification Numbers Property Uses Magisterial District: Shawnee S. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original X Amended I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the'master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission -of my master development plan application. Signature: Date: i Page 14 5-19-05; 2:28PM;DEWBERRY ;540 678 2703 It 4/ 8 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Adjoining Property Owners MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Owners of property adjoining the Iand will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is. located on the 1st floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street. NAME A171IR R C C / AR F1U14 tz T cr err n► �vr. n Page 15 0 THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP TABLE 3 Adjacent Property Owners PIN 75-A-101 Name Wakeland Manor Land Trust Address 300 Craig St. City Stephen City St. VA Zip 22655 Use 6 Zoning 75-A-95 Glaize Development, Inc. P.O. Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 2 (Residential) RP RA 75-A-96 Glaize Development, Inc. P.O. Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 6 (Over 100 Ac.) RA 75-A-97 Steve Dubrueler . 346 Saddleback Lane Winchester VA 22602 2 (Residential) RA 75-A-99 75G-11-8-116 Frederick County Ronald Santoro & Pamela Chagnon 107 N. Kent St. 106 Canaan Ct. Winchester Stephens City VA VA 22601 22655 73 (Exempt) 2 RP 75G-11-8-117 James Swiger & Michelle Vitela 105 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 (Residential) 2 (Residential) RP RP 75G-11-8-118 David T.& Tammy M. Foster 103 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-120 Robert & Mary E. McDonald 109 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-121 Winchester/Artrip LP 11501 Huff Ct. N. Bethesda MD. 20895 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-122 Timothy J. Elliot Sr. & Kathleen A. Elliott 105 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-123 Timothy Wingfield 103 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-60 Rodney & Suzanne R. Torp 102 Jade Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 -2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-62 John & Melissa Corder P.O. Box 90010 c/o Valerie Whit Richmond VA 23225 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-63 Patricia Gail Beardslee 125 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-64 Cynthia D. Rodriguez 127 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-8-5-85 Timothey J. & Karen E. Adams 129 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 76-A-13 76-A-23 W.F. Artrip, Jr. Jasbo, Inc. 1726 Front Royal Pike Winchester VA 22602 6— (Over 100 Ac.) RA P.O. Box 480 Stephens City VA 22655 5 (20-100 AC.) RP Note: 1. Information from SpecPrint Edition 13, 2004 2. Use Codes: 2- Single Family Residential (Suburban) 4- Commercial & Industrial 5- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.) 6- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.) 73- Regional / Local Government 11/8/2004 10:30 AM P:IProject1760300071Admn\Rezoning Application Text Documents\REZONING TABLES.xls3 SURR OWNERS 10 Tit Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 • SECTION 2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • �J IMPACT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VILLAGES AT ARTRIP Introduction) The Winchester Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia corporation, has submitted its application for consideration of the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to rezone the Winchester Artrip Limited Partnership Property ("the Property" hereinafter) located in Frederick County, Virginia from Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Planned Community District (R4). The Property is identified in detail in prior submissions. The Property is currently vacant and was formerly used for farming activities for at least the past 40 years. It is within the County's 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP) South Frederick Planning Area. In addition, the entire Property lies within the County's designated Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer & Water Service Area (SWSA) and is adjacent to several prominent developments either under construction or approved, including Crosspointe Center to the west, Canter Estates V to the east, and Lakewood Manor and Wakeland Manor to the south. The applicant believes this request is timely and will assure the County significant tax revenue, and more importantly, will provide an orderly development of this Property that - provides a diverse mix of uses and products in accordance with the spirit, intent and goals of the CPP. Development Proposal The proposed project is aptly named for the various small villages contemplated for this mixed -use residential and commercial development. These villages include five (5) land bays that include single-family and multi -family residential uses, a neighborhood commercial center, a central "Core Area" integrating the commercial center, interior and perimeter "greens" or "commons" as depicted on the MDP, and a comprehensive road network to connect the villages and reflect master -planned roads designated on the CPP. A significant portion of the project is laid out on a grid pattern and is oriented with "true" north, similar to traditional development planning, both of which are characteristics of neo-traditional design. The proposed gross residential density is 5.40 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC), with densities within the various land bays ranging from 2.59 to 21.08 DU/AC. The residential land uses will include a mix of single-family and multifamily products. ' This Executive Summary expands upon and describes certain details of the proposed project that have developed in detail during the Applicant's discussions with the various 18 review agencies. We note that two proposed residential products will be new to the Frederick County market, as well as product types not specifically listed within the Zoning Ordinance. These are the "stacked -flats" units and the apartments over retail. These multifamily product types have been successful in other areas within the region, and meet the need for variety and various price points of housing, which we believe is a key element to a successful mixed -use development. With the inclusion of the variety of housing types, the applicant has requested modifications to the bulk and dimensional standards to achieve the mixed -use and neotraditional design concepts that are important to achieving the correct land use balance. The Applicant also requests a modification of the requirements of § 165-71 of the R4 District which provides that no more than 40% of the area of those portions of the planned community designated for residential uses shall be used, among other housing types, for townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those types. The current layout of the Core Area and those elements of the associated Land Bays that provide higher density for single family attached units, and multifamily units, are critical to the creation of the Core Area and the development of an integrated and "walkable" community, and permits the integration of the several linked communities in a far more attractive and functional manner than larger lot development would permit. Limitation of the area that may be devoted to such homes would actually produce more suburban sprawl than the County likely either anticipates or desires for this portion of the County. Given the residential densities approved in Wakeland Manor, and the densities to be developed in Crosspomte, most particularly the large amount of commercial space, a higher density of development serves not only this project, but the Warrior Drive/Crosspointe Boulevard corridor. The approval of this rezoning, as it has developed during consultation with the staff, will produce a community that is unlike any other in Frederick County, both in the mix of uses, the innovative and attractive design of the Core Area and its supporting Land Bays, and the provision of much -needed public lands and roads as further detailed herein, justifying the additional density that is proposed. This project will include commercial/retail uses, though on a materially smaller scale than Crosspointe. Initially, the Applicant can only commit to construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial development, before Warrior Drive is completed from Interstate 81 through to Route 340/522, to make a through road to alleviate traffic on Tasker and provide a well -designed and completed connection from one major roadway to the other. Once that connection is made, however, the Applicant anticipates that the project will readily sustain the total commitment of 118,550 square feet of retail, office and restaurant space. Because of the integration of walking paths from adjoining residential areas to the retail, restaurant and office uses, as well as different time periods of the uses within these elements, and because the applicant is very sensitive to the appearance of providing a "sea of parking" for this area of the project, and strives to 2 reduce total impervious areas for environmentally friendly design principles, shared parking for the retail, office and restaurant uses may be justified. The Applicant has committed to the development of the "Core Area" in such a manner that the County can be assured that the central planning concept driving the Villages at Artrip will be attained in the near, as well as in the long, run. In addition to the MDP, the Applicant is proffering a Concept Development Plan as a separate attachment to the MDP, which gives specific guidance on the layout of the residential and other elements of the Core Area. Development of other Land Bays outside of the Core Area will occur within a defined road layout and limits of development, and the housing styles that are permitted within each Land Bay have been identified on the MDP. There are also specific project proposals that materially advance the County's planning needs, beyond the development of, and commitment to, an innovative and detailed land development plan. Warrior Drive The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Major Collector". Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be closed section/urban in character. The adjacent development plans of record for Crosspointe Center and Wakeland Manor show this road in various functional classifications. The Applicant has committed to the phased construction of all of Warrior Drive on its Property, from its future connection with Crosspointe Boulevard through to Wakeland Manor. This will include the costly construction of a bridge crossing of a tributary of the Opequon, in the South and construction of full four lane sections of Warrior throughout. The Applicant has conservatively estimated the cost to construct Warrior Drive to a four -lane section through the project (approximately 3,700 feet), including the bridge crossing at approximately $4,500,000. Parkins Mill Road Extended The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Minor Collector". Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be open section/rural in character. The adjacent development plans of record for Canter Estates § V show this road as an 80' wide reservation, with no listed functional classification. The Applicant has committed to the construction of Parkins Mill Extended to the edge of its property boundary, permitting an ultimate connection to Canter Estates. Lakeside Drive The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Minor Collector". Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be open section/rural in character. Because the adjacent development is the FCSA facility with a dead-end private road with no listed functional classification, and previous discussions with County 3 staff and VDOT determine this road unlikely to be extended within any near -future timeframe the applicant proposes to provide a 50' wide right-of-way reservation only. There appears to be no need from a traffic flow standpoint to construct this road even at build -out conditions on the project, but the Applicant has reserved this right-of-way in any event. The Applicant is also dedicating additional land in the form of landscape buffering than is required by Ordinance, to add to the attractive physical layout of the project. Dedication of Land for an Elementary School Site As an integral part of its revised application, the Applicant has further agreed to dedicate 11 acres of property to be used in conjunction with adjacent properties for the location of an elementary school site, if sought for the purpose within 15 years from the date of Final Rezoning. Summary Because of the unique nature of this proposal, and its inclusion of design elements that have not heretofore been accomplished in Frederick County, but which are desired elements of the County's CPP and which employ the County's amended R4 zoning classification to maximum benefit, the applicant also herewith requests an increase in the permitted density cap of 4 DU/AC per County Code, Article W, §165-72.C, an increase in the maximum permitted land use area of 40% of the total residential area for multifamily products, and modification of the previously -mentioned dimensional standards to accomplish the Frederick County's outlined objectives. The justification for the modifications sought is essentially that a neotraditional development cannot be accomplished using the traditional Euclidian patterns of development, and standard public and private road and lot designs. Jurisdictions in which such developments have been approved have recognized the need for such modifications, and the County is aware that the recent revisions to the VDOT Secondary Road Standards now contains provisions for neotraditional street designs that accommodate the evolving development of such street patterns. The justification for the increased density beyond the 4 units to the acre contemplated for the R4 district can be found in the need for such increased density to finance the private construction of one of the County's principal arterial routes and the advancement of its transportation plans for this area of the County, and the dedication of a school site to service the already approved population in the area. Moreover, the use of neotraditional designs advances • The intent of the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan; and • Unification of architectural styles; and • A truly walkable community; and GI • Integration of residential villages and neighborhood commercial uses within one "community"; and • A balanced design of preserving environmental features, while meeting the intent of a mixed -use community for a variety of land uses, efficient layout of the transportation system and Land Bays, and providing a community that will not create a burden on the tax payers; and • Provision for multiple housing types to attract the largest variety of residential housing consumers; and • Completion of major CPP road links The Applicant respectfully requests approval of this Rezoning Application. Exhibits: Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Aerial Photograph Exhibit 3 Boundary Verification Exhibit 4 Topographic Survey Exhibit 5 Zoning Map Exhibit 6 2003 Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 7 Urban Development Areas and Sewer and Water Service Area Exhibit 8 Illustrative Plan Housing Types l JA00\00419 Tower\004\Apptication SubmittalsWinal MS Narrative 052005.doc 5 rl Dewberr VICINITY MAP DRAFTED CHECKED y RJS MTW - THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP Dewberry &Davis LLC DATE SCALE 611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC 1 "=4,000' BLDG B, SUITE C D.B. 713, PG. 417 JUNE 2004 WINCHESTER, VA 22601 PHONE: 540,678.2700 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN PROD. NO. EXHIBIT FAX: 540.678.2703 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ') www.dewberty.cam FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 76030007 r .��X i' 411 as a k 4. a Al MIN v 4 ` WR s „ � TASKS . RROAD Tlpuyhp-rru I I TM-75 ((A))-95 I •� N/F GLAIZE DEVEL. INC. DB 896/1819 S66,0. . �6 C2� 408.69, S$ TM 76—((A))-13 N/F ARTRIP DB 281 /221 S60'2�1'07"E_, .. 1011.53' LEGEND O IRON PIPE/REBAR FND. �t 40 TREE FND. (SIZE & SPECIES NOTED) o I WOODEN FENCE POST FND. 1 �A Co 2 TM 75—((A))-96 N/F GLAIZE DEVEL. INC. ` DB 896/1819 TM 75—((A))-97 N/F LICHLITER INSTR. # 01-00-1165 1 60 \ 62 �jo Dewberry....,, Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 West Juba[ Early Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 PHONE: 540.678.2700 FAX: 540.678.2703 www.dewberry.com n FND. FND. DBL. 22" 16" ELM ' CHESTNUT OAK S62'55'3811E TM 75 ((A))-99A ARTRIP DB 713/417 TRACT 1 — 169.009 ACRES 169.924 ACS. TOTAL 4?3-7'fE - ' 01-0 1 ND. WHITE IAK S36'19'46"W 174.84' TM 76—((A))-23 N/F DANFORD RIDGE PROPERTIES, L.C. DB 935/1533 S19'48'14"W 77.43' ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER INFO TM 75G—((11))-116 TM 75G-8-5-85 N/F N/F SANTORO do CHAGNON ADAMS INSTR. # 00-02/789 D.B.752, PG. 322 TM 75GN�F1))-117 TM 75GN� B))-60 SWIGER do ATELA DAVIS O INSTR. # 00-02/6178 DB 673/402 r— TM 75GN((11))-118 TM 75G—(( B))-62 ' FOSTER n DB 950/671 CLARK DB 879/1310 TM 75GN/F1))-120 TM 75G—((46))-63 MILLER N/F DB 707/861 BEARDSLEE TM 75G—((11))-121 INSTR. # 00-02/1481 N/F TM 75G—((48))-64 WINC./ARTRIP L.P. N/F DB 718/868 RODRIGUEZ a� � TM 75GN�F1))-122 DB 960/812 if1 0') ELLIOTT TM 75—((A))-101 DB 981/266 WAKELAND MANOR 1))-13 N TM 75GN/F LANTRUST 2 D WINGFIELD TM 75—((A))-99 INSTR. # 00-00/1187 N/F FREDERICK CO. SANITATION AUTHORITY DB 583/320 r C -Cr TRACT 2 /0.915 ACRES N78'07'33"W `� 18.27' N10'28'13"W S58'22'54"E N89'33'00"W . -106.83' 1005.22 ,,� 145.60' 40 W N�1760.�52 -'y ��� FND. WAKELATM NDAM)AN01 l631 R 64 g37 02 121 120 118 117 116 101 — �' 'S�12' WHITE LAND TRUST 85 123\1 2 O 99 OAK DB 776/685 Drawn By JM Plan Number 1276007 BOUNDARY VERIFICATION File Number PROPERTY OF Designed By Date JUNE 2004 THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP Checked By Scale WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC D.B. 713 PG. 417 EXHIBIT KN 1 —300' PARKINS MILL T IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 3 acak rl 1 Ir t.\\ !, l\ \ ry /� / ��=_ \ \ • •i // I ! :I Ij//J/r I / /r�_J 1 1 \ fi- //ir �=-.. // / � �/// I/ � �-�= rl�I '%.�Y._ :� • .. __ = .. i �� .-- .:"- -' f ,- 1 � �. T.:......._:�-:.i_ � .. '- -%- l �;.� �f/ t,1. • ( (}( i• �� � ) t � .� � -% \\ \� /�>`<�^` �..— �� ��I/ �t�.= -� =_ %/i - '�p(�%% - � '• t 174.841 / �,�� • \�� ^' �-•" _• . r _ �.'� � �-..%���/ � I / ��� ;li 1� J,t� I t I / -- -- -' / �' ' TMN/Fj�\�?= �^l� stir �� r��` r ```� ✓ �`1a l I - . _ `/� / / \ I \ ^ `'' \t .tt `\` t\ l( / \�.' , / - � � � 2 TM � � l �i�\\\��` \ ` t _ � t I \ \ 3 _ 1 _ t I \\\\\ \\ ���'i .�� ,�..- � � t.. —--�,;.--�_ --- - _ _ -_ � ryry�-34� �=.�_c-_.=.-_� \ I,! /s`��- 3t. � �\ �\ \ \\ C � •" �: 1 � —_.�_ l ,�- \ p� I//���/���1 / � - ,1 i iK,�R)� \'`� \ / %/'/� i . - w�-r - �_ �.. � _�...s.F+•� _ .:'i�l \ -�— �__ _�. i �� � 'o-�E± - _ i/. :;N '=�:... � \` +t ti i rr���` � � \\�\ \'� \ \'� -_�.. - � IJL�`"5'._� �s _z ._ \ 1\N\ Ilr / -\,,'. "Fee >�� --"It �- / i• \ /// ///y '� ��� -_�\� 1.,' �/l%�i-.._-�1\t ��/�i= 1\,��I! �'i�.\\�\\ \\`' \T�S; 1Ct' (t<�t��/, %/ice. - .�\�= , t}11r ��/ f !! /-/ i�\� a\\ tlg 1II/' =_=� l\\\ �� Y �� t ! \ / :.:. - �.- / �• - _- .� ! �/�,_� \. \, j I f I / -�- \ �. / r a,��� `I) �I II .��, � � 1 \III/a% / _! 4 / =.aY ,i �i_-=�4.„i.. �y 11I / ��i/i `�1}'ni/r%'�ll�lj! r \;\l \\ / / // ♦ I, /'� -ll/(I \ \`- __�\ir// \ \\ }� }� j't I}tt!1!t".ti'It � {I 'I.II�rj�;l1./ '-•�\\\\�'//�--\j��l�r/// \ �t�t,�}Rt�i\Yrl;ij;ltit t} 1t / - �!i J 1 « / J!) 1 / ---"` /-.- /• ( tf\t�\�\�\-__- /ali.\ \ �i\ \ _%/ i \\ l !/� 1} (iI+I, •� \1 1 \ / \ \ / I, .v / / - 1 I P / • � I t I� ) �. \\\ { -� _ � / � l Il i� iy1�i.�=�����\\ l ! ` l - -� r - / � { ✓ �/ t (�i� t/ I/ -� J!l \\ ; l/�(l��Ir�il JI�tJ\\\\1\\\\\� i 40/ / / / // i /;Jlfl(tIY/ !11! 1 r-ti-__� / / / ! „I�t , / / �j,���// 1 / ljl,lt/ !`b/r�jr/ -\ \ It(rj// (�rtl' \r \\mil/._ Itti�11 ////_.���►�J,i1 / i \' i_' >'C I I,lr/'/ ! 1 t /-.�1'( I. t/ ! / - 1 t \ rlrr't =\\� \ \\ , } ! / _ \\\ t''1`� i� �%J r // / \ / r \-- /i ADJOINING ORERTY\mac f' t1l lr/, / rl II' /�/ `/ \ i\'�\t ,t/1/ram �l t 1,\\ �•!/ If//t t \ ` /t/ ` f I t 1 ` } \\ ���� /111 r;� - ZL '� ^� OWNEjt INF6 ! J \ \ r IIII11i i t /, rI(it\\�:y�/ilq/1 l�//� �/ / I _-_ r{;`t'�(ifyilt\ \\ , I t j t`\�\�� i/%(/l101/� j1Ni` = �! JI , } \�\\•\��ii /�`�//1 i!/� _ r ram- / I(I t J \ \ \ \ / , 1 / \ \ r �` , / / - ' ( ! / - - \ i TM 75G-((11))-1 J T� 7,6G-8 \)5' llli t \- / , 1 1 -/ / / ! J t/fJ\�>>1}Ijt}1 !//// '.��\ �`=��/ i/ / -� ( ` / \1\ / ( / !! t,i •/ -.ATM7b %4 99A \� --� -� ��/ ; 11► \t _ N/F / /F( ,.', iiiiIfl` I (/! I 1-/// r )�- -/ 1 C C / r - -' / i I I f(/ / /J l , r - _ _ _ _ _ - _ ` . _.. \ ^ \: T ifb=o2 ! 9 7 AP% �(t�L li l�Il 1" /rr I \ C 1/` I J ! I I /� ! / ,• -- .. ! _ / I SANTOR 'dc CJ�AGN6N s, � I}filJ.:ajrt I/j /I / - J ! ARi '2e}- / _ \� \ \\ 0. /\` t'��}I}'i}'i1} t \ /- _ \ \\� i✓ -- 1 / // / ' / % 1�tIJI(1 ! / ! •' f _ gyp- 1 \ N�(�l \�- 1)L7 ! TM'JrpDB 69 9 4L� N/ 1 �// / \ \ -\ -/'ir_ ITT:L�1 1 t AY / l -. / �) �i ✓'s �-, ! _�= \ � \ \ 1 /�• _ ,' t � I 't�1R `' DOK 0?f/sit 78TM - �-?t `-J/rJ\\\�-�� iQ \\�. (it:-18 / ) ; ,l1:ALI, `i /� 1J! tt /�i/ / J 1 \ r r ! ' / \ \ - ` /. _ J/ IA1'df8 \ M,,87J/1�319 \ ltt\ rr��1l(�•�!i/ // �!t I� �-rd `!// 11r ! // !{ \\\� \�t t ---- „ \ \ \ r // l /==J/ \\``��! / r �- 1 I \ r�\ \\-�L \ _ T1Y� �5G� \ i\ \ \ \ / 1• \1\� t - / t. ,j ram./ i � \\� .--l�•� -C ,((�) , \ �' t I!;. t� /�_ / t�\ _ \ \\ \ t i t (C r! }11 I t ( ( 1 \ \\ } 11EA SItE 1 V / / I / \ �\ \ 1 l J3� - \ - \ \ \ INSTR. UU I- 11 \ \ 1 t f t + 1 i Cv \ • ! / / / G / ( 1 1 r - / / ( \\i--� i 1 t ti:�_` --' \ \\\'JIB. / ♦/_� (�(-- r=' \ \ t\ tit /�- \\�\\\\TM �\\\ �(!\\\ }!(— /� ! ! ( J 1 ELLI ' ; r-\ -- --� \ . ! I lt:j;, I, I �lii; tl �-.._/ ! _- \ 01 ytY�:,\\\�_-_ `•^ � 1 •,:� \`DB �j \�r_� / - TMTPt' I j�,r^ :\\ _� I I f r Y1 ,1\�\\��/ I ��( \ " . i '_ST ORS \\\ \ \�\`.\- r I�p } ter' { \mac 85 \\\-N/F 9LAIZE75 ` D �Elr/t -f \ DB 8961 ,IL� 1 I r\x 1/ -- + \ \—'• cgs \ � { i t \ \l \t\\\ � �- -1 // �.�� ! i i 1 -��.�= i.��•tV"/ / •--- _=`��--' �/��I l/J� f it`1 t t � j 7� \ \\ \ \\�\��� % � �-�...:_=�v�\.\ % GI1,i\\\---r,%l/� l� � _:b r \ i i 1 _� ! \/I// `- i/i/ii _`' I ItJ`• \ � _,,\_�-`� �.\�1• r- ice` %I/ J pt / I t / // / i �' / .....r / / / r - �. \` '_ -\� _�_. /i i t l \ \� '` \ ` � v�.� .i �•�ab\ '� .l / ! �itV \ \ -�� t - � � � � /! / j�� /ri% rl�_// -� � �-sue � __ `\`..\�`.��\� f/!f!I'i ti}t\t ` \ \ t •"`� � -�= ���-•`a\n, -_----\ZZ \��\\ i l - \ 1~\ }\\\}':\\;y`-_ ✓ erJ/,.//���/J\ 1r )it '\ tT 751�' \ ! : NJ F/LI HhITER ` \ - f / _ =✓, — \ \\\\ \A\'��� \\\ \\ I Ott 1,,65 �fNSR.#0-00-\\�- ,' •,(d► S58'22-'54 E z _.._ - - 1 \ \ J� 33 00 W , i \ \ ( y , /... \ 1005.?�2 !, / /rl'- \ \ \\ �\\\\\\ \ \�\\\�\\ \- ) jV`,�\\�\�%/, r� '� /''/145.60' _l t i , I :- —. =__ter.__ i J \ \ \:{ �- _. �1 \ / ��\\\\�\��\I�\\`\�`�\\ i}i}}�� /%/ _r , :;- -- <-- __ r ., _� \=`._.._.._- . \ I�t \ ' t \\ \ \ •//,'� i t �'',// ! TM 75—��A))-101 ,` ,NS•08' '\ \\\�\�\r'��\�\ill'j \/r//1 X\�FND. WAKELAND MANOR >1 / � >..- it i; 62' 6.3'1 0$ ' 17 J) �/ / I \\\\ \ �\\\ \ } 4 \\ \\\ \\�\! �//�/i. kc�` 6 9, jam.._ _ Q ,/ ;� / 120 t __ 'P \\\\\.ram ! f ` �// }�:� ^2 WHITE LAND t� g 7:Q. �- - ) I}� �. J - 1T1 TRUST 5 OAK DB 776/685 1� r /y( h 4•',j•'j' Dewberry +l� G- Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 PHONE: 540.678.2700 FAX: 540.678.2703 Drawn By JLM I Plan Number 76030007 Designed By I Date JUNE 2004 Checked By I Scale KW N 1 "= 300' TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY File Number THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC D.B. 713 PG. 417 EXHIBIT PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 4 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA � 0 10 • y� '•h ���_ 1 _ f1 f� r'-_ •7 _ - - �, �, f:'G fir' `�� _ ,•l• tic , ' � t Il1 f t� 64 f f�� RTRIP I �, i • f)i5� h t 1 ...i✓ 'Y \jam / M1. ♦ �- i' e '''4 ��•• 1 ' M �'/ �''`4 ir :i -� III—,• \\-1 `.• ! .4 .�. tJ ` r [ +I' ..' � � �� 'R rf t �'`• '��. 'i' '•{ „' - f 1 -- — - I11 ( ` •'`��, '•A I..r LEGEND Study Area C37,050 acres i tf M SWSABoundan• Arterial and Collector Raod Projects t WATS Road improvements f 1�F�VAdditional CuBectur Roads y Proposed Traffic Signal Zoning RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) R5 (Residential, Rearationa Community) MH1 (Mobile Home Community) BI (Business, Neighborhood District) 62 (Business, General District) B3 (Industrial, Transition District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) = HE (Higher Education District) CPPS & Staff Recommendations Ina Proposed Land Use ie Agricultural Residential ....i Business: Industrial i Institutional utility Recreation LZ Historic Mixed -Use PUD Public Trail System Emiromental Constraints W I: y ;C'.k: •isa.w Dewberry Drawn By KLT Plan Number 76030007 2003 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN File Number SOUTH FREDERICK COUNTY LAND USE PLAN EXCERPT ry KLT JUNE 2004 Dewberry & Davis LLC Designed By Date THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP 611 West Juba[ Early Drive WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By Scale EXHIBFF D.B. 713, PG. 417 PHONE: 678.278.2700 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT ^ FAX: dewb ry.co3 MTW AS Shown SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT b www.dewberry.com FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Urbati Development Area & Sewer and Water Service Area Frederick County, Virginia I r • I - 5.1 THE VILUMES �. AT ARTRIP }:[.. Nryoi Rorrls i r'ounly floundary III Ilh—e—, Nnyhhorh—d 11--1 Hl (Ihwsinre r --1 mane r) S N . EY (Exr.uaioe Nanujnaunng nislmr) HE pliyher Ertucntion lhsntrrJ NI (Nd-1—t I.lyld nxwia) `] N2 (mduftna. (.en rd U Ma) NHI (Nabde Hn . C nrty Ilislna) -` � KS(NMiaN Sapp n U- f 1) 7 . S i X.5 11.—) ` XA (Ruml Arens Disbra) _ JRP fNesulrnnul Ye7 .nvuuv ll.�rni1) . Q Urban Development Area lrwrr rout Wnlr..Srn.uv 4m., ►�:�;, Dewberry& Dewberry & Davis LLC Urban Development Area Sewer and Water Service Area THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP DRAFTED KLTMTW CHECKED DATE SCALE • 611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE BLDG WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC JUNE 2004 As Shown B, SUITE C D.B. 713, PG. 417 WINCHESTER, VA 22601 PHONE: 540.678.2700 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN PROD. NO. EXHIBIT FAX: 540.678.2703 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT W1MN fIPWF1PT/ mm FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA 1276014 7 GARDEN APARTMENTS VILLAGE OPEN SPACE � 0 (RIGHT) TREE LINED BOULEVARD a n COMMERCIAL SPACE ON GROUND FLOOR, APARTMENTS/ OFFICE SPACE ABOVE WW TREE LINED BOULEVARD PEDE D ewberry Drawn By RJS Dewberry & Davis LLC Designed By JS 611 West Juba[ Early Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By PHONE: 540.678.2700 FAX: 540.678.2703 MTW www.dewberry.com Plan Number 76030007 Date JUNE 2004 Scale 1 "=400' THIS PLAN IS INTENDED TO SHOW POSSIBLE UNIT TYPES. ACTUAL ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS WILL VARY. THIS EXHIBIT IS TO BE USED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON FOR ANY LEGAL OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. ACTUAL LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAYS, LANDSCAPING, UNIT TYPES, ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS MAY VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. ALLEY -SERVED VILLAGE HOME STACKED FLATS STACKED FLATS BACK TO BACK UNIT CLUSTER HOMES STACKED FLATS END UNIT ENTRY STACKED FLATS INTERIOR UNIT ENTRY STREET FRONT TOWNHOME ALLEY -SERVED UNITS ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN - HOUSING TYPES CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC D.B.713, PG. 417 PARKINS MILL PRECINTINCT SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA (ABOVE) VILLAGE HOME, ALLEY -SERVED File Number EXHIBIT 8 • Dewberry • 3 The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 • SECTION 3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT • • The Villages W Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 Introduction/Project Background The Villages at Artrip is a single tract of land acquired by the Applicant from W.F. Artrip Jr. and Enid Artip by deed dated May 15, 1989 and recorded in the Frederick County Clerk's office in Deed Book 713 at Page 417 (see Appendix A). The Applicant also owns an adjacent parcel of land designated as Lot 121, Lakewood Manor Section VIII. Historically, the Property was used for agricultural uses, but the Property has no current uses and has remained vacant since the Applicant's acquisition. The Property has no known resources of historic merit. A family cemetery has been located; however, it is unknown whether burials remain on that site. Accordingly, the cemetery will be protected by a buffer area surrounding the perimeter. The Applicant believes that this Property is suitable for rezoning to the requested R4 category given its location within the UDA, the SWSA, the CPP and proximity to the adjacent developments of Crosspointe Center, Lakewood Manor, Wakeland Manor and Canter Estates (see Exhibit 9). In addition, the Applicant recognizes the transportation elements proposed with this project (i.e. — Warrior Drive, Parkins Mill Road extended and Lakeside Drive) constitute key "links" shown on the South Frederick Land Use Plan is (see Exhibits 10 & 11). 0 •CFI/I �I ��t"' ♦ I 1 r= T 0 0 HAYMARKET ROUND, HILL N OUhwestern ike j. WINCHESTE Rt. Pik V #01 Z 711 0, 0 0 Q- CA C3, 0 (D Qske 00d THE VILLAGES STEPc cl C) Z) AT ARTR I P 0 ej A MIDDLETOW"N k\ 4/ K' TY rl FREDERICK COUN .. . ............ . WARREN COUNTY MAJOR ROAD SYSTEM S DRAFTED CHECKED Dewberry (ENLARGED) RJS MTW ARTRIP DATE Jewberry & Davis LLC THE VILLAGES AT SCALE co 611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC JUNE 2004 WINCHECHESTER, VA 22601 1"=2 MILES PHONE: 540.678.2700 D.B. 713, PG. 417 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT FAX:540.678.2703 —RR0J. NO. — a. EXHIBIT www.dewberfy.com SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT I FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1276007 THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP TABLE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES FEATURE EXISTING AREA % OF SITE AREA ACRES 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN 1.3 1 % WETLANDS 0.89 1 % WATERS OF THE US 2.35 1 % STEEP SLOPES 17.6 10% MATURE WOODLANDS 64.4 38% PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS 0.93 1 % TOTALS 87,47 51 % ANTICIPATED IMPACT AREA % OF SITE AREA ACRES 0.00 0.00% 0.50 0.29% 0.50 0.29% 8.80 5.18% 48.30 28.42% 0.00 0.00% 58.10 34.19 % The Villages al Adrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan 0 May 20, 2005 • • Suitability of the Site The land planning for the Villages at Artrip has carefully considered several environmental features of note, including: • 100-year Flood Plains; and • Wetlands and/or Waters of the U.S.; and • Steep Slopes; and • Mature Woodlands; and • Prime Agricultural Soils; and • Soil or Bedrock Conditions that could create construction difficulties or hazards. Each element is discussed on the following pages. Table 1 shows the approximate areas of these features and area of potential impacts: 2 The Villages al Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan 0 May 20, 2005 • 100 year Elood Plain Two significant streams, the Opequon Creek and an unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek, are adjacent to or traverse the Property. FEMA has mapped a flood plain for Opequon Creek and Frederick County's GIS data indicates a mapped flood plain for the same, as well as for the unnamed tributary (see Exhibits 12 & 13). Because the extension of Warrior Drive will cross the unnamed tributary, the Applicant prepared a flood plain study demonstrating the "existing" and "proposed" conditions within the project boundaries to ascertain any impacts to the floodplain. Given the significant topographical variation between Wakeland Manor and the Villages at Artrip along the Warrior Drive route, there will be minimal, if any, flood plain impacts. In addition, the street and lot layout will not impact the flood plain for Opequon Creek. Stormwater management systems and path/trail systems will be designed to minimize impacts. 3 ZONE LIMIT OF STUDY Z 0 m Q NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PRO -GRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA (UNICORPORATED AREAS) W COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER Ow 510063 0200 B EFFECTIVE JULY 17, 1978 Dewberry Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE BLDG B, SUITE C WINCHESTER, VA 22601 PHONE: 540.678.2700 FAX: 540.678.2703 www.dewberry.com �i ZONE C a 0. . 00 ( sn -. J f ZOi 7 0 .beQuoh 1 � r, Parkins o Tjh�E VILLAG S --- AT ARTRIP �a a ° �o 0 m IJ Run Qo�o ZONE A FEMA DRAFTED CHECKED Flood Insurance Rate Map KLT MTW THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP DATE SCALE WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC D.B. 713, PG. 417 JUNE 2004 N/A PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT PROD. N0. EXHIBIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 76030007 12 • 0 TM 75 ((A))-99A ART,?iP DB 71314-7 169.924 ACS. 1� THE V11! AG`� AT AR T R 1 P ►!� 100, YEAR F l OOD PLAID! i 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN Dewberry Drawn By Plan Number FLOOD PLAIN DELINEATION OF UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 10 OPEQUON CREEK File Number RJS/KLT 76030007 THE AG AT P Designed By Date Dewberry & Davis LLC MTW JUNE 2004 WINCHE ARTR ARTLCES EXHIBIT 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 D.B. 713, PG. 417 Checked By Scale PHONE: 540.678.2700 MTW 1' — 300 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN 13 FAX: 540.678.2703 _ SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT www.dewberry.com FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The Villages atArtrip 0 Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 0 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. The Applicant commissioned ECS, Ltd. to conduct a wetlands delineation report for the project (see Appendix B). ECS identified and located seven wetlands and four streams (see Exhibit 14). Those wetlands are classified as palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine scrub/shrub (PEMIS 5), and palustrine forested (PFO). Wetland vegetation is dominated by green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), seedbox (Ludwigia x lacustris), Frank's sedge (Carexfrankii) and soft rush (Juncus effuses). The main source of hydrology for these wetlands includes ground water fluctuation and surface runoff. The wetlands are underlain by Berks channery silt loam and Weikert- Berks channery silt loam. The Applicant's land plan integrates some of these features, including re -use and possible retrofit of the farm pond as a focal point for the central village green. Additionally, several of the swales are contained within planned open spaces. The Applicant will work with Frederick County staff, the Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") representatives to determine actual impacts to these features. During the design and detailed engineering process, the Applicant will incorporate such design features as necessary to minimize the impact to wetlands within the open space network. 4 • u �a TM 75 kA) —99aA ARTRIP D8 713/417 1fAC7 1 169.009 R CRES s 169,924 ACS. TO rAI„ THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP Ile gs��- .�L _ 1� % LEGEND Dewberry Drawn By RJS Dewberry & Davis LLC Designed By JLM 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By PHONE: 540.678-2700 N FAX: 540.678.2703 www.dewberry.com Plan Number 76030007 Date JUNE 2004 Scale 1 "=300' WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (2.35 ACRES) WETLANDS (0.89 ACRES) WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE U.S. File Number THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC EXHIBIT D.B. 713, PG. 417 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN 14 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan 10 May 20, 2005 Steep Slopes Based on uncontrolled topography dated late 1980's, areas on the Property exceeding 50% steep slopes were identified. (see Exhibit 15). Most of these steep slope areas will remain in planned open space (50% of the open space along Opequon Creek includes steep slopes). As permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, there will be some construction impacts to the steep slope areas, but none that will exceed 25% of the total steep slope area. Proper erosion and sediment control measures, grading and stabilization will be utilized to protect the impacted areas. • 0 • • Drawn By RJS Dewberry Dewberry & Davis LLC Designed By JLM 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By PHONE: 540.678.2700N FAX: 540.678.2703 www.dewberrv.com Plan Number 76030007 Date JUNE 2004 Scale 1 "=300' 1 i J. j( =- THE VILLAG�S:A Fi'ff tP I STEEP SLOPES 50% OR GREATER STEEP SLOPES File Number THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC D.B. 713, PG. 417 EXHIBIT PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN 15 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA • 0 The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 Mature Woodlands Aerial photography and field visits indicate areas on the Property that contain woodlands (see Exhibit 16). Two areas contain tree stands and/or individual trees of significant size/caliper, including the areas adjacent to Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to Opequon Creek. While most of the woodlands adjacent to the Opequon Creek will remain in open space, some areas will be impacted by lot/street layouts, while others will be incorporated within planned open space. The construction of Warrior Drive and a portion of the multi -family area will impact the area adjacent to the unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek (Landbay "A"), but the majority of the remaining woodlands area will be within planned open space. In addition, the Applicant will strive to retain individual trees within the impacted areas via selective clearing on the home sites. Minimal encroachment will occur in areas of mature tree stands. rol t)`i� LN qN 0111 1 T7- M, M. l �}�i�1+tt►1 ltttt � i 1 1 ' \\\`l It The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan 0 May 20, 2005 Soil or Bedrock Conditions Based on the County Soils Survey, the project contains three underlying soils types: Berks, Clearbrook and Weikert, all of which are within the Weikert-Berks-Btairton soil complex (see Exhibit 17). This soil complex is generally described as gently sloping to moderately steep, shallow and moderately deep, well drained to somewhat poorly drained soils that have a medium textured or fine textured subsoil. The parent soils were formed in a material weathered from shale or sandstone. These soils are poorly to moderately well suited for pasture and crop cultivation. In addition erosion hazard is moderate and needs to be considered a major concern. Limitations within this complex include depth to bedrock (ranging from 10" to 40" below the ground surface) and seasonal high water table (ranging from 6" to 6' below the ground surface). Based on the aforementioned County Soils Survey, this project, as well as the eastern part of the County, is underlain by shale and fined -grained sandstone. The County Geology Map (see Exhibit 18) identifies this area in the Martinsburg Shale Formation. Unlike other areas in the County that have limestone, the bedrock is not obvious from visual surface inspection of topographical ridges or knobs. However, as discussed earlier, isshallow bedrock conditions are a concern in this area. Given the limitations on these soils, the Applicant will consider these elements during the design of site grading to minimize depths of cut. However, it is anticipated that excavations and fills of 4 to 10 feet will be required, to provide balanced earthwork for the project. The Applicant will engage a geotechnical engineer to provide site development recommendations during the detailed site design stage in order to minimize impacts and identify site development constraints within these soil and bedrock conditions. 0 KI • • 1B i � I i 41E N 28 HE VILLAGES AT AIRTRIP 1C 9B >-� 41 C � �\ 41 D ( i / � r �v^ Dewberry Drawn By RJS/KLT Dewberry & Davis LLC DesignedMTW 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By PHONE: 540,678.2700 FAX: 540.678.2703 M TW y Plan Number 76030007 Date JUNE 2004 Scale Lilo 41D f 41D Sr r •r'' � y 41E 1C 2.3 911 \ 41D 41D 41E 1B—BERKS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 1C 1C —BERKS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 7-15% SLOPES 9181—CLEARBROOK CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 28— LOBDELL SILT LOAM, 0-3% SLOPES 8;`., PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS 41 C—WEIKERT BERKS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 7-15% SLOPES 1B ! 41 D—WEIKERT BERKS 41 CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES 2 41 E—WEILKERT BERKS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 25-65% SLOPES COUNTY SOILS SURVEY EXCERPT THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC D.B. 713, PG. 417 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA NOTE: 1s� ACCORDING TO 'SOIL SURVEY OF FREDERICK COUNTY' SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE DATA, _ ISSUED JAN 1987, PAGE 123 TABLE 5, PRIME FARMLAND, THE ONLY PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOIL ON THIS SITE IS: 28 LOBDELL SILT LOAM — LOCATED ON THE FAR NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY NEXT TO OPEQUON CREEK. File Number EXHIBIT 17 The Villages atArtrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan 0 May 20, 2005 • Other Environmental Conditions The Applicant commissioned a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment from ECS, Ltd. dated 03/23/04 (see Appendix Q. This study concluded that there is "no evidence of current or previous uses or conditions onsite that would be regarded as environmentally -suspect" and that "no further environmental investigation of the property is deemed necessary prior to development. " See Appendix C, § 1.0, Executive Summary. A. Surrounding Properties The Villages at Artrip is bounded by farmland and existing or proposed residential and commercial development (See Exhibit 19 and Table 3). To the north is an active farm operated by W.F. Artrip, Jr. (zoned RA); to the east is the proposed Canter Estates V single-family subdivision (zoned RP); to the southeast is the proposed Wakeland Manor single-family and multifamily subdivision (zoned RP); to the southwest is the existing and fully built out Lakewood Manor single-family and multifamily subdivision (zoned RP); and to the west is the proposed Crosspointe Center commercial and residential subdivision (portions of which were recently rezoned from RA to B2 and RP). The closest development to the proposed project is the Lakewood Manor subdivision, with about 12 houses within 50'+/- of the southern Property line. All other boundaries will be proximate to the proposed development's commercial buildings or residential units, but specific building locations have not been determined as of the date of this document. The Applicant is unaware of any nuisance impacts (e.g. - noise, glare, fumes, pollution, and odors), pursuant to thresholds established by County, State and Federal regulations that will be created as the result of this development. Furthermore, the Applicant does not believe any other nuisance factors will be created as the result of this development. 0 0 • m 3 v Cl) 0 r a THE VILLAGES AT ARTR/P TABLE 2 Adjacent Property Owners PIN Name Address city St. Zip Use Zoning 75-A-101 Wakeland Manor Land Trust 300 Craig St. Stephen City VA 22655 6 RP 75-A-95 Glaize Development, Inc. P.O. Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 2 (Residential) RA 75-A-96 Glaize Development, Inc. P.O. Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 6 (Over 100 Ac.) RA 75-A-97 Steve Dubrueler 346 Saddleback Lane Winchester VA 22602 2 (Residential) RA 75-A-99 Frederick County 107 N. Kent St. Winchester VA 22601 73 (Exempt) RP 75G-11-8-116 Ronald Santoro & Pamela Chagnon 106 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-117 James Swiger & Michelle Vitela 105 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-118 David T.& Tammy M. Foster 103 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-120 Robert & Mary E. McDonald 109 Fair Lawn Ct, Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-121 Winchester/Artrip LP 11501 Huff Ct. N. Bethesda MD. 20895 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-122 Timothy J. Elliot Sr. & Kathleen A. Elliott 105 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-123 Timothy Wingfield 103 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-60 Rodney & Suzanne R. Torp 102 Jade Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-62 John & Melissa Corder P.O. Box 90010 c/o Valerie Whit Richmond VA 23225 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-63 Patricia Gail Beardslee 125 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-64 Cynthia D. Rodriguez 127 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-8-5-85 Timothey J. & Karen E. Adams 129 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 76-A-13 W.F. Artrip, Jr. 1726 Front Royal Pike Winchester VA 22602 6-- (Over 100 Ac.) RA 76-A-23 Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Stephens City VA 22655 5 (20-100 AC.) RP Note: 1. Information from SpecPrint Edition 13, 2004 2. Use Codes: 2- Single Family Residential (Suburban) 4- Commercial & Industrial 5- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.) 6- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.) 73- Regional / Local Government The Villages atArtrip 0 Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 • B. Traffic As previously stated, the Applicant commissioned from Patton, Harris & Rust, P.C. the accompanying Traffic Impact Analysis. The project scope was established through two meetings with Frederick County and VDOT staff. The results of the TIA study concluded that "the traffic impacts associated with the Vllages at Artrip are acceptable and manageable." (See Traffic Impact Analysis, page 36). Although all intersections in closest proximity to the site maintain a level of service ("LOS") of C conditions at peak hour, the I-81 ramps to westbound Route 37/Route 11 (Kemstown) interchange operates at LOS F. However, others are in the process of identifying corrective measures to implement and thus improve the conditions at the interchange so as to improve the LOS. Additionally, the Applicant's intent to construct Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road will significantly improve traffic conditions. The specifics of each studied intersection are included within the TIA. 10 • • The Villages atArtrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 C. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Sewer services will be extended from existing and/or planned mains on or adjacent to the Property to serve the development (see Exhibit 20). The preliminary sewer layout depicted on the MDP indicates that onsite gravity sewers will be able to serve the development and provide conveyance for the project to one major interceptors; an existing 15" gravity interceptor line along Buffalo Lick Run in the southeast corner of the project. This sewer line expands to 18", crosses VA Route 522 then follows Opequon Creek to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located at the southeast corner of Route 522 and Parkins Mill Road. Exhibit 21 provides a schematic plan and improvements for sewers. 11 � 0 10 I• BATTLEFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK PUMPING STATION V. OpF ti • � VILLAGE DAT . �a THE VILLAGES �RFfk +"ar PUMPING AT ARTRIP fit' >t STATION a• a t fir* . all (43% ♦ �,, i l �i$ . y �'', i3 •.; PUMPING r. ♦I y r •. STATION30 . �. • . «. lo • �'� • • + . 1of Ito Dewberry Drawn By Plan Number EXISTING SEWER SYSTEMS File Number RJS 76M0O07 THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIPWINCHESTER Dewberry &Davis LLC Designed By RJS Date JUNE 2004 ARTRIP, LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By Scale EXHIBIT PHONE: 540.678.2700 MTW 1 "=1000' PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN 2 Q FAX: 540.678.2703 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT www.dewberry.com FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA � 0 I* I• ., IF Qbj BATTLEFIELD • INDUSTRIAL PARK PUMPING STATION VII I ArF AT opF \fFk }ar PARKINS MILL ♦� r _ 1t , J /.�►!• WASTEWATER cad `�_ ` TREATMENT ' y .�. PROPOSED PLANT SEWER LINE 'l���i.� �.. i1. ndGJS r�al�ass ar�la��' ,co 1 ���� • r iy ` j, _,.°ia►*:� �,�.,� v G4 = t "Q�� (9 PUMPING •� ,,43► t, ` ��dr $+• ♦ '+ STATION A.•• i •. �/ qqqq G S. ,, '�,� I • ♦ ti♦ V Y - % • 0. ,'` " m• + `' ` I PROPOSED 10. ;' ; • CONNECTION •I0 , ; POINT 14 •.`+♦ tit , A: 1 ��' ♦ 11 q� •..,. =-+, �; j;.': • .' ,' ALL ON SITE Q"iy ?� ♦ •• N-y • #. �SEWER IS i400, �. 8 MIN. Drawn By Plan Number PROPOSED SEWER SYSTEMS File Number Dewberry RJs 76030007 THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP d B Designed Dewberry & Davis LLC DesRJs DateJUNE 2004 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive D.B. 713, PG. 417 EXHIBIT Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By Scale PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN 21 PHONE: 540.678.2700 MTW 1"=1000' SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FAX: 540.678.2703 www.dewberry.com FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan 0 May 20, 2005 The anticipated sewage flow generation is provided in Table 3. Sewage generation from this site will be treated at the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant (the "Parkins Mill plant"). Monthly operational data for this facility is shown on Table 4. In addition, the FCSA on 08/20/04, provided the following data on the WWTP:1 Current Capacity = 2,000,000 gallons per day (gpd); or 2.0 MGD Current Usage = 1.5 MGD Current Available Capacity = 0.5 MGD The FCSA also noted that only Crosspointe Center will contribute additional sewage flows. Based on the rezoning application for that development, the now generation at build -out conditions from that project is estimated to be 0.634550 MGD. A proposed WWTP upgrade project scheduled for completion by 2008 will increase the WWTP°s capacity by 1 MGD. The FCSA, through reserve funding of the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority ("FWSA"), has begun to study future expansion of hydraulic capacity at Parkins Mill, which will require expansion to meet the increasing flow requirements within the Opequon and Wrights Run Watersheds. Discussions with FCSA have not identified any deficiencies in the sewer systems that will serve this project. 1 This information is based on an August 20 2004 conversation with the Applicant's representative and Mr. Wellington Jones. 12 • 905 Residential Units, 118,550 sf Retail, Office, etc. RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPE RESIDENTIAL TOTAL CUMULATIVE TOTAL FLOWS COMMERCIAURETAIL/OFFICE/RESTAURANT THE VILLAGES AT ARTR/P TABLE 3 WATER DEMAND/SEWAGE FLOWS PHASEI PHASER PHASEIII UNITS FLOW UNITS FLOW UNITS FLOW 300 60000 380 76000 225 45000 300 60,000 380 76,000 225 45,000 60,000 136,000 181,000 PHASEI PHASEII PHASEIII SQUARE FEET FLOW SQUARE FEET FLOW SQUARE FEET FLOW COMM ERCIAURETAIUOFFICE/RESTAURANT 0 0 10000 2000 108550 21710 CUMULATIVE TOTAL FLOWS - 2,000 23,710 GRAND TOTAL FLOWS 60,000 138,000 204,710 NOTES: 1. ALL RESIDENTIAL FLOWS ASSUMED @ 200 GPD/UNIT 2. COMM ERCIAURETAIUOFFICE/RESTAURANT FLOWS @ 200 GPD/1,000 SF THE VILLAGES AT ARTR/P TABLE 4 Parkins Mill Wastewater Plant Operational Data Permit limit JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN AVE Plant Flow (MGD) 2 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.7 1.9 2 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.0 Concentration (MG/L) BOD Summer 7.5 3.2 1.8 2 2.2 4.5 5.3 4.4 3.3 Winter 23 3.4 5 5 10 4.1 5.5 Suspended 30 4 3 6 5 6 3 3 3 6 3 5.1 6 4.4 Ammonia Summer 1.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.3 1.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 Winter 2.4 0.2 1.8 1.8 0.6 0.9 002 PH FROM 6.5 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.4 TO 7.9 8 7.9 8.2 8 7.9 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.8 8.8 7.8 AVG 7.7 7.8 7.65 7.8 7.75 7.6 7.55 7.6 7.6 7.55 8.15 7.6 7.7 007 DO 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.5 7.5 8 9.3 9.4 8.5 8.3 7.5 7.4 7.9 2 Phosp NIL 6.1 6.25 8.2 NSA NW 6.9 Nitrogen NIL 12 12.5 8.8 NSA NSA 11.1 Quantity (KG/D) BOD Summer 57 21 12 15 14 31 41 33 23.9 Winter 174 22 26 32 36 89 33 47.6 Suspended 227 26 22 43 31 38 30 17 20 54 25 41 53 33.3 Ammonia Summer 12.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.3 NSA NW 0.5 Winter 18.2 1.2 1.2 17.9 6.8 Fecal Coliform 200 150 57 40 119 68 78 125 62 148 50 63 126 90.5 Rainfall (in -PM) 5.92 4.51 8.49 2.46 3.891 3.74 1.96 6.22 3.3 3.73 5.79 6.89 4.7 Rainfall (in-JHD) 4.68 3 4.2 4.42 3.32 3.39 2 down down down down 7.14 4.0 • • • The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 D. Water Supply Water services will be extended from existing and/or planned water mains on or adjacent to the Property. (see Exhibit 22). The following connections will be provided for water service: Extension of the proposed water main from Wakeland Manor at the southeast and Crosspointe Center at the west; and 2. Extension of the proposed water main in Parkins Mill Road Extended from Canter Estates to the east. A schematic plan and improvements for water mains is shown on Exhibit 23. Water demand for The Villages at Artrip is shown on the aforementioned Table 3. The primary water source is 3,000,000 gallons per day (MGD) of ground water pumped from quarries on the west side of Stephens City. This water is then treated at the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant (WFP) that normally treats up to 3.2 MGD. However, additional pumps can increase this capacity to 4 MGD. The WFP is also configured for an additional filter unit that will increase capacity to 6 MGD. Another water source in the northern portion of the County available to the proposed development is a quarry in Clearbrook and nearby wells. The Authority also purchases finished water from the City of Winchester, which gets its water from the Shenandoah River. This water is then treated at the Northern Treatment Plant, which has a current capacity of 4 MGD, and is expandable to 6 MGD. After treatment from one of these two WTP's, water is stored in one of three elevated and two ground storage tanks with a total capacity of 3,00,000 gallons of system water storage. In addition, the FCSA provided the following WTP data: Current Capacity = Current Usage = Current Available Capacity = 9.25 MGD 4.7 MGD 4.5555 MGD According to the WTP, the only pending development anticipated to contribute additional flows is Crosspointe Center, and the estimated flow demand from that project at build -out conditions in 2012 is 0.634550 MGD. However, a proposed WTP upgrade project scheduled for completion by 2012 will increase the WTP's capacity by 4 MGD. 13 The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan 0 May 20, 2005 • The 20" primary water distribution main from the Diehl WFP is west of this site on the Crosspointe Center project, and distributes water in both the Abrams Creek and Fort Collier/Stonewall Industrial Park areas of Frederick County. Additionally, the 500,000 gallon Route 642 elevated water storage tank is located west of the project, on the property rezoned for Crosspointe Center. Water mains within the development will be looped and extended to existing and/or proposed mains on the adjoining projects to meet Frederick County Sanitation Authority ("FCSA") design requirements. This combination of water supply service will provide adequate fire protection and domestic service for all phases of the proposed commercial and residential uses. To -date, discussions with FCSA has not identified any deficiencies in the water systems that will serve this project. 14 D / 89A ROUTE 642 \ ' 2 ATED WATER Jp 94 "b m 0LAG 966 `.RTRIPd; l�ppl.�iQ''` p Oho o-�l+� �t.. � - .::� _.... oo�o� o t ��!. ��:-.la co �.r •�;�woPr,aw.. � -7�� �Oo ado D .�. oIL v�4 pir -4 OWN h o ON -��no 64%V �]UP© ,d �. - --on 172o 0 •�0�'O`�"!� �. -ate ��� , �� �:� . • � • Drawn By RJS Big - Designed D. EXHIBIT .•Checked By Scale• • •• ••• •. •MTW• The Villages at Artrip . Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 • E. Drainage Drainage will be provided on an equal basis by two major streams: the Opequon Creek and an unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek (see Exhibit 24). Drainage generally flows from the center of the site then north to the Opequon Creek or south to the unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek, and each stream then flows east where they meet offsite, just southeast of the Parkins Mill WWTP. The project will provide onsite stormwater management (SWM) in accordance with Virginia's Stormwater Management Handbook through design of several wet and dry SWM basins, grassed swales, and other best management practices (BMP) (see Exhibit 25). These facilities will provide a combination of two and ten-year frequency water quantity management by detaining and releasing post -developed runoff to pre -development rates, as well as providing water quality management of the "first flush" (i.e. - %2" to 1" runoff depth from impervious areas) of the post development runoff. 100-year quantity management will only be provided where deemed necessary by the County to protect downstream properties from flooding conditions. One SWM facility of note is the proposed conversion of an existing farm pond to a central amenity lake feature. This lake will be designed to provide SWM, but will also function as an attractive focal point for the project. 15 of —� o pEgtjoN CREEK TH E VI LLAG ES AT ARTRIP TO OPEQUON C71 • + Dewberry&Davis LLC Designed By Date RJS JUNE 2004 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By Scale PHONE: 540.678.2700 FAX: 540.678.2703 MTW 1 "=2000' www.dewberry.com EXISITNG MAJOR DRAINAGE DIVIDES THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC D.B. 713, PG. 417 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRCIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA File Number EXHIBIT 24 . -.. "` rum � ow O�4!,n. 84 tt FVILLAGES AT ARTRIP ~�``� -'�_•-- - ! i I;� `.ram" 1 iJ��-+ 1 2 ;,�«rmvs 7{ rp-�;1�` nx� �d'x�/s) �'' ���7�•4r�C'gla�\aO C Q\� _... � �•JIt•it`� i. -,} �\;ii i 1�'� `. /j EX. FARM POND \ a a, �5-i+ �►•',,,•. +2 .� �b 4r � qt - - -- TO BE CONVERTED I f \ /`� i�`- -2r• --�ti dr*� _. TO A TAKE AMENITY & SWM FACILITY I S- s? 1 p` S� a ' _r p:x ; �,y ° ds •$/ \. �o ��n s, oa �s a t:i '1 1. / 1 .. l 7� / , \� = \ `t �\ /I / / ^� 74 er ,Z.w,zs , " fl0 'us / � r��\ \ • j /' ,! {. I g \•, \, 72 W l � � S7 xW �,1 ,i a7. �v '!: �`���\;/ ,`' a. �y� ! ,27.' t15'�r75 / f I � j '� V✓ �j f �.� /��` � `t .c •1 Y 25 1 ,� rA 4Y d`l'- 78 e1 S° I ��.il,'I tSS ` , �. i ,✓/( '7 xuT / xt 22 �RY SWM/BMP FACILITY, �TYP.) 7 ? �\�� \�, ys{A\\ n xa .•s �v -n �oa v52 Y�'�ratD\� ,n`` t"'. y� 17/F\ —t� ✓'•' l•1 J =r^ 1 w 't 5 ra is.•:3-162 - r ,(R�"► r1 �_ _ —� -- - " ,,'1 , .:�-n r 3 - 3 \ � 14 � -.. M , r�� � �Sa •• `� .. � 7 1 �e r•�y ?_— °a ~�y/- .. � f� �- ,� �---i _ _.._.. _. ._._.__— / .-.-•'1.t t ---- 23564 ` f - / r l�° t/ .}, � a , �-` as � 't' ss \ � a �.. s< {• S � +�/. - o %� i :� j _ .�`'_ � . , ss _ ^� f i _ -�____ � - -" )F '- \ � Y: '\l� ,-'�•`�-'J J R5 �. � r j yti~ ���:!_.-__.:�--�"���. ,/'F ��'' �\ .g\�g ,y _� ���"' �, _ _ -_^"`_ �.. r-. '`` r 1C f \ / i (`f 1• �2 •t\/ y! 1� 37` �• .,n�-__._.__.c _ \ .) \ / y� < \ i r i' i rsl •i _ f r- 1, 1 �-f ,r' `�L'_,,, r9' Y�,,,, :: ----'�r `.. .l l� _ l `. J�-r �",S 1 I`'.•I iviJ �.,� i \ i. 5' i T �ry� 'u/% •�G\✓il - -- r - _ '`a' � �ti �i: i , t,' - .. , + 10 J ,...ry.r. 'ti.._:' �;l• '\ 5 .\► N \ <1 1 °4 'fir° r'O' :� tI ( �i �.1 y-+`U •"-�";' ts Lz :� � .�' ^� ,$ ,: ��.` �° j�. tQ 4;. �_'� %°{/•J'� 1 � n \� 1 a m Dewberry Drawn By RJS Project Number 76030007 PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT / BMP FACILITIES File Number 10 - -, THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP , Dewberry & Davis LLC Designed By Date JUNE 04 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive D.B. 713, PG 417 EXHIBIT Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By Scale PHONE: 540.678.2700 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN `_ FAX: 5ao.s78.2703 MTW 1 "=500' SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 25 �;: www.dewberry.com FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 Introduction/Project Background The Villages at Artrip is a single tract of land acquired by the Applicant from W.F. Artrip Jr. and Enid Artip by deed dated May 15, 1989 and recorded in the Frederick County Clerk's office in Deed Book 713 at Page 417 (see Appendix A). The Applicant also owns an adjacent parcel of land designated as Lot 121, Lakewood Manor Section VIII. Historically, the Property was used for agricultural uses, but the Property has no current uses and has remained vacant since the Applicant's acquisition. The Property has no known resources of historic merit. A family cemetery has been located; however, it is unknown whether burials remain on that site. Accordingly, the cemetery will be protected by a buffer area surrounding the perimeter. The Applicant believes that this Property is suitable for rezoning to the requested R4 category given its location within the UDA, the SWSA, the CPP and proximity to the adjacent developments of Crosspointe Center, Lakewood Manor, Wakeland Manor and Canter Estates (see Exhibit 9). In addition, the Applicant recognizes the transportation elements proposed with this project (i.e. — Warrior Drive, Parkins Mill Road extended and Lakeside Drive) constitute key "links" shown on the South Frederick Land Use Plan is (see Exhibits 10 & 11). 0 U 0 CAO 6, 0 00' TH E \451 A LLAG ES AT ARTRIP M4DK D LETOWN i, 4 . ......... coUNTYt"Al FREDERICK coUNy WARRE 0* S DRAFTED CHECKED MAJOR ROAD SYSTEM Dewberry (ENLARGED) RJS MTW ,,Tewberry & Davis LLC THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP DATE SCALE co 611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC JUNE 2004 WINCHECHESTER, VA 22601 1"=2 MILES PHONE: 540.678.2700 D.B. 713, PG. 417 2 P�. _N0. - FAX:540.678.2703 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT ROJEXHIBIT www.dewberry.com SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1276007 ro p� 7 P 0A A HAY ­1 ..... MARKET"-�_111,,1, 0 A I Lp A Vo R K >1 N, z AZ 1j, ROUND1 ov �N X/ orthwtty les !;h er < Pike ? rr vuld Pik wINCHESTE l o A, ."o A b f d, N THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP TABLE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES FEATURE EXISTING AREA % OF SITE AREA ACRES 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN 1.3 1% WETLANDS 0.89 1 % WATERS OF THE US 2.35 1 % STEEP SLOPES 17.6 10% MATURE WOODLANDS 64.4 38% PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS 0.93 1 % TOTALS 87.47 51 % ANTICIPATED IMPACT AREA % OF SITE AREA ACRES 0.00 0.00% 0.50 0.29% 0.50 0.29% 8.80 5.18% 48.30 28.42% 0.00 0.00% 58.10 34,19% The Villages at Artrip 0 Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 • • Suitability of the Site The land planning for the Villages at Artrip has carefully considered several environmental features of note, including: • 100-year Flood Plains; and • Wetlands and/or Waters of the U.S.; and • Steep Slopes; and • Mature Woodlands; and • Prime Agricultural Soils; and • Soil or Bedrock Conditions that could create construction difficulties or hazards. Each element is discussed on the following pages. Table 1 shows the approximate areas of these features and area of potential impacts: N The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan 0 May 20, 2005 100 year Flood Plain Two significant streams, the Opequon Creek and an unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek, are adjacent to or traverse the Property. FEMA has mapped a flood plain for Opequon Creek and Frederick County's GIS data indicates a mapped flood plain for the same, as well as for the unnamed tributary (see Exhibits 12 & 13). Because the extension of Warrior Drive will cross the unnamed tributary, the Applicant prepared a flood plain study demonstrating the "existing" and "proposed" conditions within the project boundaries to ascertain any impacts to the floodplain. Given the significant topographical variation between Wakeland Manor and the Villages at Artrip along the Warrior Drive route, there will be minimal, if any, flood plain impacts. In addition, the street and lot layout will not impact the flood plain for Opequon Creek. Stormwater management systems and path/trail systems will be designed to minimize impacts. • 0 C) ZONE A ( szz �0....J C� �o8e \ \1 0 �. sI S ZONE C zor LIMIT OF STUDY J.be44o7 rAZ Spring artonvAle Parkins miu / T VILLAG S AT ARTRIP nu2 @) W 0 z 1 0 ZLE C W W 636 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP Wrigh ts CD FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA co (UNICORPORATED AREAS) Rut, Ff COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER W (0)� 510063 0200 B ZONE A a_ EFFECTIVE JULY 17,1978 W" Dewberry FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map DRAFTED KLT CHECKED MTW 7 Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE BLDG B, SUITE C WINCHESTER, VA 22601 PHONE: 540.678.2700 FAX: 540.678.2703 www.dewberry.com THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC D.B. 713, PG. 417 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE JUNE 2004 - —- SCALE N/A PROD.W0. 76030007 EXHIBIT 12 The Villages atArtrip 0 Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 • Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. The Applicant commissioned ECS, Ltd. to conduct a wetlands delineation report for the project (see Appendix B). ECS identified and located seven wetlands and four streams (see Exhibit 14). Those wetlands are classified as palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine scrub/shrub (PEMIS 5), and palustrine forested (PFO). Wetland vegetation is dominated by green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), seedbox (Ludwigia x lacustris), Frank's sedge (Carexfrankii) and soft rush (Juncus effuses). The main source of hydrology for these wetlands includes ground water fluctuation and surface runoff. The wetlands are underlain by Berks channery silt loam and Weikert- Berks channery silt loam. The Applicant's land plan integrates some of these features, including re -use and possible retrofit of the farm pond as a focal point for the central village green. Additionally, several of the swales are contained within planned open spaces. The Applicant will work with Frederick County staff, the Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") representatives to determine actual impacts to these features. During the design and detailed engineering process, the Applicant will incorporate such design features as necessary to minimize the impact to wetlands within the open space network. N The Villages atArtrip 0 Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 Steep Slopes Based on uncontrolled topography dated late 1980's, areas on the Property exceeding 50% steep slopes were identified. (see Exhibit 15). Most of these steep slope areas will remain in planned open space (50% of the open space along Opequon Creek includes steep slopes). As permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, there will be some construction impacts to the steep slope areas, but none that will exceed 25% of the total steep slope area. Proper erosion and sediment control measures, grading and stabilization will be utilized to protect the impacted areas. • 0 The Villages at Artrip 0 Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 Mature Woodlands Aerial photography and field visits indicate areas on the Property that contain woodlands (see Exhibit 16). Two areas contain tree stands and/or individual trees of significant size/caliper, including the areas adjacent to Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to Opequon Creek. While most of the woodlands adjacent to the Opequon Creek will remain in open space, some areas will be impacted by lot/street layouts, while others will be incorporated within planned open space. The construction of Warrior Drive and a portion of the multi -family area will impact the area adjacent to the unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek (Landbay "A"), but the majority of the remaining woodlands area will be within planned open space. In addition, the Applicant will strive to retain individual trees within the impacted areas via selective clearing on the home sites. Minimal encroachment will occur in areas of mature tree stands. • 0 The Villages atArtrip 0 Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 E Soil or Bedrock Conditions Based on the County Soils Survey, the project contains three underlying soils types: Berks, Clearbrook and Weikert, all of which are within the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil complex (see Exhibit I7). This soil complex is generally described as gently sloping to moderately steep, shallow and moderately deep, well drained to somewhat poorly drained soils that have a medium textured or fine textured subsoil. The parent soils were formed in a material weathered from shale or sandstone. These soils are poorly to moderately well suited for pasture and crop cultivation. In addition erosion hazard is moderate and needs to be considered a major concern. Limitations within this complex include depth to bedrock (ranging from 10" to 40" below the ground surface) and seasonal high water table (ranging from 6" to 6' below the ground surface). Based on the aforementioned County Soils Survey, this project, as well as the eastern part of the County, is underlain by shale and fined -grained sandstone. The County Geology Map (see Exhibit 18) identifies this area in the Martinsburg Shale Formation. Unlike other areas in the County that have limestone, the bedrock is not obvious from visual surface inspection of topographical ridges or knobs. However, as discussed earlier, shallow bedrock conditions are a concern in this area. Given the limitations on these soils, the Applicant will consider these elements during the design of site grading to minimize depths of cut. However, it is anticipated that excavations and fills of 4 to 10 feet will be required, to provide balanced earthwork for the project. The Applicant will engage a geotechnical engineer to provide site development recommendations during the detailed site design stage in order to minimize impacts and identify site development constraints within these soil and bedrock conditions. 8 The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan 0 May 20, 2005 0 Other Environmental Conditions The Applicant commissioned a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment from ECS, Ltd. dated 03/23/04 (see Appendix C). This study concluded that there is "no evidence of current or previous uses or conditions onsite that would be regarded as environmentally -suspect" and that "no further environmental investigation of the property is deemed necessary prior to development. " See Appendix C, § 1.0, Executive Summary. A. Surrounding Properties The Villages at Artrip is bounded by farmland and existing or proposed residential and commercial development (See Exhibit 19 and Table 3). To the north is an active farm operated by W.F. Artrip, Jr. (zoned RA); to the east is the proposed Canter Estates V single-family subdivision (zoned RP); to the southeast is the proposed Wakeland Manor single-family and multifamily subdivision (zoned RP); to the southwest is the existing and fully built out Lakewood Manor single-family and multifamily subdivision (zoned RP); and to the west is the proposed Crosspointe Center commercial and residential subdivision (portions of which were recently rezoned from RA to B2 and RP). The closest development to the proposed project is the Lakewood Manor subdivision, with about 12 houses within 50'+1- of the southern Property line. All other boundaries will be proximate to the proposed development's commercial buildings or residential units, but specific building locations have not been determined as of the date of this document. The Applicant is unaware of any nuisance impacts (e.g. - noise, glare, fumes, pollution, and odors), pursuant to thresholds established by County, State and Federal regulations that will be created as the result of this development. Furthermore, the Applicant does not believe any other nuisance factors will be created as the result of this development. 0 1 40 THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP TABLE 2 Adjacent Property Owners PIN Name Address City St. Zip Use Zoning 75-A-101 Wakeland Manor Land Trust 300 Craig St. Stephen City VA 22655 6 RP 75-A-95 Glaize Development, Inc. P.O. Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 2 (Residential) RA 75-A-96 Glaize Development, Inc. P.O. Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 6 (Over 100 Ac.) RA 75-A-97 Steve Dubrueler 346 Saddleback Lane Winchester VA 22602 2 (Residential) RA 75-A-99 Frederick County 107 N. Kent St. Winchester VA 22601 73 (Exempt) RP 75G-11-8-116 Ronald Santoro & Pamela Chagnon 106 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-117 James Swiger & Michelle Vitela 105 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-118 David T.& Tammy M. Foster 103 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-120 Robert & Mary E. McDonald 109 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-121 Winchester/Artrip LP 11501 Huff Ct. N. Bethesda MD. 20895 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-122 Timothy J. Elliot Sr. & Kathleen A. Elliott 105 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-123 Timothy Wingfield 103 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-60 Rodney & Suzanne R. Torp 102 Jade Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-62 John & Melissa Corder P.O. Box 90010 c/o Valerie Whit Richmond VA 23225 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-63 Patricia Gail Beardslee 125 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-64 Cynthia D. Rodriguez 127 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-8-5-85 Timothey J. & Karen E. Adams 129 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 76-A-13 W.F. Artrip, Jr. 1726 Front Royal Pike Winchester VA 22602 6-- (Over 100 Ac.) RA 76-A-23 Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Stephens City VA 22655 5 (20-100 AC.) RP Note: 1. Information from SpecPrint Edition 13, 2004 2. Use Codes: 2- Single Family Residential (Suburban) 4- Commercial & Industrial 5- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.) 6- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.) 73- Regional / Local Government The Villages atArtrip 0 Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 n �J • B. Traffic As previously stated, the Applicant commissioned from Patton, Harris & Rust, P.C. the accompanying Traffic Impact Analysis. The project scope was established through two meetings with Frederick County and VDOT staff. The results of the TIA study concluded that "the traffic impacts associated with the Villages atArtrip are acceptable and manageable." (See Traffic Impact Analysis, page 36). Although all intersections in closest proximity to the site maintain a level of service ("LOS") of C conditions at peak hour, the I-81 ramps to westbound Route 37/Route 11 (Kernstown) interchange operates at LOS F. However, others are in the process of identifying corrective measures to implement and thus improve the conditions at the interchange so as to improve the LOS. Additionally, the Applicant's intent to construct Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road will significantly improve traffic conditions. The specifics of each studied intersection are included within the TIA. 10 The Villages atArtrip 0 Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 0 C. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Sewer services will be extended from existing and/or planned mains on or adjacent to the Property to serve the development (see Exhibit 20). The preliminary sewer layout depicted on the MDP indicates that onsite gravity sewers will be able to serve the development and provide conveyance for the project to one major interceptors; an existing 15" gravity interceptor line along Buffalo Lick Run in the southeast corner of the project. This sewer line expands to 18", crosses VA Route 522 then follows Opequon Creek to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located at the southeast corner of Route 522 and Parkins Mill Road. Exhibit 21 provides a schematic plan and improvements for sewers. 11 The Villages atArtrip 0 Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 The anticipated sewage flow generation is provided in Table 3. Sewage generation from this site will be treated at the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant (the "Parkins Mill plant"). Monthly operational data for this facility is shown on Table 4. In addition, the FCSA on 08120/04, provided the following data on the WWTP:1 Current Capacity = 2,000,000 gallons per day (gpd); or 2.0 MGD Current Usage = 1.5 MGD Current Available Capacity = 0.5 MGD The FCSA also noted that only Crosspointe Center will contribute additional sewage flows. Based on the rezoning application for that development, the flow generation at build -out conditions from that project is estimated to be 0.634550 MGD. A proposed WWTP upgrade project scheduled for completion by 2008 will increase the WWTP's capacity by 1 MGD. The FCSA, through reserve funding of the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority ("FWSA"), has begun to study future expansion of hydraulic capacity at Parkins Mill, which will require expansion to meet the increasing flow requirements within the Opequon and Wrights Run Watersheds. Discussions with FCSA have not identified any deficiencies in the sewer systems that will serve this project. 1 This information is based on an August 20 2004 conversation with the Applicant's representative and Mr. Wellington Jones. 12 1� • • 905 Residential Units, 118,550 sf Retail, Office, etc. RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPE RESIDENTIAL TOTAL CUMULATIVE TOTAL FLOWS COMMERCIAURETAI L/OFFICE/RESTAU RANT THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP TABLE 3 WATER DEMAND/SEWAGE FLOWS PHASE/ PHASEII PHASE IIl UNITS FLOW UNITS FLOW UNITS FLOW 300 60000 380 76000 225 45000 300 60,000 380 76,000 225 45,000 60,000 136,000 181,000 PHASE/ PHASE 11 PHASE M SQUARE FEET FLOW SQUARE FEET FLOW SQUARE FEET FLOW COMM ERCIAURETAIUOFFICE/RESTAURANT 0 0 10000 2000 108550 21710 CUMULATIVE TOTAL FLOWS - 2,000 23,710 GRAND TOTAL FLOWS 60,000 138,000 204,710 NOTES. 1. ALL RESIDENTIAL FLOWS ASSUMED @ 200 GPD/UNIT 2. COMM ERCIAURETAIUOFFICE/RESTAURANT FLOWS @ 200 GPD/1,000 SF Plant Flow (MGD) Concentration (MG/L) BOD Summer Winter Suspended Ammonia Summer Winter 002 PH FROM TO AVG 007 DO 2 Phosp Nitrogen Quantity (KG/D) SOD Summer Winter Suspended Ammonia Summer Winter Fecal Coliform Rainfall (in -PM) Rainfall (in-JHD) THE VILLAGES AT ARTR/P TABLE 4 Parkins Mill Wastewater Plant Operational Data Permit limit JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN AVE 2 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.7 1.9 2 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.0 7.5 3.2 1.8 2 2.2 4.5 5.3 4.4 3.3 23 3.4 5 5 10 4.1 5.5 30 4 3 6 5 6 3 3 3 6 3 5.1 6 4.4 1.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 1,1 0.3 1.2 0.2 0.5 016 2.4 0.2 1.8 1.8 0.6 0.9 6.5 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.9 8 7.9 8.2 8 7.9 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.8 8.8 7.8 7.7 7.8 7.65 7.8 7.75 7.6 7.55 7.6 7.6 7.55 8.15 7.6 7.7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.5 7.5 8 9.3 9.4 8.5 8.3 7.5 7.4 7.9 NIL 6.1 6.25 8.2 NW NW 6.9 NIL 12 12.5 8.8 NW NSA 11.1 57 21 12 15 14 31 41 33 23.9 174 22 26 32 36 89 33 47.6 227 26 22 43 31 38 30 17 20 54 25 41 53 33.3 12.1 0.4 0.3 0,2 1.1 0.3 N1A NSA 0.5 18.2 1.2 1.2 17.9 6.8 200 150 57 40 119 68 78 125 62 148 50 63 126 90.5 5.92 4.51, 8.49 2.46 3.891 3.74 1.96 6.22 3.3 3.73 5.79 6.89 4.7 4.68 3 4.2 4.42 3.32 3.39 2 down down down down 7.14 4.0 • r� The Villages atArtrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan May 20, 2005 D. Water Supply Water services will be extended from existing and/or planned water mains on or adjacent to the Property. (see Exhibit 22). The following connections will be provided for water service: Extension of the proposed water main from Wakeland Manor at the southeast and Crosspointe Center at the west; and 2. Extension of the proposed water main in Parkins Mill Road Extended from Canter Estates to the east. A schematic plan and improvements for water mains is shown on Exhibit 23. Water demand for The Villages at Artrip is shown on the aforementioned Table 3. The primary water source is 3,000,000 gallons per day (MGD) of ground water pumped from quarries on the west side of Stephens City. This water is then treated at the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant (WFP) that normally treats up to 3.2 MGD. However, additional pumps can increase this capacity to 4 MGD. The WFP is also configured for an additional filter unit that will increase capacity to 6 MGD. Another water source in the northern portion of the County available to the proposed development is a quarry in Clearbrook and nearby wells. The Authority also purchases finished water from the City of Winchester, which gets its water from the Shenandoah River. This water is then treated at the Northern Treatment Plant, which has a current capacity of 4 MGD, and is expandable to 6 MGD. After treatment from one of these two WTP's, water is stored in one of three elevated and two ground storage tanks with a total capacity of 3,00,000 gallons of system water storage. In addition, the FCSA provided the following WTP data: Current Capacity = Current Usage = Current Available Capacity = 9.25 MGD 4.7 MGD 4.5555 MGD According to the WTP, the only pending development anticipated to contribute additional flows is Crosspointe Center, and the estimated flow demand from that project at build -out conditions in 2012 is 0.634550 MGD. However, a proposed WTP upgrade project scheduled for completion by 2012 will increase the WTP's capacity by 4 MGD. 13 The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan 0 May 20, 2005 • The 20" primary water distribution main from the Diehl WFP is west of this site on the Crosspointe Center project, and distributes water in both the Abrams Creek and Fort Collier/Stonewall Industrial Park areas of Frederick County. Additionally, the 500,000 gallon Route 642 elevated water storage tank is located west of the project, on the property rezoned for Crosspointe Center. Water mains within the development will be looped and extended to existing and/or proposed mains on the adjoining projects to meet Frederick County Sanitation Authority ("FCSA") design requirements. This combination of water supply service will provide adequate fire protection and domestic service for all phases of the proposed commercial and residential uses. To -date, discussions with FCSA has not identified any deficiencies in the water systems that will serve this project. 14 The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan 0 May 20, 2005 • E. Drainage Drainage will be provided on an equal basis by two major streams: the Opequon Creek and an unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek (see Exhibit 24). Drainage generally flows from the center of the site then north to the Opequon Creek or south to the unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek, and each stream then flows east where they meet offsite, just southeast of the Parkins Mill WWTP. The project will provide onsite stormwater management (SWM) in accordance with Virginia's Stormwater Management Handbook through design of several wet and dry SWM basins, grassed swales, and other best management practices (BMP) (see Exhibit 25). These facilities will provide a combination of two and ten-year frequency water quantity management by detaining and releasing post -developed runoff to pre -development rates, as well as providing water quality management of the "first flush" (i.e. - '/2" to 1" runoff depth from impervious areas) of the post development runoff. 100-year quantity management will only be provided where deemed necessary by the County to protect downstream properties from flooding conditions. One SWM facility of note is the proposed conversion of an existing farm pond to a central amenity lake feature. This lake will be designed to provide SWM, but will also function as an attractive focal point for the project. 15 • • Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum • • To: Page 5 of 5 SITE No Scale ,7j o� Tasker Road 1 askerRoad of 2 Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(C) Added 4th Leg EB["-1Lt,IRt NB - I Thru SB - 1 Lt, I Thru, 1 Rt ASke` G�1 R°ad 1�T TI 1+ A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Phase 3: 2012 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects • • No Scale * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 21b Phase 3: 2012 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Detail) PHRn A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 41 0 • • r1 U 0 Figure 20a Phase 3: 2012 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 38 u • 0 0 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) nI ---Average Da Figure 20b Phase 3: 2012 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Detail) PR+AH A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 39 0 • • CONCLUSION The traffic impacts ❑ssociated with the proposed Villages at Artrip development are acceptable and manageable. The following describes the future (Year 2012) operating conditions at each of the study area intersections. • Route 37/SB 1-81 ramps: In order to achieve acceptable overall levels of service of "C" or better during 2012 background and build -out conditions, the following intersection improvements were assumed: 1) One lane was added along the southbound approach; 2) One thru lane in the eastbound and westbound directions, respectively; and 3) The westbound left -turn movement to southbor.ind I-81 was eliminated. All vehicles would be rerouted to the eastbound 1-81 southbound ramp via the Route 37/US Route 1 1 interchange. • Route 37/NB I-81 ramps: In order- to achieve acceptable overall levels of service of "C" or better during 2012 background and build -out conditions, the following intersection improvements were assumed: 1) The intersection is to be realigned to the east at the approximate location of the existing Tasker Road; 2) Two eastbound left -turn lanes were added; 3) One thru lane in the eastbound and westbound directions, respectively; 4) One lane was added along the northbound approach; and 5) A designated right turn lane was added in the westbound direction to allow free flow travel onto northbound 1-8 1. • Crosspointe Boulevard/Tasker- Road: For 2012 background and build -out conditions, this intersection will operate with overall levels of service of "C" during the AM peak hour and "D" during the PM peak hour assuming the following improvements: 1) Tasker Road is to be realigned to the east through the proposed Crosspointe Center site; 2) Route 37 was extended through the Crosspointe Center site as Crosspointe Boulevard.; 3) The new intersection of Crosspointe Boulevard/Tasker Road will be signalized and include the following lane geometry: Eastbound — one left -turn lane, two thru lanes and one right -turn lane; Westbound — one left -turn lane, one thru lane and one shared thru/right-turn lane; Northbound - two left -turn lanes, one thru lane and one right -turn lane; Southbound — one shared left-turn/thru lane and one right -turn. In order to demonstrate the minimal impacts of the project, PHR+A has provided Table 7 to the show the increase fn delay/levels of service between 2012 background and 2012 build -out conditions, assuming no improvements, for the intersections of Route 37/SB I-81 ramps, Route 37/NB I-81 ramps and Crosspointe Boulevard/Tasker Road. PHP1� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 42 0 0 • • Table 7 Comparison of Intersection Delay and Levels of Service (without improvements) Villap-es at Artrip: 2012 Background ver.sns 2012 Rnilrl-nut 11'eekdar Intersection Traffic Control t ritical AM Peak (lour 1'M Penk (lour Levels of Service Delay (in seconds) Levels of Service Deh.v fin seconds) i\9ovemenl Bucktround Build-oul lBackground Build -out Q Background Build-uul Background Build -out Q EB F F 132.6 202.9 +70.3 F F i 13.2 4063 -111.9 Route 37&1-31 Sidudized WB F F 2958 313.6 +32.8 F F 3441 439.0 +94.9 NB Rumps NB F F 13,5.9 139.0 +3.2 F F 1064 362.7 +256.3 Vverall F F 2014 241.4 +40.0 F F ,75.2 409.6 +34.4 EB B B I I 1 11.8 -1.3 C F 30.1 930 +67.9 Route 37&1-31 Signalized WB F E 914 75.0 -16.4 E F 699 164.9 +95.0 SB Ramps SB C E 30.9 55.9 +25.0 F F 131.9 158.3 +26.4 Overall E D 59.4 54.5 -4.9 E F 70.2 139.4 +69.2 EB C C 29.2 25.0 -4.2 D E 46.0 56.3 +10.8 Tasker Road & W B C C 31.7 34.8 +3.1 C C 23.3 260 +2.7 Crosspoinle Signalized NB C C 33.7 33.7 +0.0 D D 40.7 54 6 +13.9 Boulevmd SB C C 33.4 34.7 +1.3 C D 34.3 52.6 +17.8 Overall C C 31.7 30.6 -1.1 D D 39.3 48.9 +9.6 PHIt� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 43 0 0 • Crosspointe Boulevard/Warrior Drive: For 2012 background and build -out conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service of "C" or he(ter during the AM and PM peak hours. This planned intersection is to be signalized and will include the following lane geometry: Eastbound — one shared left-turn/thru lane and one ri(Dht-turn lane: Westbound — one shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane: Northbound - one shared left-turn/thru lane and one right -turn lane; SOUthbotlnd — one shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane. • • Hillandale Lane/Tacker Road: For 2012 background and build -out conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours assuming the following improvements: 1) Tasker Road is to be realigned to the east through the proposed Crosspointe Center site; 2) Hillandale Lane was realigned to intersect with Tasker as a T-intersection.; 3) The new intersection of Hillandale Lane/Tasker Road will maintain the following lane geometry: Eastbound — one shared left-turn/thru lane/right-tui-n lane; Westbound — one shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane; Northbound - one shared left-turn/thru lane and one right -turn lane; Southbound — one shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane. • Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (north intersection): For 2012 background and build - out conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours assuming the following improvements: 1) Tasker Road is to be realigned to the east through the proposed Crosspointe Center site; 2) The planned intersection of Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (north intersection) will maintain the following lane geometry: Eastbound — one shared thru/right-tum lane; Westbound — one shared left-turn/thru lane; Northbound - one shared left - turn/ right -turn lane. • Warrior Drive/Parkins Mill Road: For 2012 background and build -out conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service "A" during the AM and PM peak hours assuming the following intersection improvements: 1) Warrior Drive is to be implemented from south of Tasker Road to north of Crosspointe Boulevard; and 2) The proposed intersection of Warrior Drive/Parkins Mill Road will maintain traffic control via a single lane roundabout. R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 PH Page 44 E 0 • • • Warrior Drive/Tasl<er Road (south intersection): For 2012 background and build - out conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. This planned intersection is to be signalized and will include the following lane geometry: Eastbound — one left -turn lane, one thru lane and one right -turn lane; Westbound — one left -turn lane, one thru lane and one right -turn lane; Northbound - one left -turn lane, one thru lane and one right - turn lane; Southbound — one left -turn lane, one thru lane and one right -turn lane. • Lakeside Drive/Tacker Road: For 2012 background and build -out conditions this intersection will operate with levels of service "C" during the AM and PM peak hours. No improvements were required. PHIZn A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip December 15, 2004 Page 45