Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-01 Southern Hills - Opequon - Backfile (2)CASH • RECEIPT Date AdclressLL / • 1 1 �� 1 itPTA��. ' a .►, ACCOUNT HOW PAID ■�� sre� r� �: r i�rr� r� CASH RECEIPT,� ��e I J 00_203; , Received From Address t L <1 •-�_ Dollars $ rACCOUNT HOW PAID 1 n caws 4J AMT PAK` (.NECK BAI AN, F %KNWY )4if (IRDFA B / _ ' � t AM Date REZONING TRACKING SHEET Application received/file opened 1�— Reference manual updated/number assigned / D-base updated q - 00File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary V Four sets of adjoiner labels ordered from data processing / g �'w 40-,c maps ordered from Mapping & Graphics Ta6�c /-3-0 PC public hearing date ACTION: - �1 0 BOS public hearing date ACTION: Signed copy of resolution for amendment of ordinance, with conditions proffered, received from County Administrator's office and placed in Proffers Notebook. (Note: If rezoning has no proffers, resolution goes in Amendments Without Proffers notebook.) "7 12 - Q j Action letter mailed to applicant 1Z Referencemanual and D-base updated File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary (final action) 07-/6 o/ AOZ-- File given to Mapping & Graphics to update zoning map Zoning map amended Other notes: October 31, 2000 Stephens City, Va. Mr. Evan Wyatt Frederick County Planning Department 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, Va. 22601 Dear Evan: RE: Southern Hills rezoning request. Please be advised the site of the above referenced proposal located on the Dorothy Carbaugh property south east of Stephens City embodies the Ewing ancestral family cemetery. In 1737 William Ewing, one of the area's earliest settlers, received a grant from Thomas Lord Fairfax for 625 acres. Upon this land on a high knoll overlooking Stephens run the family established a cemetery. Burials as late as 1856 are documented. Although the land upon which this cemetery is located has been transferred many times and although it is not used as an active burial site and did lay unattended for many years it is yet identifiable with many legible grave stones. It has been in more recent years fenced and attended to by descendants of this early settler. I am not aware access to the cemetery was ever denied the family and certainly not during the years the Carbaugh family owned the property. The Carbaugh family gave verbal approval for the erection of the fence. It is the desire of the Ewing family , and we believe a legal right to expect that the cemetery be protected from intrusion or destruction if rezoning and subdivision requests are approved. In addition, if this property is developed the family would expect to be guaranteed free and easy access to the site for the purpose of maintenance. I or any member of the Ewing family are willing to discuss this issue with Mr. Maddox, his clients or the County Planning Department. I would be pleased to accompany them or you on a vist of the site. Si cerely Ray E. Ewing 7 5141 Highview Ave. Stephens City, Va. 22655 CEPT Oi= PLANN;1"G, DEV' LO?i11EiNT HP OfficeJet Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner Fax History Report for Frederick County Planning 665-6395 Nov 06 2000 3:13pm Last Fax Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result Nov 6 3:12pm Sent 96650493 1:06 2 OK Result: OK - black and white fax OK color - color fax FAX TRANSMISSION FREDLRICK COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 Fax: (540) 678-0682 To: Chuck Maddox Date: November 6, 2000 Fax #: (540) 665-0493 Pages: 2, including this cover sheet. From: Evan A. Wyatt Subject: Southern Hills Rezoning COMMENTS: Chuck: Please find attached a copy of the letter I received from Mayor Ewing dated 10/31/00. 1 had an occasion to discuss this with him and suggested that he document his concerns so your firm could address them during the rezoning process. Please also note that the Board of Supervisors adopted the revised Capital Facilities Impact Model last year and advised staff to implement it at 50% of the amount Indicated for impacts to Public Schools and Parks & Recreation; and at 100% for all other services. The information you provided me indicates 50% of the amount for all identified services. I hope this information is beneficial to your work on this project. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this information. Have a good day! U TvanTonmtonTax ShcctAG W Clifford CAssociatcs-ClumkNiaddoxFAX %vpd REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 85-A-138 Opequon Magisterial District DOROTHY CARBAUGH ESTATE PROPERTY Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. Seq., of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional rezoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 00 for the rezoning of 105 acres from Rural Area (RA) to Residential Performance (RP). Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successor or assigns. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board Of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 105 acres, with frontage along Town Run Lane in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County at the time a building permit is applied for and issued the sum of $4,910.00 per lot. This monetary proffer provides for $3,581.00 for Frederick County Schools; $598.00 for Frederick Countv Parks and Recreation; $446.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue; $105.00 for Public Librarv; $59.00 for Sheriff's Office and $121.00 for Administration Building. General Development Plan Voluntarily proffered is the attached Generalized Development Plan including the following improvements: 1. On the 105 acres to be zoned RP no more than 250 single family dwelling units shall be constructed. These units shall consist of single family home lots. No multi -family units shall be constructed on this property. 2. Stickle), Drive (SR 1085) shall be extended as shown to connect with Town Run Lane (SR 1012). The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PROPERTY OWNER Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2000, by William H. Herrell. My commission expires Notary Public Impact Analysis Introduction The site of Southern Hills is the Dorothy Carbaugh Estate Property located immediately south of the former Stephens City Wastewater Treatment Facility and the Frederick County Wastewater Treatment Facility. The site is accessed by way of Town Run Lane which has a direct connection to Route 277 at the interchange with Interstate 81. A portion of this site has been included since the 1980's in the comprehensive plan urban development area (UDA). Recently upon recommendation of the comprehensive plan subcommittee of the Planning Commission, the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission and action by the Board of Supervisors, this site has been deemed to be entirely within the urban development area. Site Suitability The site is mostly cleared as shown on the attached photograph. A description of the property is contained in Deed Book 163 Page 274 described as PIN 85-A-138. The site rises from a low elevation along Stephens Run of 685 elevation to a high .of 765. The site can best be described as gently rolling with some steep slopes near the stream channel. A flood plain exists along the north and east side of the project. Ample utilities exist within close proximity of the site. The site is underlain by Martinsburg Shale characteristic of other lands within the urban development area of Frederick County. Surrounding; Properties The site is bounded by undeveloped land along Interstate 81 on the west, farms on the south and east, and the developed urban development area on the north including former wastewater treatment facilities, as well as a townhouse development and emerging commercially zoned land. The site can be adequately screened and buffered from all adjacent uses. Lands to the southeast are intensively farmed and require consideration of a buffer of some type. Traffic Traffic impacts are a substantial issue in this proposed rezoning. The site will generate 2,500 trips per day by the proffered density utilizing the ITE study. The intersection with Route 277 has been designated as a problem intersection requiring substantial improvements both as Route 277 is widened and also when Interstate 81 is improved. The Route 277 improvement project by VDOT calls for the relocation of the Aylor Road intersection near Interstate 81 to a point east which aligns with Stickley Drive. This activity will "take" the Wendy's restaurant and result in a relocation of Aylor Road to this new intersection. The improvement of the Interstate 81 interchange will close the Town Run Lane intersection and provide for access through Stickley Lane to the new Aylor Road intersection with Route 277 (see attached plan). A proffer of this rezoning is to provide the right-of-way and initial road improvements necessary to establish this traffic pattern. This activity will eliminate the traffic impact on the Route 277 stoplight at Town Run Lane. It also affords the opportunity to revise traffic patterns in the area which may assist in the State study for Interstate access locations along the Interstate 81 corridor. Recent meetings with State officials has indicated a relocation of the Route 277 interchange to a point south and lining up with the new Stickley Drive access road could be a better solution than improvement of the existing interchange. A study of this alternative has been agreed to by VDOT at the time 81 design studies are performed. A full traffic analysis of this situation will be prepared at the time of master development plan approval for comment by VDOT and local planning officials. Road improvements will be based on needs established by this traffic analysis. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment The site can be served by gravity sewer extension to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority facilities located to the north. The 250 houses on this site will generate approximately 50,000 gallons per day of wastewater based on the monthly average water usage in the urban development area. As of the September operating history of the Parkins Mill Facility, the plant is operating at 65% capacity allowing space in the plant for this project. There are no known transmission line issues which would prevent adequate service to this project. Water Supply Water service would be extended along Town Run Lane to this site. The water demand for this project would be 50,000 gallons per day and there are no known deficiencies that would prevent adequate service from being provided to this project subject to FCSA comment. Site Drainage Site drainage would go directly to the Stephens Run stream channel. Along the way stormwater management facilities would be constructed to meet siltation control and stormwater peak flow discharge requirements of the County and the State. The site storm system would be designed to VDOT standards but that there are no unusual issues surrounding drainage that would affect utilization of the site. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities The solid waste would be handled by contract hauler or by owner access to dumpster locations provided by the County. Each home would generate approximately 12 lbs. of solid waste per day for a total of 1.5 tons per day created by this project. Recent consultation with County officials would indicate that there is no limitation to landfill facility that would prevent this project from being serviced. Historic Sites and Structures There are no known historic sites or structures on this site. Impact on Community Facilities Frederick County's capital impact model has been run to reflect the impacts associated with this project. Proffers have been created that intend to mitigate the associated impacts as presented. A copy of the impact model output is attached. The proffer amount of $4,910.00 is 500,10 of the predicted total impact in all categories. A OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT PIN B5-A-138 Net Fiscal Impact --- LAND USE TYPE Single Family Costs of ImDacl Credit CreCils to be Take Total Potential Aolustmcrl For /p REAL EST VAL 532.775,000 Required (entered in Cur Budgel Cur BuCget Cap Ful•ire CIPI Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per FIRE 8 RESCUE 11 CaWal Faulli es col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expen01Debt S. Taxes. Other (unaaiusled) Cost Bala= Famhlles Impact Dwelitng Unit ai 1 Fire and Rescue Department $222.149 SO SO $222,149 Elementary Schools S1,019.969 .—• —.. 3 5-9 / Middle Schools $540.569 $126.010 $729.921 S855.931 $601,733 $1.790.469 S7,162 —�— High Schools $831.664 -- --- 5915 Parks and Recreation $364,315 $93.181 593,1B1 S65,508 $298.807 $1.195 PublcLibrary $66.714 S20.044 S20,044 $14.091 $52,623 S210 Sheriffs Offices S47.020 S16.511 So $8.663 $25,174 S17,698 $29.322 $117 Administration Building $60.342 SO SO SO $60,342 $241 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $76.717 S230.040 $46.291 $276.331 $194.265 $0 SO SUBTOTAL $3.229.459 S372.562 $776.211 S121,888 $1,270.661 3893.295 $2,336,164 $9.345 LESS. NET FISCAL IMPACT $0 $0 $0 $0 $Q NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT 2. 1ti4 345 /D — INDEX:'1 0" If Cap Equip lnciuded: 1.0 INDEX: '1.0- 4 Rev -Cost Bat. -0 0' if Ratio to Co Avg, 00 Rev -Cost Bat = 0.491 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 0.703 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model 2. Net Fiscal Impad NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero tf negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future open cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expendlure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the protect (actual. or as ratio to avg. for a'l residential development). NOTE: Protler calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include imerest if the projects are debt financed. - — -------------------------..-------------------------------------------------- NOTES: Model Run Dale 10125I00 EAW --•--------------- P.I.N 85-A-138 Rezoning: Assumes 250 Single Family Dwellings on 105 acres zoned RP Dislricl. Due to changing conditions associated with development to the County the results of this Output Module may not to valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run dale. gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Surveyors — Land Planners — Water Quality 26 October 2000 Mr. Evan Wyatt Frederick County Planning Department 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RC: Southern Hills Dear Evan, Board of Directors: President: Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. Vice Presidents: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. l.iarl R. Sutherland, P.l;. Ronald A. Mislowsky, RE. David J. Saunders, P.li. Directors: P. Duane Brown, E.S. William L. Wright Michael A. I lammer Thomas W. Price Attached is our application for Agency comments on the subject rezoning. We have forwarded these to: Virginia Department of Transportation Frederick County Sanitation Authority Frederick County Fire Marshal Department of Parks & Recreation Department of Public Works Department of Planning and Development Frederick County Public Schools Frederick County Attorney Town of Stephens City Stephens City Fire Co. We have received comments from FCSA and the Stephens City Fire Company from the earlier request. Our request to these agencies are for any updated comments they may choose to give. Sincerely yours, gilbert w �clifford & associates, inc. C. addox, Jr., P.E., Vice P sident CEM/kf Enclosure cc: Dave Holliday �EE � If _ —,IV JD� D 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 O C T % 7 2000 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwdiff@ mnsinc.com A,lember American Consulting lsngineers Council DEPT. OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Planning & Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Dept. of Planning & Development Co. Administration Bldg., 4 ' Floor 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant -Please fill outthe inforrnatton as accuratc>y as possible iri order to assist the Department of Planning and Development vwith ;th6i r, review, Attach a copy 91. yopr application form, -location map, proffer statements �mpacf:anarysis, and any other,'. pertinenf information. . .. .,i Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: c/o Charles E. Maddox, Jr. 200 N. Cameron St. Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: South of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81: 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane) Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 105 ± acres Planning Department Comments Signature & Date: Notice to Planning Department — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 8 Summary The following Impact Analysis Statement is provided in summary form for the property known as "Southern Hills". The property is located on Town Run Lane, south of VA Route 277, near Stephens City, Virginia. The parcel to be rezoned totals 105 acres. The parcel is currently zoned Rural Area (RA). The requested rezoning is to change the current 105 acres of RA to Residential Performance (RP) zoning. The property is shown on the attached generalized land use development plan. The Impact Analysis Statement for Southern Hills is prepared as required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for rezoning approval of the property. The model projects a negative fiscal impact. The owners/developers have proffered an amount that will offset the projected negative fiscal amounts projected by the Frederick County model. There are residential units proposed as part of this rezoning request. The property will support approximately 250 homes. The property is planned with interconnected subdivision streets that connect at two points with Town Run Lane. An extension of Stickley Drive is planned and proffered to mitigate traffic impacts. The property proposed for RP zoning is located in the Urban Development Area (UDA) pursuant to recent action by the Board of Supervisors and within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Analysis of environmental and physical characteristics of this property to be rezoned indicated that there is opportunity for development as envisioned for the residential uses. Environmental features that limit the development are identified and incorporated for design consideration. Public sewer and water service are available to the property. Natural gas and electric service are available to the property. The rezoning of the 105 acres of the Southern Hills property fits within the guidelines of present planned policy for the area. REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Jr I ill �rii I t crrr lefed li f IC[tttrrri c I+ ,I f I`ii nnY riff f r I`Ff nl r,�f,n.+I+ I r IIII i�l I r , ,St,,{� vu liE�� Y �N I��II I I ,r, R }r J, .tu.n... ota Ilt ..,:J u _i+cr i J. ?i?.i�ihl �irii�:::J +*f'rl-,-:,_t,li'Jai IJillri.� JI}i Ijjr1. }hi rt' 1.I. r� I�IIIr H. j. T Y+y4 :r. yl �.t1"�. lam+ ' 1 11 i �llili�{ti l}Iltl 111111 7 , 41 II {I Zatu I. ( I �I.:III II 111I Ii', '_�_:I�I1L+i Jliltt YLhtntliJ l`.�j,,lf Ii II,L'ry'L ��l11S i t r.�1 11[ III fll:ll.�I.7rL4 rll� rl t�i,li 1 1 4.{:4 F r-jr1�4 nt II I lllllf I�I1�41�1}�I�Itlull�l ltilr 1�1 iit�t �ISf itllfl�li-`.i 11 it Ir 3 (IGt� 1 I t T ` �y flip 1E. i amendment mex,: �, [>l —,.-:. f P J I r 11 J Ir C11?hI, J iy a IMF II- fl I r >r �, '"F: "�f•{'rf-�-??i 'rr F'Tl-. n.'.t—�::,,--,-.1 Fi,Iri.'Tf �mg�AJi!!4Vrif f�l'14��, .�1,- .rl r�E• ri F� 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: Dave Holliday Construction, Inc. Telephone: 540-667-2120 Address: 205 N. Cameron St., Winchester VA 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: William H. Herrell Telephone: 540-869-4235 Address: 1680 Marlboro Road Stephens City, VA 22655 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Telephone: 540-667-2139 G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map x Agency Comments Plat x Fees Deed to property x Impact Analysis Statement x Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement x w 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: 1MA ,M . .:.-11 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: Agricultural Residential Single Family Subdivision _ PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 85-A-59 Agricultural RA 85-A-60 Agricultural RA 85-A-131 Agricultural RA 85-A-137 Residential RA 85-A-137D Residential RA 85-A-137E Residential RA 85-A-139 Agricultural RA 85-A-141 Local Gov't RA 85-A-142 Local Gov't RA 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 of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81: 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane) R 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 of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 85-A-138 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service Opequon Stephens City Stephens CitX Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School Sherando R. E. A,• l�or_ Middletown 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 105± RA RP 105± Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family home 250 Townhome 0 Multi -Family 0 Non -Residential Lots 0 Mobile Home 0 Hotel Rooms 0 Office Retail Restaurant 0 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Warehouse Other 0 0 0 3 .7 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s) Date Date Owner(s) Date Date -' s _s�" •`•'io � t. I Cos� ss� 8K116PG0998 LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT I. Dcrothy H. Carbaugh, of Stephens City, Frederick County, i Virginia, do hereby make, p--blish and declare this to be my last Will and Testament, hereby revoking all former Wills or Codicils heretofore j 11 made by me. is t i FIRST: 1 direct that my Executor pay ell of my just debts I and funeral expenses as soon as practicable after my death. SECOND: I hereby give, devise and!, equeath all of my property, be the same real, per3onal or mixed, wheresoever situated and howroever held, to my husband, Julian Stewart Carbaugh, to be his absolutely, if he survives me. THIRD: In the event that Julian Stewart Carbaugh should fall to survive me. I then give, devise and bequeath all of my property to my son, William Henry Herrell. FOURTII: In the event that Julian Stewart Carbaugh and I should die under such circumstances that it Is not easily determined which of us died first, then Julian Stewart Carbaugh shall be deemed to have predeceased me, and this Will shall be construed on that assumption and basis, s FIFTH: I hereby nominate, constitute and appoint Julian Stewart Carbaugh as the Executor of this my Estate. and direct that he be permitted to qualify without surety upon his official bond. If for any reason Julian Stewart Carbaugh should fail to qualify or should be unable to Page 1 of Three Pages s® OKI I GPGO099 continue after his qualification. i hereby nominate, constitute and appoint William Henry Herrell, Executor under this my Last Will and Testament, and direct that he be permitted to serve without surety on his official bond. SIXTH: I hereby grant unto my Executor full authority to sell publicly or privately any or all property of my Estate, be the same real or personal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand and seal to this any last Will and Testament, on this 017P&_day of C�,tA 1977. k�g!• SEAL1 Dorothy i. Carbaugh Signed, sealed, published and declared by the Testatrix, Dorothy It. Carbaugh, as and for her last Will and Testament in the presence of us, all being present at the same time, who, at h6r request, in her presence, and in the presence of each other, have hereunto subscribed our names as attesting witnesses on the date aforementioned. i • Name Addre s 1 1.,. ..�.-. 41 Name Address STA I•E OF VIRCINLA COUNTY OF FREDERICK to -wit: Before me, the undersigned authority, on t'iis day, personally Page 2 of Three Pages SK116PGI000 appeared Dorothy ii. Carbaugh, Rachel E. Campbrll , John IV. Rice and David S. Whitacre , known to me to be the Testatrix and the witnesses, respectively, whose names are signed to the attached or foregoing instrument and, all of these persons being by me firrt duly sworn, Dorothy H. Carbaugh, the Testatrix, declared to me and to the witnesses in my presence that said instrument is her last Will and i Testament and that she has willingly signed and executed it in the presence i; of said witnrrses as her free and voluntary act for the purposes therein 11 expressed; that said witnesses stated before me that the foregoing Will �I was executed and acknowledged by the Testatrix as her last Will and Testament in the presence of said witnesses who in her presence and at her request, and in the presence of each other, did subscribe their namesl ;i as attesting witnesses on the day of the date of said Will, and that the I �l Testatrix, at the time of the execution of said Will, was over the age of eighteen years and of sound and disposing mind and memory. Dorothy Carbaugh 1 / � Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged before me by Dorothy if. Carbaugh, the Testatr?x. subscribed and sworn before me by Rachel E. Campbell, John NV. Rice and David S. Whitacre, witnesses, this ?9th day of _ August . A. D. , 1977. �\ My commission expires March 10 1979 --4 tary f°u �iic� Page 3 of Three Paget 8K116Fr,IC01 IN THE CIRCUI" CLERK'S OFFICE OF FREDEKICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA: / i ozCd� " Cn this /,/' day of 19i a writing bearing date of - day of 19j�L Purporting to be the true, last will and tes ament of deceased, was produced before t Clerk and having been exectited as a self -proved will, pursuant ' and 4.n conformity with the provisions of Section 64.1--87.1 of th Code of Virginia. All of the said facts being duly proved, and on the notion of //Lh, /4� / /V`/jj����, the said writing was admitted to probate as and for the true, last will and testament of /� decease and it is ordered to be reco ded. On motion at ��► the E-,.cut therein named llis hereby appointed Executes Of .aid will; whereupon qualified by entering into and acknowledging bond in the penalty of $� , with sty, wha- rir-a�fft�i� iFcy, The said taking the prescribed oath to faithfully discha duties as said Execut 4/ . On the further motion of t j 4 said ' ( % an inventory is to be filed on estate. .i CLERK Z,7 G LIST OF HEIRS C.Se No.: ............. COININ(ONWEALT11 OF RG[N ................ .... .......... .. ............ �7 ...........X....� .. ...... Circuit Court Z2 -/7,7 ............. .......... .... . NA.VW DEcEDc,-r DArE W DFJTH �1 OF nVe, the undersigned, hereby state under oath that thr -flowing are all of the heirs of the Decedent: ��NAAOF:MRS ADDRESSES RELATIONSIUr AGE p ............................. ........ 0 ......................................... ... ................................. ......... ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ..... ........................................................................ I .......... ..... ..................................................................................... ........ ................................................................................................ .............................................................................................. ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ...................................................... I ........................................ ........................................................... 0 Proponent(s) of the will (no qualification) C�—Personal representatives) of the decedent's estate Heir -at -law of intestate decedent (no, Wlification wi30 days following death) Given under my/our band this ..... *V. 1... of ... mw= xma Of PJLSCRMIX ....... .................................... MIN= NAJ-a Of SU&SCRnU $)GNAMW09SUBSCXAU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MC%7m KA%q OF U;jsckma Stag. of ......... a� . Qtv/Counry of ........Sb TO-Vit: SIGMA n-ll Cf 5MCIAER u so ibed and sworn to before me by,,,., ................. . this ........... ................ day of .... ... cz . .............. ................ My commission cx6ires: 7z� ........... ... ....... ............... AX Y �a5 11 -X/11L FM14CC*1611 1%,LkSTEX) PC ',.," %*A CODE I " 1 .134 COMMONWEALTH of VIR QINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDINBURG. VA 22824 CO1.IMISSIONER November 21, 2000 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984-5600 FAX (540)9B4.5607 Ref: Southern Hills, Holliday Concept Plan Route 1012, Town Run Lane @ Route 277, Fairfax Pike & I-81 Interchange Frederick County Dear Chuck: A VDOT review has been completed at the Edinburg Residency Office on the concept plan and attendant rezoning request dated 10/26/00 for the referenced project. The impact analysis addresses traffic issues in a general way. However, VDOT concerns may be extended to other developments, both residential and commercial in the general area of this proposed Southern Hills concept plan. A glimpse at the Frederick County Index Map appears to reveal approximately three square miles of residential performance: residential, recreational community and commercial areas which have potential impacts on VDOT facility improvement studies in the vicinity of the Southern Hills concept plan. As indicated in a letter dated 08/24/00 from Mr. Steven A. Melnikoff to your office, the portion of the Frederick County Rezoning Application addressing VDOT and County needs under the Impact Analysis/Traffic (Pages 4, 5 & 6) should be included in the Impact Analysis presented for VDOT review. Among VDOT concerns which should be addressed are: Improvement of Route 1012, Town Run Lane. The attached typical section indicating the roadway width and pavement structure on existing Route 1012 demonstrate the inadequacy of the existing structure to support the projected 2500 TPD anticipated to access Southern Hills. %yF KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. November 21, 2000 Ref: Southern Hills Concept Plan Paqe #2 The application to rezone should address how and who would provide the necessary improvements to Route 1012: a) County Six Year Plan b) Developer participation in cost and/or construction c) Other sources of participation Please note the improvements should address the heavy increase in traffic volumes to be generated onto the Route 1012 facility. Current VDOT estimate (1999) is at 210 AADT, the proposed 2500 TPD generated by Southern Hills represents a tremendous impact on the existing typical section (copy attached). Development of turn lanes and tapers should also be considered. Traffic impact should include consideration of signalized intersections. Since no VDOT improvement plan exists for the Route 1012 facility, the Southern Hills concept should address improvements beginning at the Route 277 intersection with Route 647. Please note a copy of this letter and all previous correspondence regarding the referenced project has been forwarded to our Staunton District Office for their review and information. We look forward to receiving and reviewing a more complete rezoning package whenever available. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sinc el a1JA / Barry J. Sweitzer, Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Steven A. Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer BJS/rf Enclosure xc: Mr. Jim Diamond, Attn: Mr. Kelly Downs (w/ attachments) Mr. Terry Jackson, Attn: Mr. Guy Tudor (w/ attachments IVED Mr. ave Heironi Mr. ri Tierney, Attn: Mr. Evan Wyatt NO V 2 'r 2000 DEPT. Or PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT , t1 �,,'I-2:- UNTY of FRRDRRICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 July 12, 2001 Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.C. 117 N. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winclester, VA 22601 RE: REZONING APPLICATION 40 1 -0 1 OF SOUTHERN HILLS; P.I.N. 85-A-138 Dear Chuck: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of'Supervisors at their meeting Oil July 1 1, 2001. The Board approved your application to rezone 105 acres From RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) to establish 250 single-family residential lots. This property is located south of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike on the east side ofTown Run Lane/Route 1012), and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-138 in the Opequon Magisterial District. The proffers that were approved as a part of this rezoning application are unique to this property and are binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the aclopted proffer statement for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact this offiCC if YOU have any questions regarding this rezoning application. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt, AI P Director EA W/ch cc: *Dave Holliday, SI-III-10 Robert Sager, Opequon District Supervisor Jane Anderson, Real Estate *Steve Melnikoff, VDOT *Mayor Ray Ewing, Town of Stephens City (* Indicates those persons receiving copies of the proffers) p \Agendas\AI'Pli DEN LTIt\Rr7's\Somhcrn Bills %vl)d 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PC REVIEW DATE: 1/03/01 (continued); 2/21/01 (tabled); 3/21/01 (tabled); 6/20/01 BOS REVIEW DATE: 7/11/01 REZONING APPLICATION #01-01 SOUTHERN HILLS To rezone 105 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) LOCATION: This property is located on the east side of Interstate 81, southeast of the Town of Stephens City; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Town Run Lane (Route 1012). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 85-A-138 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District East: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Town of Stephens City Lagoons Land Use: Residential; Agricultural Land Use: Vacant West: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Agricultural PROPOSED USE: Residential Single -Family Subdivision REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter -from Bar-q J. Stiveitzer, Transportation Engineer, dated 11121100; attached letter from Steven A. Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer, dated 5101101; and E-mail message from Steven A. Melnikoff, dated 6105101. 0 0 Southern Hills RCZ #01-01 Page 2 July 2, 2001 Fire Marshal: Water supplies to meet requirements of Frederick County Chapter 90; avoid fire hydrant placement at end of cul-de-sacs. Board of Supervisors approved proffer model at 100% for Fire and Rescue; plan approval not recommended. Stephens City Fire & Rescue Co.: Based on a follow-up conversation with Mr. Maddox, the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company would not object to the rezoning of the aforementioned property, provided that traffic adjustments are made for an extension of Stickley Drive so as to divert congestion from the 1-81/Fairfax Pike/Aylor Road and Town Run Lane Intersection. Town of SteplicIls City: See attached letter froin Michael Kehoe, Zoning Adminisb'atoi•, dated 11-07-00. Sanitation Authority: We have water and sewer capacity to serve this project. County Engineer: See attached letter fi•oin Harvey E. Sti•awsnyder, Director of Public Woi•ks, dated 11-29-2000. Parks & Recreation: Plan appears to conform with the requirements established by the county. However, with the developer's contribution for recreation being only 50% of the impact module, consideration should be given to providing active recreation areas with the development. Frederick Co. Public Schools: See attached letter from Al Oi-ndoiff, Administirative Assistant to the Superintendent, dated 11129100. Coun!' Attorney: Stickley Drive extended and paid for by whom? Once signed by owner, appears alright. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the parcel proposed for rezoning as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. The A-2 (Agricultural General) District zoning classification was modified to RA (Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the County's Zoning Ordinance. The initial location of the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) traversed approximately 23 acres of the 105-acre parcel. The applicant submitted a request to the county to incorporate the entire acreage into the UDA. This request was recommended favorably by • 0 Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 3 July 2, 2001 the Planning Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors during their October 25, 2000 meeting. 2) Location The 105-acre parcel is located southeast of Interstate 81 Exit 307; approximately 3/4 mile south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277); along the east side of Town Run Lane (Route 1012). Fairfax Pike is classified as a minor arterial roadway, and Town Run Lane is classified as a localroad. The 105-acre parcel is located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). This acreage does not fall within the boundaries of an adopted land use plan for the county. The 105-acre parcel is located in an area that is rural in nature. Adjoining properties include large tracts that are utilized for agricultural purposes with a few large residential lots to the south. The Scothorn tract immediately adjacent to the east is within the Double Chinch Agricultural and Forestal District. 3) Site Suitability The 105-acre parcel contains areas of steep slope, streams, floodplain associated with Stephens Run, and woodlands as defined by county ordinance. The general site development plan calls for the provision of common open space within the floodplain areas and some of the areas defined as steep slope. It is uncertain if this delineation will comply with the maximum allowance for open space as permitted by county ordinance, as the applicant's Impact Analysis Statennent does not indicate percentages of the total site area proposed for these set -asides. The 105-acre parcel has approximately %2-mile of road frontage along Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012) which is within the VDOT secondary system of roads. By policy, the parcel is entitled to be served by public water and sewer. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has indicated that adequate capacities exist to serve the development proposal for this parcel. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies structures within the proximity of the 105-acre parcel. None of these structures are identified as potentially significant historic resources. • 0 Southern Hills RE #01-01 Page 4 July 2, 2001 4) Potential Impacts and Issues a) Transportation The applicant has developed a traffic impact analysis statement that was submitted to VDOT for review and comment. VDOT has conducted cursory reviews of this document and has corresponded with the applicant's engineer for clarification regarding several issues. The applicant's engineer has attempted to address these concerns as indicated in the memorandum from John Callow, PI-IR&A to Chuck Maddox, G.W. Clifford & Associates, dated May 15, 2001. The traffic impact analysis indicates that the proposed development of the 105-acre tract will generate 2,500 daily vehicle trips on average. The applicant recognizes that all of this traffic cannot be supported by Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012) and indicates that there will be a need to extend Stickley Drive (Rt. 1085) to Town Run Lane to facilitate traffic movement from this parcel to Fairfax Pike (Route 277). The applicant indicates that the Town Run Lane connection to Fairfax Pike will be severed as a result of the improvements to Interstate 81 Exit 307 and that VDOT will consider design alternatives which may result in the relocation of the Exit 307 interchange to the south within the proximity of this parcel. The VDOT comment, dated November 21, 2000, identifies that Town Run Lane currently has an average daily traffic count of 210 vehicle trips. Furthermore, VDOT states that the existing road structure is inadequate to handle the projected traffic volume generated by this site which will increase traffic by approximately 1,200% of the current volume. The applicant's traffic impact analysis has been developed utilizing existing traffic counts at all critical intersections within the proximity of the acreage proposed for rezoning. The traffic impact analysis statement considers Level of Service (LOS) conditions for both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. Two scenarios have been developed for this application. The first scenario identifies the LOS conditions assuming that the Stickley Drive extension from Town Run Lane to Fairfax Pike is in place, that the Stephens Ridge townhouse development is built out, that 12.65 acres of retail are developed, and that Southern Hills is built out. The analysis of this scenario indicates that the intersections of Town Run Lane, Aylor Road and Fairfax Pike operate at a deficient LOS during peak traffic hours. The second scenario identifies the LOS conditions assuming that the Stickley Drive extension from Town Run Lane to Fairfax Pike is in place, that the Stephens Ridge townhouse development is built out, that 12.65 acres of retail are developed, that Southern Hills is built out, and that access onto Town Run Lane is limited to southbound traffic movement only. The analysis of this scenario indicates that all critical intersections function at an acceptable LOS during peak traffic hours. • 0 Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 5 July 2, 2001 The applicant's general development plan calls for the extension of Stickley Drive to connect with Town Run Lane to the north of the 105-acre tract. This design is prudent, as the Level of Service at the intersection of Town Run Lane and Fairfax Pike will decrease significantly as a result of this development. Furthermore, the applicant's proposal calls for participation in traffic signalization at the Stickley Drive intersection with Fairfax Pike. The need for traffic signalization along Fairfax Pike is paramount to facilitate left turn movements and maintain the Level of Service along this road system. b) Community Facilities Public Schools The proposed residential development would increase student enrollment capacities, thus impacting Middletown Elementary School; Robert E. Aylor Middle School; and Sherando High School. The Frederick County Public School Administration comment identifies that the school facilities within this area of the county are nearing maximum design capacities. In order to project the number of school -age children that could be expected to be generated from the project, staff has utilized the averages that are used as multipliers in the county's Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model. Projected School Enrollment Impact Total Building Flemenirny Middle School high School Total School - Permits Issued School Impact Impact @ .14 Impact @ .17 Age Children @ .39 Pupils/Divelling Paq)ils/Dtivelling On Average Pupils/Dtivelling 250 98 35 43 176 Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 6 July 2, 2001 Solid Waste Disposal The Department of Public Works has identified an impact to the citizen convenience center site at the old weight scales near the Town of Middletown. The Department of Public Works comment states that the proposed development will negatively impact this facility and may require and expansion of this site to serve the future residents of this project. Parks and Recreation The Department of Parks and Recreation comment identifies that the monetary proffers received from new residential projects do not allow their department to keep pace with the recreational demands of the county residents. Therefore, the Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that the developer establish active recreational areas within the proposed development to provide on -site opportunities for the future residential end users. c) Ewing Family Cenmlery A family cemetery exists within the southeast portion of the 105-acre parcel. This cemetery, owned by the Ewing family, is identified as circa 1750 and contains grave sites dating to 1856. Staff met with representatives of the Ewing family and was advised that the family actively maintains this area through an agreement with the property owner. The applicant's general development plan calls for the development of residential lots in the area in which the cemetery exists. Representatives of the Ewing family advised staff that their concerns include the ability to maintain access to, and continue the use of, this area. In order to ensure that this desire is realized, the Ewing family requests that the applicant establish a deeded area for this purpose; that access is maintained to the family cemetery throughout the development phase process; that a curb cut is established to ensure access to the family cemetery from the proposed public street system; that the property owner provides the ability to identify any grave sites that may fall outside of the currently established family cemetery area prior to development; that the family cemetery be improved to be enclosed with a rod -iron fence with an eight -foot wagon gate; and that a disclosure statement be established within all property deeds advising future lot purchasers of the proximity of the family cemetery and the right of the Ewing family to utilize and maintain the deeded area for perpetuity. Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 7 July 2, 2001 d) Adioining Properlies As previously mentioned, the Scothorn parcel, and other parcels within close proximity of the 105-acre parcel, are within the county's Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District. The applicant's general development plan identifies an area of open space along the eastern property limits due to the location of Stephens Run which will provide some separation between the agricultural land uses and the proposed development. However, it would be prudent to require the developer to provide a disclosure statement within all future property deeds and homeowner covenants advising future purchasers of the proximity of this proposed development to the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, as well as the agricultural land users rights as identified in the Right To Farm Act. 5) Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed by the owner, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. The applicant has proffered to develop a maximum of 250 single family residential lots; to extend Stickley Drive (Rt. 1085) to connect with Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012); to overlay a portion of Town Run Lane and provide guardrail; to provide an easement along the southern portion of the site to establish a buffer and preserve existing woodlands; to develop a disclosure statement within each property deed advising purchasers of the proximity of this development to the Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District, the Ewing Family Cemetery, and the Stephens City and FCSA lagoons; to set aside a lot with public road access for the Ewing Family Cemetery; to contribute $100,000 for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Fairfax Pike (Route 277); and to provide a monetary contribution for each residential building lot to offset impacts to county services. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 01/03/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The 105-acre parcel proposed for residential land use is located within the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that suburban residential development must occur within the UDA. The 105-acre parcel has significant frontage along a state -maintained road and can be served with public water and sewer with adequate capacities. 0 Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 8 July 2, 2001 Several concerns have been expressed by the various review agencies regarding the rezoning of this 105-acre parcel. These concerns include impacts to the road network system; impacts to public school facilities; impacts to the solid waste disposal citizen's convenience site; and the difficulties of providing fire and rescue service to residential land uses in this area of the county. The applicant has submitted a proffer statement to attempt to mitigate the impacts associated with this residential rezoning proposal. The proffered conditions include a monetary offer to offset costs associated with the capital facilities needs of various county service providers, the offer to limit the number of residential units to 250 single family lots, and the offer to extend Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. Staff believes that the applicant should adequately address the following issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors regarding this proposal: 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. 2) The applicant should identify the scope of improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. 3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to obtain a deeded easement from the Stimpson parcel that provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow for the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. 5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. 6) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate impacts associated with the increased use of the citizens convenience center and the need to expand that facility. 7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if there is the potential to provide for active recreational areas within the proposed residential development. 8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to accommodate the desires of the Ewing family to preserve access to and improve the area of the existing family cemetery. 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on -site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 9 July 2, 2001 of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 02/21/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission continued this item from the January 3, 2001 meeting to ensure compliance with the adopted by-laws. The Planning Commission was required to adjourn during the public comment portion of this public hearing item; therefore, it was determined that additional public comment would be taken at the next available meeting. The applicant provided staff with new information since this item was continued. This new information includes a revised review agency comment from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company; a revised proffer statement; and a memorandum from Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., to Evan Wyatt, dated February 1, 2001. The information in this memorandum provides an applicant response to the nine issues identified by staff during the .January 3, 2001 meeting. In order to summarize the revised materials prepared by the applicant, staff will revisit each issue previously identified and provide a staff comment based on the new information. 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. Staff Comment: The applicant did not submit revisions to the Impact Analysis Statement; therefore, existing and projected LOS conditions are not provided The applicant's response in the February 1, 2001 memorandum indicates that the proffered extension ofStickley Drive (Route 1085) to Toivn Rum Lane (Route 1012) coupled lvith the proposed VDOT improvements to flylor Road (Route 647) 1'vill provide for an acceptable LOS at all intersection points with Fail fax Pike (Route 277). 2) The applicant should identify the scope of improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. Staff Comment: The revised proffer statement calls for the applicant to overlay Town Run Lane i0th bituminous concrete firoin the project entrance to the Southern Hills RCZ #01-01 Page 10 July 2, 2001 intersection of the Stickley Drive extension and to provicle guardrail h}) the Toii,n ofSlephens City lagoons prior to the issuance of the 50"' buildingpermit. Furthermore, the revisedprofferstalementrequires the applicant to overlay To1-vn Ram Lane ivith bituminous concrete from the first project entrance to the second project entrance when the second project entrance is constructed. 3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to obtain a deeded easement from the Stimpson parcel that provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow for the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. Staff Comment: The applicant provided a letter from Mr. Ilarry Stimpson III, to Evan Wyatt doled December 22, 2000, and a preliminary plat of the proposed right-of-way .for the extension of Stickley Drive. Mi.. Stimpson's letter indicates that he will declicate a 50 foot right -of- way.for the purpose of exlencling Stickley Drive to Toivn Run Lane, and that this improvement ivill be paid.for by the applicant. 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. Staff Comment: The applicant's revised proffer statement aloes nol provicle for traffic signalization at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Fairfax Pike. The applicant's response in the February 1, 2001 memoranchun indicates that the VDOT improvements to Aylor• Road would be the appropriate time to install irafjic signalization at this intersection point. The applicantfeels that arty signalization improvements clone now Would be impacted by the [DOT project ivhich would cost all involved aciclitional money in the future. Furthermore, the applicant feels that the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane constitutes a fair share portion of the improvements to the lransportalion system in this area of the county. 5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. u Southern Hills REZ 401-01 Page 11 July 2, 2001 SlaffComment: The revised review agency corrvrrent from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company indicates that the extension of Stickley DrNe to Toii,n Run Lane provides a viable .solution for emergency access in this area. The applicant 's response in the February 1, 2001 memorandum indicates that the provision of $446.00 per residential unit is appropriate due to the significant increase in costs projected by the revised fiscal impact model. 6) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate impacts associated with the increased use of the citizens' convenience center and the need to expand that facility. Sla_ffComment: The applicant's response in the February 1, 2001 memorandum indicates that the landfill is a fee -sustained operation; therefore, additional costs to the clevelopment cornrnunity should not be required 7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if there is the potential to provide for active recreational areas within the proposed residential development. Staff Comment: The applicant's response in the February 1, 2001 memorandum indicates that the monetary proffer offered foi• this cleveloprnent is adequate for necessary recreational services. 8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to accommodate the desires of the Ewing family to preserve access to, and improve the area of, the existing family cemetery. Staff Comment: The revised proffer statement provides for a lot to be created and deeded for the Ewing family cemetery; for the provision of public street access to this lot; and.for the establishment of deed covenants allowing for• maintenance of this area by the Ewing family. 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise fixture lot purchasers of on -site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Staff Comment: The revised proffer statement calls./or language to be incorporated 0 0 Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 12 July 2, 2001 into all property deeds and covenants disclosing the locution and proxinnity of this subdivision to the adjoining agricultural land uses; the Totivn ofStephens City and FC'SA lagoons; and the Ewingfamily cemetery. The Planning Commission should determine if the revised information and revised proffer statement provided by the applicant adequately mitigates the issues identified by staff during the January 3, 2001 meeting when forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION Or THE 02/21/01 MEETING: The applicant/developer and the design engineer both spoke to the Commission about the proposed rezoning. One person addressed the Commission during the public hearing; she was a neighbor of the proposed subdivision, residing on a private road that enters onto Town Run Lane. She expressed concerns about traffic, especially the increased traffic on Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive, which she believed would have a major impact on safety. She commented about the inadequacy of the traffic signals on Town Run Lane and the problems created by not having a left-hand turn signal or lines painted on the road. The Planning Commission's primary concern was the traffic issue, especially at Stickley Drive and Town Run Lane. Although they understood this particular developer did not create the existing problems and should not be held totally responsible for mitigating those problems, they were hesitant to move forward without having a definite commitment from the developer to participate in that mitigation, possibly during the master development plan stage. Members of the Commission pointed out that if egress from the proposed development is directed Lip Town Run Lane and the majority of traffic is coming down from Aylor Road, it will be difficult to make a left-hand turn because the intersection lacked a left -turn lane or signal. They believed some change in the signalization at that intersection by VDOT was necessary. The Planning Commissioners requested that the applicant come back with a Warrant Analysis for a traffic signal and a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis in order to help mitigate the increased traffic impact. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission tabled the rezoning application for 30 days and granted the applicant their request for a waiver of the time restraints, in order to give the applicant the opportunity to gather the necessary information for the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis and LOS Analysis. The vote on this tabling was as follows: Southern Hills Rl✓Z #01-01 Page 13 July 2, 2001 YES (TO TABLE): Unger, Morris, Light, Marker, DeI-Iaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher NO: Miller (Note: Mr. Wilson was absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 03/21/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant's engineer has developed a traffic impact analysis that has been submitted to VDOT for review but has not been formally submitted to staff. It is the applicant's desire to present this traffic impact analysis to the Planning Commission during the meeting and have representatives of VDOT participate in the discussion. The following provides a summary of the original issues identifies by staff that have not been formally addressed by the applicant or are intended to be addressed during the consideration of the traffic impact analysis statement: 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. Stuff Comment: The applicant's traf fc impact analysis provides LOS conditions for all critical intersections during pG'Clk tl"Cfflc hour's; hoit)ever•, this information has not been r evietined by slrff, nor has VDOT submitted a comment regarding this issue. 2) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. Staff Comment: The applicant's revised proffer statement does not provide for traffic signalization at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Fairfax Pike. The applicant's response in the February 1, 2001 lnemorandian indicates that the VDOT improvements to Aylor Road ivould be the appropriate lime to install Traffic signalization at this intersection 0 • Southern Hills REZ 401-01 Page 14 July 2, 2001 point. The applicant feels that any signalization improvements done now would be impacted by the VDOT project lvhich would cost all involved adcitional money in the fixture. Furthermore, the applicant feels that the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane constitutes a fair share portion of the improvements to the tlansportation System in this area of the county. The Planning Commission should determine if the information in the applicant's traffic impact analysis is acceptable, and if the proposed improvements to the transportation system within the proximity of this acreage adequately mitigates the transportation impacts when forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION Or 03/21/01 MEETING: VDOT's resident engineer, Jerry Copp, stated that they were in receipt of the applicant's traffic impact analysis and it was formally being reviewed by their transportation traffic engineering division in Staunton. Commissioners requested that the following information be addressed by VDOT during their review of the applicant's traffic impact analysis: 1) the safety problems expected turning west on Stickley Drive without a traffic light and how the safety impacts will be mitigated; and, 2) the effect on the efficiency of traffic traveling east, coming across the intersection. The design engineer for the project, Charles W. Maddox, Jr., stated that they have supplied all of the information requested by the Commission; they have supplied a transportation study, they have revised their proffers, they have participated in mitigating their share of the impacts, and they have met the requirements of the County's fiscal impact model. Mr. Maddox also pointed out that the traffic plan predicts that traffic on Aylor Road will drop dramatically because Warrior Drive will provide a new access and a way for traffic in the Tasker Road area to access Route 277, especially the high school. He said the traffic study estimates a traffic decline from 11,000 to 6,000 trips per day, which will improve functioning of the intersection. Two citizens came forward to speak regarding the rezoning, a resident of Ridgefield Subdivision and a resident off Town Run Lane. They were concerned about the traffic and were not convinced that Warrior Drive would alleviate the impacts at Town Run Lane. There was a concern that children from the proposed development would be playing in the adjacent farmlands because of a lack of adequate open space in the proposed development. A concern was raised that this rezoning would set a precedent for additional development in the area and would cause County taxes to be increased. • 0 Southern Hills RE 40 1 -0 1 Page 15 July 2, 2001 Members of the Planning Commission were interested in hearing VDOT's comments regarding the applicant's traffic impact analysis before they made a final decision on the rezoning. By a unanimous vote, the Commission tabled the rezoning in order to give VDOT the opportunity to review and make comments on the applicant's traffic impact analysis. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 06/20/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING: The applicant has developed a traffic impact analysis that has been submitted to VDOT and staff for review and comment. VDOT has provided two comments subsequent to the submittal of this traffic impact analysis which request additional information pertaining to some items and responses to several inquiries. The applicant's transportation engineer has attempted to address these inquiries through the development of additional information that is provided in a memorandum from John Callow, PI-IR&A to Chuck Maddox, G.W. Clifford & Associated, dated May 15, 2001. The following provides a summary of the issues identifies by staff in the March 21, 2001 staff conclusion and identifies how the applicant has attempted to address these issues: 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. Staff Comment: The applicant's original traffic impact analysis and subsequent Inforination provides LOS conditions for all critical Intersections during peak traffic hours based on two development scenarios. The scenario which allows Town Run Lane to maintain northbound and sorthbound traffic movements demonstrates a deficient LOS at the Toii,n Run Land, Aylor Road, Fairfax Pike intersection during peak Iraffrc hours; while these cond scenario which prohibits southbound traffic movement on Tbivn Run Lane indicates that all critical intersections function at an acceptable LOS during peak traffic hours. 2) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 16 July 2, 2001 Siaff Comment: The applicant's revised proffer statement provides a monetary contribution of$100,000 for the installation oflraffic signalization at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Fairfax Pike. The Planning Commission should determine if the applicant's offer to develop an alternative road system to allow for traffic movements to occur at a signalized intersection to the east of the intersection of Town Run Land and Fairfax Pike adequately mitigates the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning proposal when forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 06/20/01 MEETING: Attending the meeting along with the applicant were the project design engineer and the project transportation engineer. In addition, VDOT officials were present to answer questions. The design engineer discussed the "best alternative" LOS calculation, based on the scenario whereby the developer builds Stickley Drive as proffered to connect with Town Run Lane and the developer initiates the installation of the traffic light early on in the development process. I-Ie pointed out that as a result, all directions in the intersection work at a minimum LOS of"C," with the stipulation that access is allowed "Southbound Only" on Town Run Lane at the connection where Stickley Drive meets Town Run Lane. The design engineer also pointed out that in the process of developing the proffers for this project, they have taken into consideration the concept whereby the Stephens City interchange on Interstate 81 is moved south. Four citizens came forward to speak to the Commission about the proposal. The first, a resident and business owner from the Town of Stephens City, was not opposed to the housing development but believed the project should be postponed until an exact location for the proposed Stephens City interchange was officially adopted. The next two speakers, a property owner off of Town Run Lane and a property owner from Peace and Plenty Lane, were either opposed or believed the project should be tabled. They were not convinced that the proposed road improvements could handle the existing traffic, let alone the additional traffic of a 250-home development. They believed the intersections at this location were dangerous now and if the road improvements and traffic signals were not installed for five to ten years, there would be considerable chaos. The last citizen to speak was a realtor representing the executor of the Dorothy Carbaugh Estate who commented that the applicant had provided all of the information that was requested and asked for approval in order for them to settle the estate. R Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 17 July 2, 2001 Commissioners were in agreement that this was an excellent plan and the applicant had accomplished as much as he could possibly do to mitigate the existing and future traffic problems. They agreed that the two key elements that make the plan work were the installation of the traffic light at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and, secondly, ensuring that traffic traveling north on Town Run Lane turns east on Stickley Drive instead of continuing north. It was stated that Frederick County will need to take an active role in making sure these two items were implemented. Commission members commended the applicant, not only for his partnership and cooperation between all the parties involved, but on the significant off -site improvements proposed, such as the construction of Stickley Drive, the paving of Town Run Lane, and the traffic signal. In addition, they pointed out that the applicant had made a significant monetary contribution to the County's infrastructure. They also commended the design engineer for helping everyone to visualize the transportation network for that entire area and the resolution and mitigation possibilities that exist. In conclusion, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with the proffers submitted by the applicant. (Note: Mr. Cordell Watt and Mr. Richard Ours were absent from the meeting.) ERM, WIAHENRY 8A 138W 4 . • 0 -,�OL i �U CU -P (z. /I s/coo 0 - 0 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 777e following i formation .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: Dave Holliday Construction Inc. Telephone: 540-667-2120 Address: 205 N. Cameron St., Winchester VA 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: William H. Herrell Address: 1680 Marlboro Road Stephens City, VA 22655 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Telephone: G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 540-869-423 5 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deep of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X U n U 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: William H. Herrell 6. A) Current Use of the Property B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: Agricultural Residential Single Family Subdivision PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 85-A-59 Agricultural RA 85-A-60 Agricultural RA 85-A-131 Agricultural RA 85-A-137 Residential RA 85-A-137D Residential RA 85-A-137E Residential RA 85-A-139 Agricultural RA 85-A-141 Local Gov't RA 85-A-142 Local Gov't RA 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 of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81: 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane) 0 • 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 of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 85-A-138 Districts Magisterial: Opequon High School: Sherando Fire Service: Stephens City Middle School: R. E. Aylor Rescue Service: Stephens City Elementary School: Middletown 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 105± RA RP 105± Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning Proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family home 250 Townhome 0 Multi -Family 0 Non -Residential Lots 0 Mobile Home 0 Hotel Rooms 0 Office Retail Restaurant 0 0 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station 0 Manufacturing 0 Warehouse 0 Other 0 3 0 12. Signature: 1 (we). the undersigned. do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of' Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (%\-e) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): ) �> o -- Owner(s): � _ 1-1 Date: Date: Date: Date: . Dave Holliday Rezoning i Tax I.D. Number Name and Address 85-A-59 Mary Virginia Stickley Estep c/o Robert M. Bushong 14502 St. Stephens Place Midlothian, VA 23113 85-A-60 William H. & Shirley A. Herrell 1680 Marlboro Road Stephens City, VA 22655 85-A-131 Ritenour Farm LP c/o Mary C. Ritenour 514 Peace & Plenty Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 85-A-137 Henry F. Kent & Joyce E. Myers 625 Town Run Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 85-A-137D _ William L. & Elizabeth N. Ramey 824 Peace & Plenty Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 85-A-137E William L. & Elizabeth N. Ramey 824 Peace & Plenty Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 85-A-139 Gary L. Scothorn & Stephen P. Scothorn & Dennis A. Scothorn 506 Ewings Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 85-A-141 Frederick — Winchester Service Authority P.O. Box 43 Winchester, VA 22604 85-A-142 Stephens City Town of PO Box 250' Stephens City, VA 22655 I 1\ ji -'Ur "I ton PROJECT AREA / If of o S1- E - SHEET_L_- 0 • u V. ���.SJiI CIGSS I3.1 5i7, Mlot'I. QC-2 4c' -2 oo 21-5 OCL .��iyi�l 5EG1 3. GL (c� �5 ►bs.P Ards. r,l'1Cf dal o1pi-I'o Cove? ct 11 NO /B 25Ibf. PEP �. \,a'', i 1- L' Y QTE.1012 �ICAL 5EC ►1DN ( F'iNC--EQ Q4ViP) ----- PQOP QAMP I�, � i% �� i � ��I��O�'s CD�IC2F T � a45 F Co P � , V l ►h �j`I iUMI NO' 5 CO C�2 iC 15 I �r�E BINDE�2 CO�QSc ; YPE h-2 (Cu 140 L.BS PEQ YD, aI 1(,�MINDUS CCIvCQE 1 � SUQFACc 50' 1204 D `VAY OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT PIN BS-A-138 Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Single Family Costs of Impact Cmed-t Crucrls to be Take REAL EST VAL S32,775,000 Requued (entered in Cur Budget Cur BuCgel Cap Fubre CIPm FIRE 8 RESCUE 11 Cap tal Faallc es col sum only) Oper Cap Equ1p ExpendfDcbt S. Taxes, Other Fire and Rescue Department $222.149 Elementary Schools $1.019.969 Midcle Schools 5540.569 S126,010 $729.921 High Schools S831.654 Parks and Recreation S364,315 $93.181 Publ c Library $66,714 S20.044 Sherrtfs Otfices S47.020 S15.511 so $8,663 Admnistration Building $60.342 SO Olhcr Miscellaneous Facilities $75.717 S230.040 S46,291 SUBTOTAL $3,229,459 $372.562 S776.211 5121.888 LESS. NET FISCAL IMPACT SO NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT INDEX:'1 0" If Cap Equip Included: 10 INDEX: '1.0' i1 Rev -Cost Bat, -0 0' if Ratio to Co Avg 00 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero ff negative): included are the one-time taxesllees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future C3pil2l expenditure taxes paid in tqurth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as ooten:ial credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of casts covered by the revenues from the protect (actual, or as ratio to avg. for a I residential development). Total Polenual Aclustmert For Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital (Uradiusled) Cost Balaocc Facttttes Impact SO SO S222,149 S855,931 $601.733 S1,790.469 S93,181 $65.508 $298.807 S20.044 $14,091 $52.623 $25,174 S17.698 S29,322 SO SO S60,342 S276.331 $194,265 SO So �p Net Cost Per Owe6trg Unit 5889 3 5q� $7.162 5- $1.19s $210 5117 $241 / Z Z s0 $1.270,661 $893.295 S2,336,1E4 S9,345 /J $O SO so so 2. ,16� 9.345 Rev -Cost Sal = 0 491 Ratio to Co Avg = 0 703 NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include rrrerest if the protects are debt financed. NOTES Model Run Dale 10/25/00 EAW P.I N 85-A-138 Rezoning: Assumes 250 Single Family Dwellings on 105 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with development to the County, the results of this Output Module may not to valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date r -� .. .. :.. ► ����` • I � .- i , . • . Site Of Rezoning From A To RP 105 Acres r X \•\\ !1� / D � Co Q _ t • �cw,r 49 0 • AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended Approval on .Tune 20, 2001 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Approved July 11, 2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING ##01-01 OF SOUTHERN HILLS WHEREAS, Rezoning #01-01 of "Southern Hills" was submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone a 105-acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) to establish 250 single-family residential lots. This property is located south of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike on the east side of Town Run Lane/Route 1012), and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-138 in the Opequon Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on this rezoning on January 3, 2001; February 21, 2001; March 21, 2001; and June 20, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors field a public hearing on this rezoning on July 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change a 105-acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. PDRes #12-01 This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 1 Ith day of July, 2001 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Abstained Sidney A. Reyes Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Margaret B. Douglas Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. Aye Robert M. Sagcr Aye A COPY ATTEST _ � r John R ' e ,`Jr.' Frederick County Admit istrator PDRes. It 12-01 0 \Apcnd. s\CO\1,\IENTS\REZONING\RGSOI.UTN\Soulhcm Hills pd • 11 REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 85-A-138 Opequon Magisterial District DOROTHY CARBAUGH ESTATE PROPERTY Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. Seg.,of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional rezoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #01-01 for the rezoning of 105 acres from Rural Area (RA) to Residential Performance (RP). Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successor or assigns. (Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 105 acres, with frontage along Town Run Lane in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County at the time a building permit is applied for and issued the sum of $4,910.00 per lot. This monetary proffer provides for $3,581.00 for Frederick County Schools; $598.00 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation; $446.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue; $105.00 for Public Library; $59.00 for Sheriff's Office and $121.00 for Administration Building. General (Development flan Voluntarily proffered is the attached Generalized Development Plan including the following improvements: 1. On the 105 acres to be zoned RP no more than 250 single family dwelling units shall be constructed. These units shall consist of single family home lots. 2. Stickley Drive (SR 1085) shall be extended as shown to connect with Town Run Lane (SR 1012) during the first phase of development(A to B). 3. Town Run Lane (SR 1012) shall be overlayed with a bituminous concrete surface from B to C . Guard rail shall be installed right and left along Town Run Lane "fill" areas greater than 7' vertical . The improvements are to be further described by a VDOT Permit to be issued at the time of the work. This work shall be done prior to the issuance of the 50°i building pen -nit. 4. Town Run Lane (SR 1012) shall be overlayed with a bituminous concrete surface from C to D during the phase where the entrance at "D" is constructed. These improvements are to be further described by a VDOT Permit to be issued at the time of the work. 5. An easement shall be established 75' in depth along the South property line E to F. This easement will be prominently shown on the final plat and will restrict construction of homes as well as limiting the clear cutting of trees larger than 4" diameter. 6. A statement shall be added to the plat and covenants for all lots created by this project advising that agricultural uses exist on the South and East , the Ewing Family Cemetary exists within the limits of development, and, wastewater treatment facilities exist or previously existed to the North of this site. 7. The Ewing family cemetery will be set aside as a separate lot with public road access and conveyed, if possible, to the Ewing family with covenants for future maintenance by the Evcring family. 8. A contribution of $100,000 for construction funding shall be made at the time VDOT implements the construction of a stoplight at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Rte 277. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PROPERTWNER By: Date: — (o `' 0Z STATE OF VIRGMA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 7�" day of ,-5)— , 2000, by David B. Holliday. Joyce O. i3offfem}ee[' NOTARY PUBLIC Commons^,,ealth of Virginia My commission expires ttrrr,nmissinn Frpire,�2/2f�/11� Notary Public 0 1• I- 0 0 REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 85-A-138 Opequon Magisterial District DOROTHY CARBAUGH ESTATE PROPERTY Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. Seq., of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick Comity Zoning Ordnance with respect to conditional rezoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 01-01_ for the rezoning of 105 acres from Rural Area (RA) to Residential Perfonnance (RP). Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terns and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successor or assigns. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 105 acres, with frontage along Town Run Lane in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County at the time a building permit is applied for and issued the sum of $4,910.00 per lot. This monetary proffer provides for $3,581.00 for Frederick County Schools; $598.00 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation; $446.00 for Frederick Comity Fire and Rescue; $105.00 for Public Library; $59.00 for Sheriffs Office and $121.00 for Administration Building. General Development Plan Voluntarily proffered is the attached Generalized Development Plan including the following improvements: 1. On the 105 acres to be zoned RP no more than 250 single family dwelling units shall be constructed. These units shall consist of single family home lots. No multi -family units shall be constructed on this property. 2. Stickley Drive (SR 1085) shall be extended as shown to connect with Town Run Lane (SR 1012) during the first phase of development(A to B). • 0 Town Rim Lane (SR 1012) shall be overlayed with 2" SM 2A bituminous concrete surface from B to C . Guard rail shall be installed right and left along Town Run Lane 'fill" areas greater than 7' vertical . This work shall be done prior to the issuance of the 50`h occupancy permit. 4. Town Run Lane (SR 1012) shall be overlayed with 2" SM-2A bituminous concrete surface from C to D during the phase where the entrance at "D" is constructed. 5. An easement shall be established 75' in depth along the South property line E to F. This easement will be prominently shown on the final plat and will restrict construction of homes as well as limiting the clear cutting of trees larger than 4" diameter. 6. A statement shall be added to the plat and covenants for all lots created by this project advising that agricultural uses exist on the South and East , and, wastewater treatment facilities exist or previously existed to the North of this site. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PROPERTY OWNER By:���::- Date: 3 p STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 C� day oamaq-1 200�, by David B. Holliday. My commi ion expires 1 ZZ1Z(C1rZ Z o co' ' j Notary Publicy_ Z��-- 0 REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 85-A-138 Opequon Magisterial District DOROTHY CARBAUGII ESTATE PROPERTY Preliminary Matters p Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. Seg.,oi'the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional rezoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application 9 01-01 for the rezoning of 105 acres from Rural Area (RA) to Residential Performance (RP). Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terns and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successor or assigns. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if' the Board 01' Supervisors for the County of' Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 105 acres, with frontage along Town Run Lane in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County at the time a building permit is applied for and issued the sum of $4,910.00 per lot. This monetary proffer provides for $3,581.00 for Frederick County Schools, $598.00 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation-, $446.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue, $105.00 for Public Library; $59.00 for Sheriff's Office and $121.00 for Administration Building. General Development Plan Voluntarily proffered is the attached Generalized Development Plan including the following improvements: I. On the 105 acres to be zoned RP no more than 250 single family dwelling units shall be constructed. These units shall consist of single family home lots. No multi -family units shall be constructed on this property. 2. Sticklev Drive (SR 1085) shall be extended as shown to connect with Town Run Lane (SR 1012). The conditions proffered above shAbe binding upon th(rheirs, executors;01ninistrators, assigns and successors in interest of' the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of' Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set lorth in the Frederick Countv Code. Respectfully submitted, PROPERTY OWNER By: Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA. AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To-�vit: `� 11 The forcgoing:in.5trument was acknowledged before me this CP day oI' CC cc— N,-Yc 2000, by David 1 . , <<:rti} c'r,7,�•. ommissi °xpires e% „ C( A 064 Nota�-, Public All Ich/aLi /1 (dtiiltA,cl' a t� .)V11t11C111 11I113 JUVUIVIJ1U11, 1%UU1G L/ /, 11GUCI .N L.011111y Subject: Southern Hills SubcYivision, ]route 277, Frederick County 41 J Date, Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:30:52 -0400 From: "Melnikoff, Steve" <SMelnikoff@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> To: "Charles E. Maddox Jr. (E-mail)" <gwcacem@mnsinc.com>, S "G. W. Clifford & Associates (E-mail)" <gwcliff@mnsinc.com> CC: 'Evan Wyatt' <ewyatt@co.frederick.va.us>, "Melnikoff, Steve"<SMelnikoff@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>, "Heironimus, David (Dave) "<DHeironimus@VDOT. STATE.VA.US>, "Downs, Kelly" <KDowns@vdot. state. va. us>, "Copp, Jerry" <JCopp@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>, "Coffman, Homer" <HCo ffinan@vdot. state.va. us> Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5600 - Fax (540) 984-5607 June 5, 2001 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly St., Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Maddox: VDOT has begun the review of the traffic impact analysis received on May 16, 2001. A cursory review of this data has revealed the need for additional information. IS The analysis of the I-81/Route 277 ramps is missing from this submittal. Please supply impact analysis data for present conditions and the impacts at subdivision build out, 2005. Also, factor in this analysis that the south bound off ramp will be enlarged to two lanes this year. The analysis demonstrates at subdivision build out in 2005, Route 277 at Stickley Drive will have eight lanes. If the eight lanes configuration is necessary to maintain Level of Service C or better, is your client prepared to make these improvements? Should the closing of Town Run Lane north of the proposed intersection of Stickley Drive extended and Town Run Lane be the most practical option to insure safety and an acceptable level of service at Town Run Lane and Route 277, an interconnecting street will be required between Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive to insure access to those businesses on Town Run Lane. The location of this interconnecting street should be outlined in the build out descriptions. Please resubmit the requested information so we can proceed with our review. Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer VDOT - Edinburg Residency Permit & Subdivision Section 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) 1 of 2 6/5/2001 1 0�1 9 AM • Funkhouser, Rhonda *mFunkhouser, Rhonda on behalf of Melnikoff, Steve eont: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 2:37 PM To: G. W. Clifford & Associates (E-mail); Charles E. Maddox Jr. (E-mail) Cc: 'Evan Wyatt': Heironimus, David (Dave); Melnikoff, Steve Subject: Southern Hills Traffic Impact Analysis v COMMONWEALTH of 'VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 May 1, 2001 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VY. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 • Ref: Southern Hills - Traffic Impact Analysis Route 1012, Frederick County Dear Mr. Maddox: e have completed the traffic impact analysis for the referenced development. Our comments are as follows: n the traffic impact analysis, the existing lane geometry for westbound Route 277 traffic at Aylor Road shows two through lanes, the rightmost being a shared through/right lane. A true shared through/right turn lane has right turning traffic sharing the lane with the through movement. This is not the case here. Westbound traffic in the right lane at this intersection is in a dedicated right turn lane and must turn right either at Aylor Road or in 175' at the I-81 northbound on ramp. Therefore, there is one westbound through lane and one westbound right turn lane. This misinterpretation of lane assignments affects the Level of Service computations at Aylor Road for the existing traffic (Figure 2), the 2005 background traffic (Figure 4), 2005 build -out traffic scenario 1 (Figure 8), and the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #2A (Figure 12). In some computations, it is assumed Route 277 will be five to seven lanes wide in 2005 when the subdivision is built out. Although VDOT is performing a preliminary study to widen Route 277, no money has been appropriated for purchasing the right of way or scheduling construction. In 2005, the only road widening anticipated will be whatever is proffered by this developer. This misinterpretation of number of traffic lanes available affects the level of service computations at Stickley Drive for the 2005 background traffic (Figure 4), the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #1A (Figure 8), the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #16 (Figure 10), the � 2005 build -out traffic scenario #2A (Figure 12) and the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #26 (Figure 14). `"T"ne consultant performed manual traffic counts at the intersections of Route 277/Town Run Lane (March 7, 2001) and Route 277/Stickley Drive (March 8, 2001) and computed the AM and PM peak hour factors. These peak hour factors should have been used in their analyses. e have reviewed the Route 277 pavement markings and lane assignments in the field from the northb d ramps of I-81 to Route 1065 (Ridgefield Avenue) and have prepared the attached map. The consultan*uld prove the intersections along this corridor will operate at satisfactory levels of service within the existing lane configurations and assignments or provide solutions to mitigate the problem areas. ditionally, the traffic impact analysis should address what effect this additional generated traffic will have on the I-81/277 interchange. We feel that until the traffic impact affects to I-81/277 interchange are addressed as part of this analysis, VDOT comments cannot be considered complete. Upon receipt of this additional data, VDOT will continue our review and further comment. Should you have any questions, please call. Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer VDOT — Edinburg Residency Permit & Subdivision Section 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg. VA 221324 (540) 9b4-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) Enclosures (sent U.S. Mail) ID 0 COMMONWEALTH ®f \VYRQ1N1A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 140:11 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDIIBURG. VA 22824 COMMISSIONER November 21, 2000 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 JERRY A. COPP RESIDEN1 I-NGINEER 1 F.LE (540) 984-5600 1 AX (!00)98-1-!)607 Ref: Southern Hills, Holliday Concept Plan Route 1012, Town Run Lane @ Route 277, Fairfax Pike & I-81 Interchange Frederick County Dear Chuck: A VDOT review has been completed at the Edinburg Residency Office on the concept plan and attendant rezoning request dated 10/26/00 for the referenced project. The impact analysis addresses traffic issues in a general way. However, VDOT concerns may be extended to other developments, both residential and commercial in the general area of this proposed Southern Hills concept plan. A glimpse at the Frederick County Index Map appears to reveal approximately three square miles of residential performance: residential, recreational community and commercial areas which have potential impacts on VDOT facility improvement studies in the vicinity of the Southern Hills concept plan. As indicated in a letter dated 08/24/00 from Mr. Steven A. Melnikoff to your office, the portion of the Frederick County Rezoning Application addressing VDOT and County needs under the Impact Analysis/Traffic (Pages 4, 5 & 6) should be included in the Impact Analysis presented for VDOT review. Among VDOT concerns which should be addressed are: Improvement of Route 1012, Town Run Lane. The attached typical section indicating the roadway width and pavement structure on existing Route 1012 demonstrate the inadequacy of the existing structure to support the projected 2500 TPD anticipated to access Southern Hills. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. • November 21, 2000 Ref: Southern Hills Concept Plan Paqe #2 The application to rezone should address how and who would provide the necessary improvements to Route 1012: a) County Six Year Plan b) Developer participation in cost and/or construction c) Other sources of participation Please note the improvements should address the heavy increase in traffic volumes to be generated onto the Route 1012 facility. Current VDOT estimate (1999) is at 210 AADT, the proposed 2500 TPD generated by Southern Hills represents a tremendous impact on the existing typical section (copy attached). Development of turn lanes and tapers should also be considered. Traffic impact should include consideration of signalized intersections. Since no VDOT improvement plan exists for the Route 1012 facility, the Southern Hills concept should address improvements beginning at the Route 277 intersection with Route 647. Please note a copy of this letter and all previous correspondence regarding the referenced project has been forwarded to our Staunton District. Office for their review and information. We look forward to receiving and reviewing a more complete rezoning package whenever available. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 16 CAIL(I Barry J. Sweitzer, Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Steven A. Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer BJS/rf Enclosure xc: Mr. Jim Diamond, Attn: Mr. Terry Jackson, Attn Mr. Dave Heironimus Mr. Kris Tierney, Attn: Mr. Kelly Downs (w/ attachments) Mr. Guy Tudor (w/ attachments) Mr. Evan Wyatt FOUNDED 1758 • TOWN OF STEPHENS CITY November 7, 2000 Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. C/o Charles E. Maddox, Jr. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Maddox: 1033 Locust Street P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, VA 22655-0250 (540)869-3087 • fax (540)869-6166 E-mail: toss@visuallink.conl Police (540) 868-1012 The comment sheet for Southern Hills Subdivision was lorwardcd to the Stephen City Planning Commission at the request of Mayor Ray Ewing. Several Town Council members also reviewed the master plan and offered comment. The following concerns are derived from the comments that have been given to me from the Council members or taken from notes at the October 31, 2000 Stephens City Planning Commission meeting. The foremost concern is the impact that additional traffic will have on the town and surrounding area with an inadequate road system. A decision has not been made as to the relocation of the I-81 interchange or any other road way alternations. According to some, VDOT is still hedging on relocation of the interchange. The town adamantly supports the relocation of the interchange and does not wish to have anything to impede the plans or possibility for this to happen. The master plan for the Southern Hills development does show a conceptual relocation of Town Run Lane, but at this point VDOT has not given any indication if this is acceptable or not. Furthermore, the I-81 interchange could be moved to the south to Salem Church Road or somewhere in between or not at all. There were many other comments from the discussion of the planning commissioners related to taxes, width of the roadway, school impacts, etc., and site plan deficiencies. However, I will refrain from elaborating upon these as most of those comments are outside the town's preview and were more individual in nature. In summary, the town feels that it may be premature to rezone this property or to allow development to begin until assurances can be made about first adequate road size and conditions and second the status of I-81 improvements and changes on Route 277. Citizens of the Town of Stephens City are subjected to negative traffic impacts associated with the present location of the interstate interchanges and the enormous amount of traffic generated from the east side of I-81 and inadequate roads to handle it. Sincerely, Michael K. Kchoe Zoning Administrator r-1 L-A COUNTY of FREDERICK November 29, 2000 Mr. Chuck Maddox, P.E. Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Rezoning for Southern Hills Subdivision Frederick County,'Virginia Dear Chuck: Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 Based on our review of the proposed rezoning request from RA to RP, we offer the following comments related to the proposed Southern Hills project: 1) We concur with your analysis and offer to construct the extension of Stickley Drive as part of planned improvements to mitigate traffic impacts. We recommend that this extension be included in the initial phase of the project development. 2) The proposed stormwater ponds shall be constructed prior to the construction of the roads and related site development. The stormwater ponds shall be designed to include sediment control. 3) The county does not plan to provide a dumpster specifically for this project. The project in general will have a negative impact on the county's citizens' convenience site located near Middletown, Virginia. The proposed project may require an expansion of this site to serve the residents that will occupy the additional 260 single family dwellings. The above comments should be reflected in the revised impact analysis. Sincerely, Harvey . trawsnyder, Jr., P. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Frederick County Planning Department file 107 North Kent Street • NVinchester, Virginia 22601-5000 L J Frederick Co un fy Public Sd ools Administrative Assistant to Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us the Superintendent November 29, 2000 Mr. Chuck Maddox Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 N. Cameron St. Winchester, VA 22601 REF: Rezoning Comments Southern Hills Dear Mr. Maddox 0 e-mail. orndorfaafrederick k12.va.us I am in receipt of your request for rezoning comments concerning a parcel of land containing 105 acres to be rezoned from R-A, to RP (Residential Performance). 1t is my understanding the proposed rezoning from R `� to RP will allow for the construction of 250 homes. You have also indicated the land to be rezoned is 105 acres in size at the following location: South of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane) Residential development in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing maximum design capacity. The proposed monetary proffer of S3,581 per building pen -nit will assist the county in addressing capital improvement projects for future school facilities. The cumulative impact of this project and others of a similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in this area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of the proposed rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered dunng the approval process. Sincerely, Al Orndorff Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent PC- Dr. William C. Dean, Supenntendent of Schools Mr. Robert W. Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration 540-662-3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 5 40-722-2788 L /Plsnntn[/Southem HMIs 0 I.. 0 Rezoning Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 868-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, VA Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation 'Authority with their review. Attach a copy' of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other <pertinent information. . Applicant's Name Mailing Address: Location of Property: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St. Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540)667-2139 South of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81: 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane) Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 105 ± acres Sanitation Authority Comments Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: Notice to Sanitation Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 14 9 0 Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick Co. Fire Marshal 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 (540)665-6350 Frederick County Fire Marshal Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Fire & Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal Co. Administration Bldg., 1" Floor 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Fire Marshal with his review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information, Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address Location of Property: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St. Winchester, VA 22601 South of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81: 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane) Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 105 ± acres Fire Marshal's Comments Fire Marshal's Signature & Date Notice to Marshal — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 0 COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No.RZ00-0008 Date Received 10/27/00 Date Reviewed 11/9/2000 Applicant G.W.Clifford & Assoc. Address 200 N.Cameron Street Winchester, Va. 22601 Project Name Southern Hills Type of Application Rezoning 1st Due Fire Co. I 1 1st Due Rescue Co. Tax I.D. No. 85-A-138 Phone No.540-667-2139 Current Zoning A 11 Election DistrictOpequon RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler System Residential Sprinkler System XX Automatic Fire Alarm SystemXX Other REQUIREMENTS Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate Inadequate Not Identified XX Fire Lanes Required Yes XX No Comments : Water supplies to meet requirements of Frederick County Chapter 90. Roadway/Aisleway Widths Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Special Hazards Noted Yes No XX Comments : Avoid fire hydrant placement at end of culdesacks. Board of Supervisors Approved proffer model at 100% for Fire & Rescue. Hydrant Locations Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Siamese Location Adequate Inadequate Not Identified XX Additional Comments Attached? Yes No XX Plan Approval Recommended? Yes No XX Signature`����. Title f s L' : \,' `,r\ • 0 Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678 Rand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Co. Administration Bldg., 2"d Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 .... PP �ctn�t;P:ease fill out fi►euiforaafzonagacscratety a gosaib.}n orderto;assxst� Deatment of1'arl�s Recron v+rtth their rearttxc6 as ninarplicatlorti° ::: �.. ti A ...:......:: ................... ........................::: , ,.:;:::....::::::,:..., :::::::::::::::::.:::;:;;:::: , ;;;;,:,::::::;:::...,:::::;:::::::••.::: f¢rm,::: Q u::: 4:: ; st�,� proif�r statement, imp .... n ry: , . nO .AJIY..Qt�er...peritnent :.....:..... .:::::::.............................................::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.::::::::::.::::.:::: :::��format�on.::::::::::::::........................................................................................................................:. Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc. Phone- (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St. Winchester. VA 22601 Location of Property: South of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81 : 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route_1012 (Town Run Lane) Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 105 ± acres Dept. of Parks & Recreation Comments Plan appears to conform with the requirements established by the County. However, with the developer's contribution for recreation being only 50% of the impact module, consideration should be given to providing active recreation areas within the development. L Signature & Date: ';�-l% f Notice to Dept. of iarks & Recreation — sue,- �_ 11 / 8 / 00 Please Return This Form to the Applicant 12 • 9 Rezoning Comments Frederick County Attorney Mail to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540)665-6383 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA Applicant: Please till out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the County Attorney's office with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: Location of Property: c/o Charles E. Maddox Jr. 200 N. Cameron St. Winchester, VA 22601 South of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane) Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 105 ± acres County Attorney's Comments , �I f #- � //��F FX e L'r��C✓' J�1' O lti GAA, Ct CI Assistant County Attorney's 7 Signature & Date: Notice to County Attorn — P ease Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Town of Stephens City Attn: Town Manager P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, VA 22655 (540) 869-3087 Town of Stephens City Hand deliver to: Town of Stephens City Attn: Town Manager Stephens City Town Hall 1033 Locust Street Stephens City, VA :::::::::......::.........::::.::::...::......:::.......:::.:::.:......::::::::....: ::::.::.........:::::::::: :40.0 ..... ;�I� t ut tb,� tt orm..............ento: - _. ►h$tr= roxiuew� tAt#aeh.,a, cu of onr a licati�n form: ti:......::r...:....... :::::::::::::::_:: �x::::...� ..... ... j ...... ..... .... ......... .. ..... ait►..... ::.€tnEai@ _P a pia# ;..wpact::.ana ?ui�d a xy oilier .pertinent ....._................__...............:..:.....::.::...:...::..................r.... .. .: �f{� q • tF.....................«...t.«.«.........-.............»............................................,....nSs.t................................_.................. o............ ................::::::::::..............:::::::::::::::.. Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc.. Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address Location of Property: c/o Charles E. Maddox, Jr. 200 N. Cameron St. Winchester, VA 22601 South of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81: 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane) Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 105 ± acres Town of Stephens City's Comments ATTACHED Town of Stephens City Signature & Date: Notice to the Town of Stephens City — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 17 0 0 Name of F''Lm & Rescne Co. Stephens City Fire Co. P.O. Box 253 Stephens City, VA 22655 (540) 8694576 Fire and Rescue Company Address & PLone Stephens City Fire Co. P.O. Box 253 Stephens City, VA 22655 Applicant's Name: Gil hKr W. Clifford & Assoc.. Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: Uo Chuck Maddox LDcafion of •• Lane)South of Sttphws Cfty- east of Interstate 8 L 01 niles south of goute 277 (Fai ZoningCurrent Zoning: RA .• .• ' Acreage: 105± acr—::;�� Fire and Rewme Company's Comments Based ona follow-up conversation with Mr. Maddox the Stephens City Volunteer Fire & RescueComl2any would of object to the rezoning of the aforementioned property, provide that traffic adiustments are made for an extension of Stickley Drive so as to divert coneestion from the I-81/Fairfax Pike/Aylor Road and Town Run Lane Intersection. Fire &. Rescue Company's Signature & Date: X, Fj Notice to Pure &Rescue Company —Please or 2 s mejm % R AP�tcf 21 Rezoning Comments Name of Fire & Rescue Co. Stephens City Fire Co. P.O. Box 253 Stephens City, VA 22655 (540) 869-4576 Fire and Rescue Company Address & Phone Stephens City Fin Co. P.O. Box 253 Stephens City, VA 22655 Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc.. Inc, Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St. Winchester. VA 22601 Location of Property: South of Stephens City east of Interstate 81 : 0 8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane) Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested.- RP Acreage: 105t acres Fire and Rescue Company's Comments At the Present time there have been no corrections to the traffic congestion concerns at the intersection of Fairfax Pike/Town Run Lane/Avlor Road/ Interstate 1-81. The Stephens Ci Fire & Rescue Department cannot support anv additional (residential or commercial) growl i in this area until these concerns are addressed with a viable solution for the response and access of emergency vehicles. $ /� Fire & Rescue Company's Signature & Date: Gregory L. Locke. Fire & Rescue hief Notice to Fire & Rescue Company — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 21 0 0 Frederick County, Virginia Rezoning Application Materials And Impact Analysis Statement For The Dorothy Carbaugh Estate Property SOUTHERN HILLS Opequon Magisterial District October 2000 Prepared by: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Fourth l oor Winchester Tovvei-s Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540-667-2131 Fax:540-665-09493 E-mail: g\�� clilf.Cl)mnslnc.com Impact Analysis Introduction The Site of Southern Hills is the Dorothy Carbaugh Estate Property located immediately South of' the former Stephens City Wastewater Treatment Facility and the Frederick County Wastewater Treatment Facility. The site is accessed by way of Town Run Lane which has a direct connection to Route 277 at the interchange with Interstate 81. A portion of this site has been included since the 1980's in the comprehensive plan urban development area (UDA). Recently upon recommendation of' the comprehensive plan subcommittee ol'the Planning Commission, the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission and action by the Board of Supervisors, this site has been deemed to be entirely within the urban development area. Site Suitability The Site is mostly cleared as Shown on the attached photograph. A description of' the property is contained in Deed Book 163 Page 274 described as PIN 85-A-138. The site rises from a low elevation along Stephens Run ol' 685 elevation to a high of' 765. The site can best be described as gently rolling with some steep Slopes near the stream channel. A flood plain exists along the north and cast side of the project. Ample utilities exist within close proximity of the site. The Site is underlain by Martinsburg Shale characteristic of*other lands within the urban development area of Frederick County. Surrounding; Properties The site is bounded by undeveloped land along Interstate 81 on the west, farms on the south and east, and the developed urban development area on the north including former wastewater treatment facilities, as well as a townhouse development and emerging commercially zoned land. The site can be adequately screened and buffered from all adjacent uses. Lands to the southeast arc intensively farmed and require consideration of a buffer of some type. Traffic Traffic impacts are a Substantial issue In this proposed rezoning. The site will generate 2,500 trips per day by the proffered density utilizing the iTE study. The intersection with Route 277 has been designated as a problem intersection requiring substantial improvements both as Route 277 is widened and also when Interstate 81 is improved. The Route 277 improvement project by VDOT calls for the relocation of the Aylor Road intersection near Interstate 81 to a point east which aligns with Stickley Drive. This activity will "take" the Wendy's restaurant and result in a relocation of Aylor Road to this new intersection. The improvement of the Interstate 81 interchange will close the Town Run Lane intersection and provide for access through Stickley Lane to the new Aylor Road intersection with Route 277 (See attached plan). A proffer of this rezoning is to provide the right-of-way and initial road improvements necessary to establish this traffic pattern. This activity will eliminate the traffic impact on the Route 277 stoplight at Town Run Lane. It also affords the opportunity to revise traffic patterns in the area which may assist in the State study for Interstate access locations along the Interstate 81 corridor. Recent meetings with State officials has indicated a relocation of the Route 277 interchange to a point south and lining up with the new Stickley Drive access road could be a better solution than improvement of the existing interchange. A study of'this alternative has been agreed to by VDOT at the time 81 design studies are performed. A full traffic analysis of this situation will be prepared at the time of'master development plan approval for comment by VDOT and local planning officials. Road improvements will be based on needs established by this traffic analysis. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment The site can be served by gravity sewer extension to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority facilities located to the north. The 250 houses on this site will generate approximately 50,000 gallons per day of wastewater based on the monthly average water usage in the urban development area. As of the September operating history of the Parkins Mill Facility, the plant is operating at 65% capacity allowing space in the plant for this project. There are no known transmission line issues which would prevent adequate service to this project. Water Supply Water service would be extended along Town Run Lane to this site. The water demand for this project would be 50,000 gallons per day and there are no known deficiencies that would prevent adequate service from being provided to this project subject to FCSA comment. Site Drainage Site drainage would go directly to the Stephens Run stream channel. Along the way stormwater management facilities would be constructed to meet siltation control and stor►nwater peak flow discharge requirements of the County and the State. The site storm system would be designed to VDOT standards but that there are no unusual issues surrounding drainage that would affect utilization of' the site. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities The solid waste would be handled by contract hauler or by owner access to dumpster locations provided by the County. Each home would generate approximately 12 lbs. of'solid waste per day for a total of 1.5 tons per day created by this project. Recent consultation with County officials would indicate that there is no limitation to landfill facility that would prevent this project from being serviced. Historic Sites and Structures There are no known historic sites or structures on this site. Impact on Community Facilities Frederick County's capital impact model has been run to reflect the impacts associated with this project. Proffers have been created that intend to mitigate the associated impacts as presented. A copy of the impact model output is attached. The proffer amount of'$4,910.00 is 50% of the predicted total impact in all categories. 0 Summary The following Impact Analysis Statement is provided in summary form for the property known as "Southern Hills". "rhe property is located on Town Run Lane, south of' VA Route 277, near Stephens City, Virginia. The parcel to be rezoned totals 105 acres. The parcel is currently zoned Rural Area (RA). The requested rezoning is to change the current 105 acres of RA to Residential Performance (RP) zoning. The property is shown on the attached generalized land use development plan. The Impact Analysis Statement for Southern Hills is prepared as required by the Frederick County Board of' Supervisors for rezoning approval of the property. The model projects a negative liscal impact. The owners/developers have proffered an amount that will offset the projected negative fiscal amounts projected by the Frederick County model. There are residential units proposed as part of this rezoning request. The property will support approximately 250 homes. The property is planned with interconnected subdivision streets that connect at two points with Town Run Lane. An extension of' Stickley Drive is planned and proffered to mitigate traffic impacts. The property proposed for RP zoning is located in the Urban Development Area (UDA) pursuant to recent action by the Board of Supervisors and within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Analysis of'environmental and physical characteristics of'this property to be rezoned indicated that there is opportunity for development as envisioned for the residential uses. Environmental features that limit the development are identified and incorporated for design consideration. Public sewer and water service are available to the property. Natural gas and electric service arc available to the property. The rezoning of'the 105 acres of'the Southern Hills property fits within the guidelines of'prescnt planned policy for the area. .0 0 OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT PIN 85-A-138 Not Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Single Family Costs of Irrioacl Credit, Crecils to be Take REAL EST VAL S32,775.000 Required (entered in Cur Budget Cur Budget Cap. Future CIPr FIRE & RESCUE 11 Cap.lat Fac,lli es col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes, Other Fire and Rescue Department $222,149 Elementary Schools S1,019.969 Middle Schools $540.569 $126,010 $729.921 High Schools S831.664 Parks and Recreation S354,315 $93,181 Pubic Library $66.714 $20,044 Sheriffs Offices S47.020 S16,511 SO S8,663 Admnistration Building $60,342 SC Otttor Miscellaneous Facilities $76,717 S230,040 $46.291 SUBTOTAL S3,229,459 S372.562 $776.211 5121,88E LESS. NET FISCAL IMPACT $0 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Ll Total Potential Aolusimert For 50 r' Tax Crt-dits Revenue- Net Caphal Net Cost Per /L?420,;_�?COC� (Ucadiusted) Cost 6aa0ce FanlifieS Impact I?wel,ir•4 Unit SO s0 $222,149 $889 5855,931 $601,733 $1.790,469 $7.162 S93,1B1 S65.50a $298.807 $1,195 5951 $20,044 $14,091 $52,623 S210 $25,174 517,698 $29,322 S117 SO SO S60,342 $241 $276.331 $194.265 $0 SO $1.270,661 ' $893.295 $2,336,164 S9,345 $0 s0 s0 SO $2.11M.1641 $9.3451 INDEX: *1 0" N Cap Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX: '1.0' B Rev -Cost Bal, '0.0' If Ratio to Co Avg- 0.0 Rev•Cosl Bal - 0.491 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 0.703 METHODOLOGY �1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is inpul in row total of second column (zero N negative); included are the one -lime taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal Impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potentlai credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for a residential development). NOTE: Prober calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do Include imerest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES Model Run Dale 10125= EAW P.I.N 85-A-138 Rezoning: Assumes 250 Single Family Dwellings on 105 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run dale. •lb� 6 31 A. t , g'�; \ '` Site Of Rezoning From A To RP \ t �105 Acres \ �� 4 I l ij a� 0 0 0 • T7 .sop,* A. Af k. WA - op a 0 f _ nD. Site Of Rezoning k A To RP 1 \ f "„r J E6=T- 14 / r 7�' .lod F bl ♦ '4 cl G7 i 1• a 1 � 4f t S r w � � h 'r. �' car- + y `, � � � -�"• _ �-.-�._ ` �' •.ter_:.. -- �' t Lil Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 9 of 9 i Signalized b Intersection a LOS = C(C) C� C� ?0U1e 277 � 1%, � C (C) ® orrrR ��� A� SrN�'ID .o SITE Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) c� (011-� 1 No Scale AM(PM) —1 111 lIl A, Figure SA-2 Supplemental Analysis - Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service 5-15-01 Stirkley Drive Road Ext Aj 0 Site Of Rezoning A To RP 5 Acres 0 N X: 4b. 0 • TAOS- DEED 0 • T A X R E C E I P T - Y E A R COUNTY OF FREDERICK C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22604 2000 REAL ESTATE TAXES 106.00 ACRES Land: 85860 HERRELL, WILLIAM HENRY 1680 MARLBORO RD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 5125 85 A Acres: Imp: 2 0 0 0 Ticket 11:00044770001 @@ Date 6/01/2000 Register: CJO/CJ Trans. It: 23617 Dept 11 RE200001 ACCT11 25340 Previous Principal 138 Balance $ 675.71 106.00 Principal Being Paid $ 675.71 125300 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .00 Credit Card Fee $ 12.02 Amount Paid $ 687.73 *Balance Due as of 6/01/2000$ .00 Cr Cd 687.73 11 Pd by HERRELL, WILLIAM HENRY ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) 9 • BKI16PG0928 LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT I. Dcrothy H. Carbaugh, of Stephens City, Frederick County, I Virginia, do hereby make, p-blish and declare this to be my last Will and Testament, hereby revoking all former Wills or Codicils heretofore �I made by me. 1' I I FIRST: I direct that my Executor pay ell of my just debts. I and funeral expenses as soon as practicable after my death. SECOND: I hereby give, devise and i, equeath all of my property, be the same real, per3onal or mixed, wheresoever situated and howroever held, to my husband, Julian Stewart Carbaugh, to be his absolutely, if he survives me. THIRD: In the event that Julian Stewart Carbaugh should fall to survive me, I then give, devise and bequeath all of my property to my eon. William Henry Herrell. FOURTIN In the event that Julian Stewart Carbaugh and I should die under such circumstances that it Is not easily determined which of us died first, then Julian Stewart Carbaugh shall be deemed to have predeceased me, and this Will shall be construed on that assumption and basis. • FIFTH: I hereby nominate, constitute and appoint Julian Stewart Carbaugh as the Executor of this my Estate, and direct that he be permitted to qualify ithout surety upon his official bond. If for any reason Julian Stewart Carbaugh should fail to qualify or should be unable to Page 1 of Three Pages OKII6FGr1999 continue aft,.., hit qualification. I hereby nominate, constitute and appoint William Henry lierrell, Executor under this my Last Will and Testament, and direct that he be permitted to serve without surety on his official bond. SIXTH: I hereby grant unto my Executor full authority to sell publicly or privately any or all property of my Estate, be the same real or personal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand and seal to this :ny last Will and Testament, on this 0� P6— y of 1977. SEAL) Dorothy i. Carbaugh Signed, sealed, published and declared by the Testatrix, Dorothy it. Carbaugh, as and for her last Will and Testament in the presence of us, all being present at the same time, who, at her request, in her presence, and in the presence of each other, have hereunto \ subscribed our names as attesting witnesses on the date aforementioned. Name dr a• i ame Addreafe 1 ✓ems' (sue.!-�<r..i /.� Name Address STA I'E OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK to -wit; Before me, the undersigned authority, on t'tis .lay, personally Page 2 of Three Pages CXI16PG1000 • appeared Dorothy H. Carbaugh. Rachel E. Campbell John W. Rice and David S. Whitacre , known to me to be the Testatrix a the witnesses, respectively, w5ose names are signed to the attached or foregoing instrument and, all of these persons being by me firm duly sworn, Dorothy li. Carbaugh, the Testatrix. declared to me and to the witnesses in my presence that said instrument is her last Will and Testament and that she has willingly signed and executed it in the presence 1; of said witnesses as her free and voluntary act for the purposes therein i; expressed; that said witnesses stated before me that the foregoing Will was executed and acknowledged by the Testatrix as her last Will and 'i Testament in the presence of said witnesses who in her presence and at her request, and in the presence of each other, did subscribe their namesi as attesting witnesses on the day of the date of said Will, and that the �I Testatrix, at the time of the execution of said Will, was over the age of cig!iteen years and of sound at:d disposing mind and mernory. A %-r_ Dorothy Carbaugh Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged before me by Dorothy it. Carbaugh, the Testatr?x, subscribed and sworn before me by Rachel E. Campbell. John V-. Rice and David S. Whitacre, witnesses, this 221h day of _August . A.D.. 1977. \iy commission expires ex i• p March 10 1979 Lary iau lit Page 3 of Three Paget 6 K I 16Fs1 C 0 1 • I, THE CIRCUI' =RR,S OFFICE OF FREDExICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA: Cn this /�Z'11� day of a Writing bearin5 date of � day of.%_L 7 19% Purporting to be the true, last will and testament of deceased, was produced before t Clerk and having been exec%ted as a self -proved will, pursuant and 4_n conformity with the provisions of Section 64.1-87.1 of tr Code of Virginia. All of the said facts being duly proved, and on :he notion of �c.L/��',%l' ��, the said writing was admitted to probate as and for the true, last will and testament of ' decease and it is ordered to be recorded. // On motion of / Jy 7e E-,.cutd2,- therein named, , is hereby appointed Executes Of said wtllr whereupon_ _ qualified by entering into and acknowledging bond in the penalty of ��/d �J with ty , w•ho- ti�=Q;� esr-��fttcl�n y The said taking the prescribed oath to faitbfully discha •41a�_ duties as said Execut On the further Motion of t said an inventory is to be filed on estate. CLERK 8KIIGFG101)2 LIST OF HEIRS C.Se No.: ............. COMMONWEALTH OF' P;3[N / ... r.`.. L2CG4, , v ...... ./ ..I ................... Circuit Court NA- O! DECCLY\T ..... • .... DA7L UI DUTH • . V% c, the undersigned, hereby state under oath that the- `-flowing are ill of the heirs of the Decedent: NAMES OF :.- IRS ' � ADDRESSES � RELATIONSHIP AGE y ......................................./................................................ .................................................................................... ................................................................................... ............... ................................................ I ............... ..... .............. .......................................... I ..................... ....... ........ ................................................................................. ............................................................................... ............................................................................... ................................................................................. .................................................................................. Uw am/are (please check, one):.................................................................. Proponrnt(s) of the will (no qualification) CC -Personal rtprescnudve(s) of the decedent's estate ❑ Hclr-at-law of intestate decedent (no lification wi 30 days following death) Given under my/our hand this ......!.. of .....�`�"�............ Wl,c rRDrrzD NAFQ W S1lf SCRIIEA 1IGNAMR1 Of IVLI<MER • • • • • • uNnm NA}Q cr U]ISC MIA I SIGNAMXE Of SUBSCMEA 1 . .... .. ...................... ....... MATED NA%11 or SL'1SCRDILR M-'WL'RL Of SL1SCR1a EA Stag, of ... Gir 6ity/County oC........ ' 7•`r-o?-&/ ... to -wit: Subscribed and sworn to before me by this .........� .� ..............-�(/Gl� �!..?S��G..... .:./ ............. . day of lL a2lr�?1..• \1} commission c.X irca :.......................... /nC1LLG� 5 4MOTAZit Y 1'L7KJC �// rOR.4C'C•1611 1NLiSTER1 PC VA CODE t M 1•I34 ----------- --- -- -- ---------- ------------- ##19---�— II. C. CARBt,T,;GiI ET UXIC TO .. :: DEED -E S. P. CARAAUGH -E /lv3 9-7¢ THIS DEED made and dated this 6th, dayof January ry 193� between H. C. Carbaugh and nellie Carbaugh, his wife, ,parties of the first part, and S. P. Carbaugh, party Of thO $egOn f ,• part, t , all of Frederick County, Virginia. WITNESSETH: that the said parties of the first part, for and in consideration of - the sum of Ten Dollars (�U.00), cash in hand paid, and a deed of title for the transfer of forty acres from the said party of the second part, as set forth and described in deed of even date her ewith, receipts whereof is hereby acknowledged; do grant, with general warranty of title, unto the said party of the second part the following property, to- wit: 19 All of that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situate in Frederick County, Va., about one mile south of Stephens City, Va, and ad1'oinina V b the lands of Mrs. Evelyn Stickley on the North and Viest; The Peoples ,Bank, Inc. , ( P,:I. L. Ewing farm) on North; John i:i. Newell on the East and Newell and Henry Hartley on the South, being the same land owned by the late Atwell H. Guard; then Wade H. Guard ( known as the Atwell H. Guard home place) and sold under trust by Herbert S. Larvick, Trustee, and deeded to the said party of the first part under date of October �8, 193.0 with the following metes and bounds, according to a survey of A. J. Tavenner, Survevor; October 14th, 1930: To -Veit: Beginning in the center of said road South 33.40 West 16� rods to a point in the center of said road corner to a tract of land formerly part thereof and recently sold to Henry Hartley; thence, with said Hartley South 57 East 70.6 rods to a stake 8 links East of a large White Oak corner to John Newell, thence, with Newell South 84 1/2 East 88 rods crossing the Stephens City nun to the East side, thence, up the Run the general course North 2 V*est 1131r�oyds �to a point in the center of said Run corner to /ChG^-�-�- D�'✓lam'' �' ( .�2 l�`"..° Q� - � a tract of land belonging to The Peoples 'vest 18 rods to a poin in the center of said Run corner to said Bank property; thence leaving said run with the same 32 1/2 East 8 points 6 rods to an old stump corner to the same, thence, with the same 46 11L: East 3 rods to a post corner to h'irs. Evelyn Stickley in the line of the said Bank property, thence with kIrs. Stickley's land North 52 1/2 1f,es4- �o one beginning:,, cJrlt-a:.lrl;ng One hundred and five (105) acres, one (1) rood and thirteen and nine -tenths (13.9) square poles. I4itness the following signatures and seals. H. C. CARBtiUGH (SEkL) ELLIE CIiRB1iUGlI (S {'1'11L) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, TO VVIT: too I, C. c,. i"eller, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereb-, certify that H. C. Carbaugh and Nellie Carbaugh, his wife, whose names are signed to the foregoir,u wri.t,inu. I)e,nri rl�,+� #19 ;E II. C. CARBHT,10511 ET UX -E TO DEED -E S. P. Cl RDAUGH ;E 1& 3 ^- Z -74 THIS DEED made and dated this 6th, day of January 1932 between H. C. Carbaugh and nellie Carbaugh, his wife, ,parties of the first part, and S. P. Carbaugh, pAl,(,y of tho Sego,nd part, all of Frederick County, Virginia. WITNESSETH: that the said parties of the first part, for and in consideration of -the sum of Ten Dollars (a�10.00), cash in hand paid, and a deed of title for the transfer of forty acres from the said party of the second part, as set forth and described in deed of even date her ewith, receipts whereof is hereby acknowledged; do grant, with general warranty of title, unto the said party of the second part the following property, to --wit: • All of that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situate in Frederick County, Va. , about one mile south of Stephens City, Va, and a ad'oinin J b the lands of Mrs. Evelyn Stickley on the North and Viest; The Peoples ,Bank, Inc. , ( 1,4. L. Ewing farm) on North; John Ivi. Newell on _ttL, East and Newell and Henry Hartley on the South, being the same land owned by the late 1'itwell H. Guard; then Wade H. Guard ( known as the Atwell H. Guard home place) and sold under trust by Herbert S. Lari-ick, Trustee, and deeded to the said party of the first part under date of October ;�8, 1930 with the following metes and bounds, according to a survey of A. J. Tavenner, Surveyor, October 14th, 1930: To-Viit: Beginning in the center of said road South 33.40 West 16� rods to a point in the center of said road corner to a tract of land formerly part thereof and recently sold to Henry Hartley; thence, with said Hartley South 57 East 70.6 rods to a stake 8 links East of a large White Oak corner to John Newell, thence, with Newell South 84 1/2 East 88 rods crossing the Stephens City ttun to the East side, thence, up the Run the general course North 2 West 113 rods to a point in the��in"' center of said Run corner to D',{ �i'�-wa tract of land belonging to The Peoples 'VVestV18 rods to a p,ohe center of �(said Run corner to said Bank property; thence leaving said tun with the same 32 1/2 East 8 points 6 rods to an old stump corner to the same, thence, with the same 46 1/2 East 3 rods to a post corner to Mrs. Evelyn Stickley in the line of the said Bank property, thence with Mrs. Stickley's land North 52 1/2 Vest 67.8 rods to the beginning, containing one hundred and five (105) acres, one (1) rood and thirteen and nine -tenths (13.9) square poles. �iitness the following signatures and seals. H. C. CARB0011 (SEhL) 1ELLIE CIiRBAUGII (SE1',-L) STATI? OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, TO WIT: I, C. 0, 1+'eller, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereb..- certify that H. C. Carbaugh and Nellie Carbaugh, his wife, whose names are signed to the forego ##19 H. C. CARBhilGil ET UX TO .DEED S. P. CARPAUGH -� /&3 z -74 THIS DEED made and dated this 6th. day o � y f January 193� between H. C. Carbaugh and nellie Carbaugh, his wife, ,parties of the first part, and S. P. Carbau h , � .. • g , p P.Rl t f of tho second pa t, all of Frederick County, Virginia. WITNESSETH: 'that the said parties of the first part, for and in consideration of -the sum of Ten Dollars Qp10.00), cash in hand paid, and a deed of title for the transfer of forty acres from the said party of the second part, as set forth and described in deed of even date her ewith, receipts whereof is hereby acknowledged; do rant with party g general warranty of title, unto the said art of the second part the following property, to -wit: • All of that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situate in Frederick County, Va., about one mile south of Stephens City, Va and adjoin ing lnlub the lands of Mrs. Evelyn Stickley on the North and Viest; The Peoples ,Bank, Inc. , ( 1,1. L. Ewing farm) on North; John 11L Newell on _tl-ie East and Newell and Henry Hartley on the South, being the same land owned by the late Atwell H. Guard; then Wade H. Guard ( known as the Atwell H. Guard home place) and sold under trust by Herbert S. Larldck, Trustee, and deeded to the said party of the first part under date of October z8, 1930 with the following metes and bounds, according to a survey of A. J. Tavenner, Surveyor, October 14th, 1930: To -Veit: Beginning in the center of said road South 33.40 West 16� rods to a point in the center of said road corner to a tract of land formerly part thereof and recently sold to Henry Hartley; thence, with said Hartley South 57 East 70.6 rods to a stake 8 links East of a large White Oak corner to John Newell, thence, with Newell South 84 1/2 East 88 rods crossing the Stephens City tun to the East side, thence, up the Run the general course North 2 West 113 rods to a point in the center of said Run corner to 'a�,`�..° a tract of land belonging to The Peoples'Vvest 18 rods to a porn in the center of said Run corner to said Bank property; thence leaving said hun with the same 32 1/2 .East 8 points 6 rods to an old stump corner to the same, thence, with the same 46 1/6- East 3 rods to a post corner to Mrs. Evelyn Mickley in the line of the said Bank property, thence with ivlrs. Stickley's land North 52 1/2 West 67.8 .rods to the beginning, ccntC 4na oiie hundred and five (105) acres, one (1) rood and thirteen and nine -tenths (13.9) square poles. 44i.tness the following signatures and seals. H. C. CARB1-,UGH (SE AL) ELLIE CIiRBAUGH (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, TO WIT: ow I, C. cl. Yeller, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereb,, certify that H. C. Carbaugh and Nellie Carbaugh, his wife, hose names are sinned to the f #19 :E 11. C. CARBh,UGSH ET UX TO .. BEED S. P. CARDAUGH /63 g 7¢ THIS DEED made and dated this 6th. day of January 1932 between H. C. Carbaugh and nellie Carbaugh, his wife, ,parties of the first part, and S. P. Garbaugh, party Of tho Second part, all of Frederick County, Virginia. WITNESSETH: 'that the said parties of the first part, for and in consideration of -the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and a deed of title for the transfer of forty acres from the said party of the second part, as set forth and described in deed of even date her ewith, receipts whereof is hereby acknowledged; do grant, with general warranty of title, unto the said party of the second part the following property, to -wit: All of' that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situate in Frederick County, Va., about one mile south of Stephens City, Va, and ad'oinina the lands of Mrs. Evelyn Stickley on the North and West; The Peoples ,Bank, Inc. , ( t:1. L. Ewing farm) on North; John P,,l. Newell on _the East and Newell and Henry Hartley on the South, being the same land owned by the late Atwell H. Guard; then Wade H. Guard ( known as the Atwell H. Guard home place) and sold under trust by Herbert S. Larrick, Trustee, and deeded to the said party of the first part under date of October z8, 1930 with the following metes and bounds, according to a survey of A. J. Tavenner, Surveyor, October 14th, 1930: To -Wit: Beginning in the center of said road South 33.40 West 162 rods to a point in the center of said road corner to a tract of land formerly part thereof and recently sold to Henry Hartley; thence, with said Hartley South 57 East 70.6 rods to a stake 8 links East of a large White Oak corner to John Newell, thence, with Newell South 84 1/2 East 88 rods crossing the Stephens City gun to the East side, thence, up the Run the general course North 2 West 113 rods to a point in the center of said Run corner to a tract of land belonging to The Peoples Vest 18 rods to a7�15:! hecenter of said ld Run corner to said Bank property; thence leaving said gun with the same 32 1/2 East 8 points 6 rods to an old stump corner to the same, thence, with the same 46 1/6" East 3 rods to a post corner to Mrs. Evelyn Stickley in the line of the said Bank property, thence with Mrs. Stickley's land North 52 1/2 West 67.8 ..rods to the beginning, containing one hundred and five (105) acres, one (1) rood and thirteen and nine -tenths (13.9) square poles. Viitness the following signatures and seals. H. C. CARB0GH ( SEAL) #ELLIE CARBAUGH (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FRL'DERICK, TO WIT: I, C. 0. Yeller, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereb,r certify that fi. C. Carbaugh and Nellie Carbaugh, his wife, whose names are signed to the foregoing wri Ling, bearing d,,t,p of .1 nn„ u-ir C, 10Qt 1-1 __ - -- ;� fl. C. CARBr,UGH ET UX TO •• LEED S. P. CARBAUGH 1&3 2 7¢ 19 THIS DELD made and dated this ,a is 6th. day of January 193�,, between H. C. Carbaugh and nellie Carbaugh, his wife,,parties of the first art S. P. Garbaugh, part,Y of t. o sego d , p and Pal t, all of rrederick County, Virginia. WITNESSETH: that the said parties of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars (""10.00), cash in hand paid, and a deed of title for the transfer of forty acres from the said party of the second part as set forth and described in deed of even date her ewith, receipts whereof is herebyacknowledged; ledged; do grant, with general warranty of title, unto the said party of the second part the following property, to -grit: 1 All of that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situate in Frederick County, Va., about one mile south of Stephens City, Va, and ad'oini a J i�b the lands of Mrs. Evelyn Stickley on the North and Vvest; The Peoples ,Bank, Inc. (C.-I. L. Ewing farm) on North; John I:i. Newell on -the East and Newell and Henry Hartley on the South, being the same land owned by the late Atwell H. Guard; then Wade H. Guard ( known as the Atwell H. Guard home place) and sold under trust by Herbert S. Larvick, Trustee, and deeded to the said party of the first part under date of October z8, 1930 with the following metes and bounds, according to a survey of A. J. Tavenner, Surveyor, October 14th, 1930: To -Veit: Beginning in the center of said road South 33.40 Vest 16L� rods to a point in the center of said road corner to a tract of land formerly part thereof and recently sold to Henry Hartley; thence, with said Hartley South 57 East 70.6 rods to a stake 8 links East of a large White Oak corner to John Newell, thence, with iJewell South 84 1/2 East 88 rods crossing the Stephens City hun to the East side, thence, up the Run the general course North 2 Vuest 113 rods to a point in the center of Run corner to 4-" � � - 4� a tract of land belonging to The Peoples�VMest la rods to a porn in the center of said Run corner to said Bank property; thence leaving said stun with the same 38 1/2 East 8 points 6 rods to an old stump corner to the same, thence, with the same 46 1/L East 3 rods to a post corner to Ivirs. Evelyn Stickley in the line of the said Bank property, thence with Mrs. Stickley's land North 5,, 1/2 Vest 67.8 rods to the bea-inni-n9. containing one hundred and five (105) acres, one (1) rood and thirteen and nine -tenths (13.9) square poles. Viitness the following signatures and seals. H. C. CARBAUGH (SEAL) ELLIE CARBAUGH (SEI',L) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, TO VVIT: I, C, ► . r'eller, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereb; certify that H. C. Carbaugh and Nellie Carbaugh, his wife, whose names are signed to the foregoing viritinLcr. )enrinu (jn+o r)r 4 9X- COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Cheryl Shiffler, Finance Director FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director( RE: Disperse County Funds for Installation of Traffic Signal at Rt. 277 and Stickley Drive DATE: March 4, 2005 In June of 2004, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved Revenue Sharing Funds in the amount of $100,000.00 for the State and $100,000.00 contribution by Frederick County to improve the intersection of Route 277 and Stickley Drive with a traffic signal. Frederick County's portion of $100,000.00 was deposited with the County Treasurer on March 3, 2005. This amount was contributed to Frederick County as the result of a rezoning proffer offered via the Southern Hills rezoning, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 11, 2001. Please issue a check in the amount of $100,000.00 made payable to VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation). This check should be mailed to VDOT, Attention Jerry Copp, Resident Engineer, 14031 Old Valley Pike, Edinburg, Virginia 22824. We have attached the following documentation: a resolution by the Commonwealth Transportation Board approving revenue sharing funds for Frederick County; a copy of the proffer submitted with the Southern Hills rezoning; a letter from Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence to Arcadia Development Company requesting the funds proffered with the Southern Hills rezoning; and a copy of the check in the amount of $100,000.00. If any further information is required, please do not hesitate to contact me. ERL/rsa Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 4 [pwd: [Fwd- FW: FY05 Revenue Sharing Allocations Apa111 • Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: FW: FY05 Revenue Sharing Allocations Approval]] Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:36:21 -0400 From: Eric Lawrence <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> To: Renee' Arlotta <rarlotta@co.frederick.va.us>, Jeremy Camp <Jcamp@co.frederick.va.us> Renee- Please create a revenue sharing file Eric R. Lawrence, AZCP Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540.665.5651 540.665.6395 fax elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us www.co.frederick.va.us ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... Subject: [Fwd: FW: FY05 Revenue Sharing Allocations Approval] Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:41:00 -0500 From: "John R. Riley" <jriley@co.frederick.va.us> To: elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us Subject: FW: FY05 Revenue Sharing Allocations Approval Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:26:23 -0400 From: "Copp, Jerry" <Jerry. Copp@VirginiaDOT. org> To: "'jriley@co.frederick.va.us` <jriley@co.frederick.va.us> CC: "Copp, Jerry" <Jerry. Copp@VirginiaDOT. org>, "Lineberry, Ben, PE" <Ben. Lineberry@VirginiaDOT. org>, "Grim, Jo Ann" <Jo.Grim@VirginiaDOT.org> Dear John: Attached is the resolution of approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board for the FY05 Revenue Sharing Allocations. I am also attaching information (page 9 of second attachment), which indicates Rt. 277 and Stickley Drive was approved in the amount of $100,000.00 County and $100,000.00 State to improve the intersection. Also, Rt. 1520 (Iverlee Drive) between Ravens and Rt. 657 (Senseny Road) was approved in the amount of $381,559.00 County and $381,559.00 State Please advise if additional information is desired. Thanks NJerry� 1 of 3 6/29/2004 7:58 AM COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA WHITTINGTON W. CLEMENT CHAIRMAN COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD 1401 East Broad Street RICHMOND, VA 23219 RESOLUTION OF THE Agenda item # 1 S-B COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD June 17, 2004 MOTION Made By: Mr. White Seconded By: Mr. Bowie Action: Motion Carried Title: F'Y 2005 Revenue Sharing Allocation County Primary and Secondary Road Fund WHEREAS, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia prescribes the annual allocation of state funds to provide an equivalent matching allocation for certain local funds designated by the governing body to be placed in a special fund account known as "County Primary and Secondary Road Fund"; and WHEREAS, this special fund account "... shall be used solely for the purposes of either (i) maintaining, improving, or constructing the primary and secondary system within such county, or (ii) bringing subdivision streets, used prior to July 1, 1990, up to standards sufficient to qualify them for inclusion in the state primary and secondary system..."; and WHEREAS, the governing bodies of certain eligible counties electing to participate in this program for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 have, with the Department, identified specific eligible items of work to be financed from the special fund account as indicated on "Attachment A"; and WHEREAS, all improvements listed as "rural additions" on Attachment A are approved by the governing bodies and Local Assistance Division has received a listing of each street(s) and/or subdivision(s) to be improved in that county and will hold this information in their files; and WHEREAS, it appears that these items of work fall within the intent of Section 33.1- 75.1 of the Code of Virginia, and comply with the guidelines of the Department for use of such funds. Resolution of the Board FY 2005 Revenue Sharing Allocation County Primary and Secondary Fund June 17, 2004 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commonwealth Transportation Board hereby approves the allocation of these funds as set forth in "Attachment A." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, each county must pay the Department its share or make other arrangements for the financing of projects by May 15 of the fiscal year or lose state matching funds which may be redistributed. Attachment A FY05 Revenue Sharing Allocation DISTRICT COUNTY County S State S PROJ#/BI# UPC FROM: TO: SCOPE Bristol Riir.hanan 72645 County -wide Asphalt Overlay $481,559 $481,559 9999-013-754,P401 County Total $481,559 $481,559 Dickenson $97,366 $97,366 0621-025-176,C502 14570 0.93 Mi N Rt 83 2.64 Mi N Rt 83 Spot Widen Curves $97,366 $97,366 0745-025-266,B627 17617 Bridge over Lick Creek Bridge Replacement $17,366 $17,366 0671-025-210,N504 12397 Rt 712 0.45 Mi W Rt 80 Widen Pavement $47,366 $47,366 0607-025-xxx,Nxxx 18236 Rt 764 Buchanan County Line Spot Widen Curves $46,927 $46,927 9999-025-454,N501 72646 Various Guardrail Installation $169,302 $169,302 9999-025-456,P401 72648 Various Asphalt Overlay $5,866 $5,866 9999-025-455,N501 72647 Various Striping County Total $481,559 $481.559 Lee $144,468 $144,468 9999-052-287,P401 72649 Various Asphalt Overlay County Total $144.468 $144,468 Russell $30,000 $30.000 0615-083-403,N501 61450 0A0 Mi N Rt 732 0.20 Mi N Rt 732 Widen & Pave $131,559 $131,559 0637-083-428,N501 72650 Rt 624 0.55 Mi E Rt 624 Widen & Repave $170,000 $170,000 Rural Additions nla Various Rural Additions $150,000 $150.000 9999-083-429,N501 72651 Various Guardrail Installation Tuesday, June 01, 2004 Page 1 of 8 �J DISTRICT COUNTY County S State S PROJ#/BI# UPC FROM: TO: SCOPE E�acie:i.4 $100,000 $100,000 0277-034-xxx,N501 NEW 0.03 Mi W Rt 1085 0.03 Mi E Rt 1085 , Install traffic signal & turn 1enes $381,559 $381,559 1520-034-xxx,C501 NEW 0.45 Mi N Rt 50 Rt 657 Construct New Road County Total $481,559 $481,559 L Highland $4,824 $4,824 0636-045-xxx,N501 NEW Rt 621 0.1 Mi N Rt 250 Sidewalk Repairs County Total $4,824 $4,824 • Rockingham $481,559 $481,559 0644-082-283,M501 18037 Rt 33 Rt 1330 2 Lane to 4 Lane County Total $481,559 $481.559 Shenandoah $481,559 $481,559 0635-085-xxx,C501 NEW 0.02 Mi W N Ebberly St 0.07 Mi E Rt 634 S Reconstruct, CBG, Sidewalk North County Total $481,559 $481,559 District Total $2,003,294 $2,003,294 Total Statewide Allocation $15,000,000 $15.000,000 0 Tuesday, June 01, 2004 Page 9 of 9 I wm 1085 Primary Roads Secondary Roads Terciary Roads Parcel Lines g Tr Proposed New a IC Si n I rf Fiscal Year 2004 - 2005 "0 100 200 3?0 4�0 Feet 0 0 AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended Approval on June 20 2001 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Approved July 11 2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #01-01 OF SOUTHERN HILLS WHEREAS, Rezoning #01-01 of "Southern Hills" was submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone a 105-acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) to establish 250 single-family residential lots. This property is located south of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike on the east side of Town Run Lane/Route 1012), and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-138 in the Opequon Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on this rezoning on January 3, 2001; February 21, 2001; March 21, 2001; and June 20, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on July 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change a 105-acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. PDRes #12-01 f 0 0 This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 1Ith day of July, 2001 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Abstained Sidney A. Reyes Aye Douglas Aye Aye Margaret B. Dou W. Harrington Smith, Jr. g g Robert M. Sager a er Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. Ay g PDRes. 9 12-01 0 V.gend.sNCOA4.fidTSMREZOMNG\RESOLUTN\SouthcmNills a,pd A COPY ATTEST John R e 'Jr. Frederick County Admi istrator * 0 T REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 85-A.-138 opequon magisterial District DOR.OTffY CARBAUGH ESTATE PROPERTY Preliminarj' flatters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. Seg.,of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of. the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional rezoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application 401-01 for the rezoning of 105 acres from Rural Area (RA) to Residential Performance (RP). Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the ex. -tent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed Withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successor or assigns. monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Ievelopment The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 105 acres, NNgth frontage along Town Run Lane in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County at the time a building permit is applied for and issued the sum of $4,910.00 per lot. This monetary proffer provides for $3,581.00 for Frederick County Schools; $598.00 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation; $446.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue; $105.00 for Public Library; $59.00 for Sheriff's Office and $121.00 for AdministTation Building. General Development Flare Voluntarily proffered is the attached Generalized Development Plan including the following improvements: On the 105 acres to be zoned RP no more than 250 single family dwelling units shall be constructed. These units shall consist of single fanvly home lots. 2. Sticldey Drive (SR 1085) shall be extended as shown to connect with Town Run Lane (SR 1012) during the first phase of development(A to B). 0 • 3. Town Run Lane (SR 1012) shall be overlayed with a bituminous concrete surface from B to C . Guard rail shall be installed right and left along Town Run Lane "fill" areas greater than 7' vertical . The improvements are to be further described by a VDOT Permit to be issued at the time of the work. This work shall be done prior to the issuance of the 50`s building permit. 4. Town Run Lane (SR 1012) shall be overlayed with a bituminous concrete surface from C to D during the phase where the entrance at " M is constructed_ These improvements are to be further described by a VDOT Permit to be issued at the time of the work - An easement shall be established 75' in depth along the South property line E to F. This easement will be prominently shown on the final plat and will restrict construction of homes as well as limiting the clear cutting of trees larger than 4" diameter. 6. A statement shall be added to the plat and covenants for all lots created by this project advising that agricultural uses exist on the South and East, the Ewing Family Cemetary exists 'Within the limits of development, and, wastewater treatment facilities exist or previously existed to the North of this site. 7, The Ewing family cemetery will be set aside as a separate lot with public road access and conveyed, if possible, to the Ewing family �vith covenants for future maintenance by the Ewing family. 8. A contribution of $100,000 for construction funding shall be made at the time VDOT implements the construction of a stoplight at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Rte 277. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PROPERT WNER By: Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2000, by David B. Holliday. Joyce 0. dofflemyeC NOTARY PUBLIC Commorn!�,ealth of viroinia My commission expires , r r " Notary Public 7_f"' day of • •" � s-BG 1 I • Site Ot`Rezoning From RP 105 Ades4V 00 .. FCSA _ - ..� ��• Ite x •.+a c.....ttn � r 8 Ht Y •.. 9CKE: -SUL Mottt au� cuc•:T / s • ��1EIMPTICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 February 22, 2005 Carla Coffey Arcadia Development Company P.O. Box 5368 San Jose, CA 95150 RE: Southern Hills Rezoning, REZ 01-01 Contributions Towards Traffic Signal Property Identification Number (PIN) 85-A-138 Dear Ms. Coffey: When Rezoning #01-01 for Southern Hills was approved by the County in 2001, the applicant had proffered a monetary contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal. In reviewing both County and VDOT records, it appears that the contribution has not yet been paid for your project. VDOT has recently advised the County that revenue sharing funds are available to assist with the costs of the traffic signal installation at the intersection of Fairfax Pike and Stickley Drive; therefore, receipt of your proffered contribution is now requested to implement the traffic signal installation. More specifically, the proffered conditions associated with the rezoning, in terms of the cash contribution identified in item 8 of the General Development Plan section of the proffer statement, states : "A contribution of $100,000 for construction finding shall be made at the time VDOT implements the construction of a stoplight at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Rte 277." The County requests that this $100,000 contribution be made payable to the "Frederick County Treasurer", and be submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me should you have additional questions. AICP Planning Director cc: Jerry Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 30542 1 ray:._. ***;*-**.*One hundred tlious.and dollars and no cents • 1110 30 54 2ii' IM 5 10000 1 71: 0000 1 10 21, 79011' m *DEPOSITED WITH FREDERICK CO. TREASURER ON 03/03/05 FINANCE CODE: 3-010-019110-0038 (PROFFERS OTHER) TREASURER.CODE: lOCQ �i 4 February 22, 2005 Carla Coffey Arcadia Development Company P.O. Box 5368 San Jose, CA 95150 0 &ICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 RE: Southern Hills Rezoning, REZ 901-01 Contributions Towards Traffic Signal Property Identification Number (PIN) 85-A-138 Dear Ms. Coffey: When Rezoning #01-01 for Southern Hills was approved by the County in 2001, the applicant had proffered a monetary contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal. In reviewing both County and VDOT records, it appears that the contribution has not yet been paid for your project. VDOT has recently advised the County that revenue sharing funds are available to assist with the costs of the traffic signal installation at the intersection of Fairfax Pike and Stickley Drive; therefore, receipt of your proffered contribution is now requested to implement the traffic signal installation. More specifically, the proffered conditions associated with the rezoning, in terms of the cash contribution identified in item 8 of the General Development Plan section of the proffer statement, states : "A contribution of $100,000 for construction funding shall be made at the time VDOT implements the construction of a stoplight at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Rte 277." The County requests that this $100,000 contribution be made payable to the "Frederick County Treasurer", and be submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me should you have additional questions. AICP Planning Director cc: Jerry Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 *dlffdrd & asmaciate ke INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Land Planners — Water Quality 16 May 2001 Mr. Steven A. Melnikoff Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 RE: Southern Hills Dear Steve, Board of Directors: President: Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. Vice Presidents: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland, P.E. Ronald A. Mislowsly, P.E. Da%rid J. Saunders,' E. Directors: William I.. Wright Michael A_ rlammer Thomas W. Price Thank you for your review comments on the Southern hills Traffic Analysis on May 1, 2001. The first three comments are answered by Memorandum from Mr. John Callow (copy attached). Of note is the supplemental analysis which posts a "Do Not Enter" sign for the created subdivision traffic on Town Run Lane, thus eliminating the increase in "out" traffic at Town Run Lane and Route 277. This change, as suggested by Mr. Jerry Copp, allows the Town Run Lane and Stickely Road intersections with Route 277 to function with a level of service of C or better after build out of the development proposed with normal growth of traffic included. Owe have reviewed the pavement markings as requested and some improvements to the intersection at Stickley Road are required to properly site the stoplight. We suggest the stoplight control system will be of a temporary nature since this intersection is proposed to shift as the result of the Route 277/Aylor Road improvement project or the I-81 Interchange work or both. A reduction in width of the Stickely Drive intersection to channalize traffic and align with the Wendy's entrance seems appropriate. Also, installation of a storm drain extension to widen the Route 277 WBL shoulder on approach to the light is appropriate. Re -striping of this approach to allow a left turn lane and through lane is also appropriate. The Southern Hills developer intends to adjust his proffer to the County to $100,000 to pay for the stoplight and associated work. The impact of the development on the I-81 and Route 277 interchange is considered by the developer to be outside of the scope of this rezoning. Any rezoning or new development on existing zoned lands in the South Frederick Urban Development area will have an affect on this interchange. This interchange is under current study for improvement and may even be relocated, which is the current plan favored by the County and Town of Stephens City as well as the local business group. The improvements planned by the developer of Southern Hills improves the level of service of the eastern approach to the interchange and requires the maximum resources which are fair, equitable and available to proffer i.e. Stickley Lane extension, Town Run Lane improvement and the stoplight at Stickley Lane and Route 277. This project helps implement the County's comprehensive plan by providing finished building lots within the UDA to assist in stemming the tide of rural area development. 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gweliffa rnnsinc.com Alember American Consulling Engineers Council giibert w. ctifford and as so .fates, inc 0 Page 2 0 We trust this answer to your comments addresses your concerns. We request your indication to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors that the improvements proposed are beneficial and useful in traffic control while planned final improvements in the area can be studied, funded and implemented. Thank you for your attention to our request. Sincerely yours, gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., is President CEM/kf Enclosure cc: Mr. Evan Wyatt, Planning Director Mr. Dave ffolliday, Developer, Southern Hills Mr. John Callow, PHRRA Mr. Kelly Downs, VDOT, Staunton Residency • Frederick County Planning and Development C/o Evan Wyatt 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 May 9, 2001 RE: Proposed Southern Hills development by David B. Holliday located on Town Run Lane Dear Mr. Wyatt, I am the son of the late Dorothy Carbaugh and executor of her estate. I just wanted to relay to you the importance to me of expeditiously completing the sale of this property. This process started with the inclusion of the 106 acre parcel in the Urban Development Area in October of 2000. Because of this rapid decision by the Planning Commission to include this land in the UDA, It was my assumption that rezoning would soon follow. However, since that time, rezoning has suffered many setbacks during the approval process. I have noted very little public opposition to this project and what seems to me to be good cooperation by the intended developer, David B. Holliday. I feel that the planning commission should be able at this time to complete the rezoning request that has been submitted. I would greatly appreciate your assistance in getting this matter resolved. Sincerely, William H. Herrell WHH:tlr CC: Chuck Dehaven V EU MAY 2, 5 Z001 DEPT, OF PLANNINGIDEVELOPMENT 0 ' 0 G. W. Cl iff ord &Associates, Inc To: Mr Evan Wyatt, Planning Director CC: Mr David Holliday From: Charles E. Maddox, Jr PE Date: 2/1 /01 (rev from 1 /l /01) Re: Southern Hills, Staff Issues The following are the requested applicant responses to staff comments of Dec22. ,2000. Responses are in italic and under the staff comment, for ease of review and reference "Staff believes that the applicant should adequately address the following issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors regarding this proposal:" 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. The intersection in question is scheduled by VDOT to become the Primary intersection on Rt277 East of I-81 It will support traffic from the relocated Aylor Road as well as Stickley Drive. Further , it is VDOT's plan as presented in their Public Hearings on the Rte 277 design, to extend Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane, thus allowing contolled access to Town Run Lane from Rte 277 and the I-81 Interchange.It is obvious that VDOT plans to provide stoplight control to the subject intersection when the upgrade is performed. Also, the (540) 667-2139 (540) 665-0493. fax 1 0 0 February 1, 2001 percentage of use of this expanded intersection by Southern hills will be very small in relation to this expanded use. Finally, any stoplight improvements done now , because of Right of Way acquisition and shifts xn roadway centerlines ,will be replaced when the VDOT Rte 277 project is constructed. In summary, it is the applicants position that construction of Stickley Drive extended and improvement of Town Run Lane are a more than adequate "Fair Share" for mitgation of traffic impacts. it improves the operating characteristics immediately for traffic in the area and it is felt that since Construction Drawings have been prepared by VDOT then the ROW acquistion and construction will be done well within the 5 to 10 year design life of Southern Hills. 2) The applicant should identify the scope of improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. The proffer statement and generalized development plan has been changed to reflect improvements to Town Run Lane including overlay of Bituminous Concrete on the existing prime and seal surface between Stickley Drive and the first project entrance and the addition of guardrails where needed, with work to be performed prior to the issuance of the 506" occupancy permit. Town Run Lane will be overlayed between the project entrances when the second entrance is constructed. All work shall meet with VDOT permit requirements. 3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to obtain a deeded easement from the Stimpson parcel that provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow for the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. We have sent to your office a letter , signed by Mr Harry Stimpson, III, the owner, showing his intent to provide the necessary rights of way and easements for the applicant to construct Stickley Drive extension. 2 C� • February 1, 2001 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. See applicants reply in 1 above. The applicant does not voluntarily proffer improvements at this intersection for the reasons stated. 5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. The applicant has received an updated reply for comments from Chief Greg Locke of the Stephens City Fire Company, stating that his Department now does not object to the rezoning after review of the Stickley Drive plan proposed by proffer. With regard to proffer amount, the applicant proffered the amount agreed to by the Board of Supervisors with the Top of Virginia Builders Assoc., namely 50* of the recently updated proffer model. In the case of Fire and Rescue, this constituted an amount many times previous proffers made by the applicant. Apparently, the D@pt of Emergency Services desires a 100* proffer which raises the proffer from $15 to $880 per lot (500-*+) . The proffer zg4de is $446. 00 per home created and i$ considQred appropriate by the applicant. 3 n • January 1, 2001 6) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate impacts associated with the increased use of the citizens convenience center and the need to expand that facility. • The applicant believes that the Solid Waste Management function of the County Public Works Dept. is operated as an Enterprise activity where the fees charged pay for the operation and capital improvements required. With great respect for the administrators who operate this important public service, we believe that this effort will continue to be selfsupported and proffers are not, therefore , required. 7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if there is the potential to provide for active recreational areas within the proposed residential development. This project will be all single family detached housing which does not require active recreational facilities. it is the applicants feeling that the proffer made for Parks and Recreation will provide for the needed facilities. 8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to accommodate the desires of the Ewing family to preserve access to and improve the area of the existing family cemetery. The Ewing family cemetery will be set aside as a separate lot with public road access and deeded, if possible, to the Ewing family with covenants for future maintenance by the Ewing family. 4 9 • January 1, 2001 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on - site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Proffers have been added to notify homeowners by plat and covenants of the nature of adjacent Ag Districts and the wastewater treatment functions and their position around the Southern hills subdivision. Additional setbacks and tree cutting provisions have been added after consultation with neighbors. Also, the GDP has been revised to move the South project entrance North on Town Run Lane in order to satisfy property owner concerns to the South. 5 i Harty S'timpson, III Rte.], Box 173-C Boyce, VA 22620 December 22, 2000 Frederick County Planning Department Attn: Mr. Evan Wyatt 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Southern Hills Rezoning Dear Mr. Wyatt, This letter will serve to show my intent to provide by way of dedication the 50' right of way, including temporary and permanent easements as necessary, to construct the Stickley Drive extension as shown in concept on the attached plan. I am the owner of the subject property. It is understood that I may make adjustments in line and grade during the design phase of the project to properly suite development of my B-2 zoned property but understand that the alignment will generally be in accord with the alignment shown. I also have an understanding with Mr. David Holliday that lie will pay for all improvements necessary within the right of way so dedicated. Please advise if you will need anything additional in this regard. Sincerely, _ Harry Stimpson, III Cc: Mr. David Holliday 11 C01'Y FOR YOUR IKIFOR11AT10N August 17, 2000 Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Attn: Chuck Maddox, P.E., Vice President 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Parcel 85-A-138, Rezoning Request Dear Chuck: COMITY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 Recently, I received a request for comments for a rezoning request from Dave Holliday for the referenced parcel. Unfortunately, I was unable to provide a comment because all required information including the application form, application fee, impact analysis statement, proffer statement, and other pertinent information was not submitted. As you know, less than 25 acres of the 105-acre parcel is currently situated within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that suburban residential land uses must be located within the UDA. As we discussed, the process to determine if the entire parcel qualifies for this land use involves review and recommendation by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) and Planning Commission, followed by the approval of the Board of Supervisors. This process must be completed and received favorably by the Board of Supervisors prior to the acceptance of a rezoning application. Please find attached a copy of a map identifying the referenced parcel, the current limits of the UDA which is depicted by a thick black line, and a hatch pattern which identifies the portion of this parcel which is currently within the UDA. Please note that the next regular meeting of the CPPS will occur on September 11, 2000. If you desire to have this issue considered at this meeting, 1 will need to receive a request and all pertinent information by September 1, 2000. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding the information in this letter. Sincerely, L (L G . J ��74- "�'i Evan A. Wyatt, AIC Deputy Director Attachment cc: Dave Holliday 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 4�OP1 FOR YOUR �IINFORMATION COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 August 17, 2000 Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Attn: Chuck Maddox, P.E., Vice President 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Parcel 85-A-138, Rezoning_ Request Dear Chuck: Recently, I received a request for comments for a rezoning request from Dave Holliday for the referenced parcel. Unfortunately, I was unable to provide a comment because all required information including the application form, application fee, impact analysis statement, proffer statement, and other pertinent information was not submitted. As you know, less than 25 acres of the 105-acre parcel is currently situated within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that suburban residential land uses must be located within the UDA. As we discussed, the process to determine if the entire parcel qualifies for this land use involves review and recommendation by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) and Planning Commission, followed by the approval of the Board of Supervisors. This process must be completed and received favorably by the Board of Supervisors prior to the acceptance of a rezoning application. Please find attached a copy of a map identifying the referenced parcel, the current limits of the UDA which is depicted by a thick black line, and a hatch pattern which identifies the portion of this parcel which is currently within the UDA. Please note that the next regular meeting of the CPPS will occur on September 11, 2000. If you desire to have this issue considered at this meeting, I will need to receive a request and all pertinent information by September 1, 2000. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding the information in this letter. Sincerely, f Evan A. Wyatt, AIC f, Deputy Director Attachment cc: Dave Holliday 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 9 EMI i , , , ' O , , , Q� , , , , , zz- , � 5 9 QQ) 2 pts. Alp 138 134 i I V 142A 142 296-167 Rezoning Comments Historic Resources Advisory Board Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Frederick County Dept. of Planning & Development Dept. of Planning & Development 107 N. Kent Street Co. Administration Bldg., 4 'Floor Winchester, VA 22601 107 N. Kent Street (540) 665-5651 Winchester, VA 22601 ll Hit�oric�'lieluyes�gdvisorroari tion h stheirgaelie �s po�tt�cl�n ar ca y afj your ii Y p. I� application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other I � ertinent information, Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St. Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: South of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81: 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane) Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 105 ± acres Advisory Board Comments Signature & Date: Notice to Advisory Board — Pleas Return This Form to the Applicant c:� 4aLL, CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 August 24, 2000 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Maddox: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE(540)984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 Ref: Rezoning Comments Holliday Concept Plan Route 1012, Town Run Lane Frederick County I am returning the referenced plan sheet and comment sheet. Kindly submit the items outlined on the attachment "C. Traffic" of the rezoning package. Once this information is on hand, we will review and furnish comments. Should you have any questions, please call. SAM/rf Enclosures xc: ave4ieiri).Q`us (]L:-Evan Wyatt Sincerely, �a v44 / Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer RECEIVED A U G 2 b- 2000 DEPT. OF PLAN,V; 51G/DEVELOPMENT WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 0 • gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Surveyors — Land Planners — Water Quality August 8, 2000 Board of Directors: Evan Wyatt President: Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. Frederick County Planning Vice Presidents: 107 N. Kent Street Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland_ P.E. Winchester, VA 22601 Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E. David J. Saunders, P.E. Directors: RE: Holliday — Stephens City Rezoning P. Duane Brown, L.S. William L. Wright Michael A. Hammer Dear Mr. Wyatt, Thomas W. Prig Attached is a draft of a rezoning petition to be filed with Frederick County on behalf of Dave Holliday Construction, Inc. The 105 Acre property is immediately adjacent to and south of the Town of Stephens City Wastewater Plant on Town Run Road. Due to the proximity of service and designation of the "Urban Development Area" passing through the site, we believe the highest and best use of the land to be low density residential. In the interest of planning for viable projects for which to establish inventory for his builders, Mr. Holliday has contracted to purchase this property and will file the attached application. We would appreciate your comments to be attached to our application for action by the County. We thank you for your early attention to our request. Sincerely, gilhert cli &associates, inc. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice President cc: Dave Holliday RECEIVED AUG '. 2000 DEPT. OF PLANN1%/DEVELOPMENT 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcliff@mnsinc.com MemberAmerican Consulting Engineers Council g filbert # clifford & associates,! OxIne INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Surveyors — Land Planners _ Water Quality 4 December 2000 Mr. Evan Wyatt Frederick County Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Southern Hills Dear Evan, Board of Directors: President: Thomas J. O'Toole, P.L. Vice Presidents: Charles L. Maddos, Jr., I?arl R. Sutherland, Y.L. Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.L. David J. Saunders, P.E. Directors: P. Duane Brown, L.S. William L. Wright Michael A. I lammer '11iomas W. Price Attached is a complete application including agency comment for the "Southern Hills" project located on Town Run Lane, south of the Route 277/I-81 Interchange. The only agency comment remaining involves planning staff comments. A check for Cling fee is attached in the amount of $4,200.00 for the 105 acres involved. Please advise as to the date of hearings on this proposal, the number of submission copies you need and your comments when available. Sincerely yours, gilber iffolvd & a soc'at s, inc. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice Presiden CEM/kf Enclosure cc: Mr. Dave Holliday RECEIVED DEC 0 4 2000 DEPT, OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 41 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcliff@nmsinc.com qopw AlfeInher Alneikcm Consi dling Bl/ginee s Council Sovn+M'.) I1 i u.-S • Rc.ZO�,��(, ArPua,A��N P.I.N. SS-A-13t APPLICATION FOR REZONING FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA In order to rezone a parcel of land in Frederick County, an application for rezoning must be submitted to the Department of Planning and Development. It is the responsibility of the applicant to gather all information and materials that make up the application. Rezonings are ultimately approved or denied by the County Board of Supervisors. This package contains instructions which must be must be followed in order to complete an application. It is important to read these instructions carefully. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Application ication ateria s The following materials must be submitted to the Department of Planning and Development. A. A completed application form (the form is attached). 2. A survey or plat of the entire parcel with the location of all proposed zoning boundary lines. O3 A copy of the deed to the property verifying current ownership. This may be obtained from the Frederick County Clerk of the Circuit Court at the Joint Judicial Center, 5 North Kent Street, Winchester. Da I to 3 *44. '-7t ✓4. A statement verifying that taxes have been paid. This may be obtained from the Treasurer's Office at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. ✓5. A complete listing of adjoining property owners, including addresses and property identification numbers. These can be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. ✓6. Impact analysis statement. Information concerning the projected impacts of the proposed rezoning following the specifications beginning on Page 5. 7O. Proffer Statement. Specific conditions to be volunteered as part of the application. See explanation and instructions on Page 10. NowS st(.•jm . &J0-r*%t11 4 Completed agency comment sheets. Comments sheets are attached. It may not be required that all comment sheets be completed Check with the Department of Planning and Development to determine which comment sheets are applicable. $ So 9@Fees. There is a $550 base fee plus $35 per acre and a "5 deposit for a public hearing sign. Checks should be made payable to "Treasurer of Frederick County." N Qve d so DcPosrT Foa so e-J w Q , 6 RezoninV, Application Fees $ 550.00 Base fee plus $35.00 per acre $ 50.00 Refundable fee for sign $ 550.00 Base fee $3,675.00 (35.00 per acre x 105 acres) $ 50.00 Sign fee $4,275.00 Total Rezoning Application Fee G. W. Clifford &Associates, Inc To: Mr Evan Wyatt, Planning Director CC: Mr David Holliday From: Charles E. Maddox, Jr PE Date: 1 / 1 /01 Re: Southern Hills, Staff Issues The following are the requested applicant responses to staff comments of Dec22. ,2000. Responses are in italic and under the staff comment, for ease of review and reference "Staff believes that the applicant should adequately address the following issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors regarding this proposal:" 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. The intersection in question is scheduled by VDOT to become the Primary intersection on Rt277 East of I-81 . It will support traffic from the relocated Aylor Road as well as Stickley Drive. Further , it is VDOT's plan as presented in their Public Hearings on the Rte 277 design, to extend Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane, thus allowing contolled access to Town Run Lane from Rte 277 and the I-81 Interchange.It is obvious that VDOT plans to provide stoplight control to the subject intersection when the upgrade is performed. Also, the (540) 667-2139 (540) 665-0493. fax 1 January 1, 2001 0 percentage of use of this expanded intersection by Southern hills will be very small in relation to this expanded use. Finally, any stoplight improvements done now , because of Right of Way acquisition and shifts In roadway centerlines ,will be replaced when the VDOT Rte 277 project is constructed. In summary, it is the applicants position that construction of Stickley Drive extended and .improvement of Town Run Lane are a more than adequate "Fair Share" for mitgation of traffic impacts. it improves the operating characteristics immediately for traffic in the area and it is felt that since Construction Drawings have been prepared by VDOT then the ROW acquistion and construction will be done well within the 5 to 10 year design life of Southern Hills. 2) The applicant should identify the scope of improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. The proffer statement and generalized development plan has been changed to reflect improvements to Town Run Lane including overlay of 2" of Bituminous Concrete on the existing prime and seal surface between Stickley Drive and the first project entrance and the addition of guardrails where needed, with work to be performed prior to the issuance of the 506" occupancy permit. Town Run Lane will be overlayed between the project entrances when the second entrance is constructed. 3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to obtain a deeded easement from the Stimpson parcel that provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow for the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. We have sent to your office a letter , signed by Mr Harry Stimpson, 111, the owner, showing his intent to provide the necessary rights of way and easements for the applicant to construct Stickley Drive extension. 2 January 1, 2001 0 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. See applicants reply in 1 above. The applicant does not voluntarily proffer improvements at this intersection for the reasons stated. 5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. The applicant has received an updated reply for comments from Chief Greg Locke of the Stephens City Fire Company, stating that his Department now does not object to the rezoning after review of the Stickley Drive plan proposed by proffer. With regard to proffer amount, the applicant proffered the amount agreed to by the Board of Supervisors with the Top of Virginia Builders Assoc., namely 50� of the recently updated proffer model. In the case of Fire and Rescue, this constituted an amount many times previous proffers made by the applicant. Apparently, the Dept of Emergency Services desires a 100t proffer which raises the proffer from $15 to $880 per lot (50 0 �+) 3 January 1, 2001 6) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate impacts associated with the increased use of the citizens convenience center and the need to expand that facility. • The applicant believes that the Solid Waste Management function of the County Public Works Dept. is operated as an Enterprise activity where the fees charged pay for the operation and capital improvements required. With great respect for the administrators who operate this important public service, we believe that this effort will continue to be selfsupported and proffers are not, therefore- , required. 7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if there is the potential to provide for active recreational areas within the proposed residential development. This project will be all single family detached housing which does not require active recreational facilities. it is the applicants feeling that the proffer made for Parks and Recreation will provide for the needed facilities. 8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to accommodate the desires of the Ewing family to preserve access to and improve the area of the existing family cemetery. The Ewing family cemetery will be set aside as a separate lot with public road access and deeded, if possible, to the Ewing family with covenants for future maintenance by the Ewing family. 4 January 1, 2001 k 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on - site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Proffers have been added to notify homeowners by plat and covenants of the nature of adjacent Ag Districts and the wastewater treatment functions and their position around the Southern hills subdivision. Additional setbacks and tree cutting provisions have been added after consultation with neighbors. Also, the GDP has been revised to move the South project entrance North on Town Run Lane In order to satisfy property owner concerns to the South. 5 G. W. Clifford &Associates, Inc To: Mr Evan Wyatt, Planning Director CC: Mr David Holliday From: Charles E. Maddox, Jr PE Date: 1 / 1 /01 Re: Southern Hills, Staff Issues The following are the requested applicant responses to staff comments of Dec22. ,2000. Responses are in italic and under the staff comment, for ease of review and reference "Staff believes that the applicant shoidd adequately address the Mowing issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors regarding this proposal:" 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. The intersection In question is scheduled by VDOT to become the Primary intersection on Rt277 East of I-81 . It will support traffic from the relocated Aylor Road as well as Stickley Drive. Further , it is VDOT's plan as presented i.n. their Public Hearings on the Rte 277 design, to extend Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane, thus allowing contolled access to Town Run Lane from Rte 277 and the I-81 Interchange.It is obvious that VDOT plans to provide stoplight control to the subject intersection when the upgrade is performed. Also, the (540) 667-2139 (540) 665-0493 _ fax 1 January 1, 2001 0 percentage of use of this expanded intersection by Southern hills will be very small in relation to this expanded use. Finally, any stoplight improvements done now , because of Right of Way acquisition and shifts In roadway centerlines , will be replaced when the VDOT Rte 277 project is constructed. In summary, it is the applicants position that construction of Stickley Drive extended and improvement of Town Run Lane are a more than adequate "Fair Share" for mitgation of traffic impacts. It improves the operating characteristics immediately for traffic in the area and it is felt that since Construction Drawings have been prepared by VDOT then the ROW acquistion and construction will be done well within the 5 to 10 year design life of Southern Hills. 2) The applicant should identify the scope of improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. The proffer statement and generalized development plan has been changed to reflect improvements to Town Run Lane including overlay of 2" of Bituminous Concrete on the existing prime and seal surface between Stickley Drive and the first project entrance and the addition of guardrails where needed, with work to be performed prior to the issuance of the 50t:h occupancy permit. Town Run Lane will be overlayed between the project entrances when the second entrance is constructed. 3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to obtain a deeded easement from the Stimpson parcel that provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow for the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. We have sent to your office a letter , signed by Mr Harry Stimpson, III, the owner, showing his intent to provide the necessary rights of way and easements for the applicant to construct Stickley Drive extension. P" January 9, 2001 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. See applicants reply in 1 above. The applicant does not voluntarily proffer improvements at this Intersection for the reasons stated. 5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. The applicant has received an updated reply for comments from Chief Greg .Locke of the Stephens City Fire Company, stating that his Department now does not object to the rezoning after review of the Stickley Drive plan proposed by proffer. With regard to proffer amount, the applicant proffered the amount agreed to by the Board of Supervisors with the Top of Virginia Builders Assoc., namely 50& of the recently updated proffer model. In the case of Fire and Rescue, this constituted an amount many times previous proffers made by the applicant. Apparently, the Dept of Emergency Services desires a 100& proffer which raises the proffer from $15 to $880 per lot (500 &+) K January 1, 2001 6) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate impacts associated with the increased use of the citizens convenience center and the need to expand that facility. The applicant believes that the Solid Waste Management function of the County Public Works Dept. is operated as an Enterprise activity where the fees charged pay for the operation and capital improvements required. With great respect for the administrators who operate this important public service, we believe that this effort will continue to be selfsupported and proffers are not, therefore , required. 7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if there is the potential to provide for active recreational areas within the proposed residential development. This project will be all single family detached housing which does not require active recreational facilities. it is the applicants feeling that the proffer made for Parks and Recreation will provide for the needed facilities. 8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to accommodate the desires of the Ewing family to preserve access to and improve the area of the existing family cemetery. The Ewing family cemetery will be set aside as a separate lot with public road access and deeded, if possible, to the Ewing family with covenants for future maintenance by the Ewing family. 4 January 9, 2001 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on - site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Proffers have been added to notify homeowners by plat and covenants of the nature of adjacent Ag Districts and the wastewater treatment functions and their position around the Southern hills subdivision. Additional setbacks and tree cutting provisions have been added after consultation with neighbors. Also, the GDP has been revised to move the South project entrance North on Town Run Lane in order to satisfy property owner concerns to the South. 5 G. W. Clifford &Associates, Inc To: Mr Evan Wyatt, Planning Director CC: Mr David Holliday From: Charles E. Maddox, Jr PE Date: 1 / 1 /01 Re: Southern Hills, Staff Issues The following are the requested applicant responses to staff comments of Dec22. ,2000. Responses are in italic and under the staff comment, for ease of review and reference "Staff believes that the applicant should adequately address the following issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors regarding this proposal:" 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. The intersection in question is scheduled by VDOT to become the Primary intersection on Rt277 East of I-81 . it will support traffic from the relocated Aylor Road as well as Stickley Drive. Further , it is VDOT's plan as presented in their Public Hearings on the Rte 277 design, to extend Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane, thus allowing contolled access to Town Run Lane from Rte 277 and the I-81 Interchange.It is obvious that VDOT plans to provide stoplight control to the subject intersection when the upgrade is performed. Also, the (540) 667-2139 (540) 665-0493_ fax 1 u January 1, 2001 percentage of use of this expanded intersection by Southern hills will be very small In relation to this expanded use. Finally, any stoplight improvements done now , because of Right of Way acquisition and shifts in roadway centerlines ,will be replaced when the VDOT Rte 277 project is constructed. In summary, it is the applicants position that construction of Stickley Drive extended and improvement of Town Run Lane are a more than adequate "Fair Share" for mitgation of traffic impacts. It improves the operating characteristics immediately for traffic in the area and it is felt that since Construction Drawings have been prepared by, VDOT then the ROW acquistion and construction will be done well within the 5 to 10 year design life of Southern Hills. 2) The applicant should identify the scope of improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. The proffer statement and generalized development plan has been changed to reflect improvements to Town Run Lane including overlay of 2" of Bituminous Concrete on the existing prime and seal surface between Stickley Drive and the first project entrance and the addition of guardrails where needed, with work to be performed prior to the issuance of the 50th occupancy permit. Town Run Lane will be overlayed between the project entrances when the second entrance is constructed. 3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to obtain a deeded easement from the Stimpson parcel that provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow for the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. We have sent to your office a letter , signed by Mr Harry Stimpson, III, the owner, showing his intent to provide the necessary rights of way and easements for the applicant to construct Stickley Drive extension. 2 January 1, 2001 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. See applicants reply in 1 above. The applicant does not voluntarily proffer improvements at this intersection for the reasons stated. 5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. The applicant has received an updated reply for comments from Chief Greg .Locke of the Stephens City Fire Company, stating that his Department now does not object to the rezoning after review of the Stickley Drive plan proposed by proffer. With regard to proffer amount, the applicant proffered the amount agreed to by the Board of Supervisors with the Top of Virginia Builders Assoc., namely 50-W of the recently updated proffer model. In the case of Fire and Rescue, this constituted an amount many times previous proffers made by the applicant. Apparently, the Dept of Emergency Services desires a 100* proffer which raises the proffer from $15 to $880 per lot (50 0 -�+) 3 January 1, 2001 6) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate impacts associated with the increased use of the citizens convenience center and the need to expand that facility. • The applicant believes that the Solid Waste Management function of the County Public Works Dept. is operated as an Enterprise activity where the fees charged pay for the operation and capital improvements required. With great respect for the administrators who operate this important public service, we believe that this effort will continue to be selfsupported and proffers are not, therefore- , required. 7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if there is the potential to provide for active recreational areas within the proposed residential development. This project will be all single family detached housing which does not require active recreational facilities. it is the applicants feeling that the proffer made for Parks and .Recreation will provide for the needed facilities. 8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to accommodate the desires of the Ewing family to preserve access to and improve the area of the existing family cemetery. The Ewing family cemetery will be set aside as a separate lot with public road access and deeded, if possible, to the Ewing family with covenants for future maintenance by the Ewing family. 4 January 1, 2001 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on - site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Proffers have been added to notify homeowners by plat and covenants of the nature of adjacent Ag Districts and the wastewater treatment functions and their position around the Southern hills subdivision. Additional setbacks and tree cutting provisions have been added after consultation with neighbors. Also, the GDP has been revised to move the South project entrance North on Town Run Lane in order to satisfy property owner concerns to the South. E G. W Clifford &A.ssociates, Inc To: Mr Evan Wyatt, Planning Director CC: Mr David Holliday From: Charles E. Maddox, Jr PE Date: 1 / 1 /01 Re: Southern Hills, Staff Issues The following are the requested applicant responses to staff comments of Dec22. ,2000. Responses are in italic and under the staff comment, for ease of review and reference "Staff believes that the applicant should adequately address the following issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors regarding this proposal:" 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this proj ect . The intersection in question is scheduled by VDOT to become the Primary intersection on Rt277 East of I-81 . It will support traffic from the relocated Aylor Road as well as Stickley Drive. Further , it is VDOT's plan as presented in their Public Hearings on the Rte 277 design, to extend Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane, thus allowing contolled access to Town Run Lane from Rte 277 and the I-81 Interchange.It is obvious that VDOT plans to provide stoplight control to the subject intersection when the upgrade is performed. Also, the (540) 667-2139 (540) 665-0493. fax 1 January 1, 2001 r percentage of use of this expanded intersection by Southern hills will be very small in relation to this expanded use. Finally, any stoplight improvements done now , because of Right of Way acquisition and shifts In roadway centerlines , will be replaced when the VDOT Rte 277 project is constructed. In summary, it is the applicants position that construction of Stickley Drive extended and improvement of Town Run Lane are a more than adequate "Fair Share" for mitgation of traffic impacts. It .improves the operating characteristics immediately for traffic in the area and it is felt that since Construction Drawings have been prepared by VDOT then the ROW acquistion and construction will be done well within the 5 to 10 year design life of Southern Hills. 2) The applicant should identify the scope of improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. The proffer statement and generalized development plan has been changed to reflect improvements to Town Run Lane including overlay of 2" of Bituminous Concrete on the existing prime and seal surface between Stickley Drive and the first project entrance and the addition of guardrails where needed, with work to be performed prior to the issuance of the 50t-h occupancy permit. Town Run Lane will be overlayed between the project entrances when the second entrance is constructed. 3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to obtain a deeded easement from the Stimpson parcel that provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow for the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. We have sent to your office a letter , signed by Mr Harry Stimpson, III, the owner, showing his intent to provide the necessary rights of way and easements for the applicant to construct Stickley Drive extension. 2 January 9, 2001 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. See applicants reply in 1 above. The applicant does not voluntarily proffer improvements at this intersection for the reasons stated. 5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. The applicant has received an updated reply for comments from Chief Greg .Locke of the Stephens City Fire Company, stating that his Department now does not object to the rezoning after review of the Stickley Drive plan proposed by proffer. With regard to proffer amount, the applicant proffered the amount agreed to by the Board of Supervisors with the Top of Virginia Builders Assoc., namely 50� of the recently updated proffer model. In the case of Fire and Rescue, this constituted an amount many tunes previous proffers made by the applicant. Apparently, the Dept of Emergency Services desires a 100% proffer which raises the proffer from $15 to $880 per lot (50 0 -2+) 3 0 January 1, 2001 4 6) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate impacts associated with the increased use of the citizens convenience center and the need to expand that facility. • The applicant believes that the Solid Waste Management function of the County Public Works Dept. is operated as an Enterprise activity where the fees charged pay for the operation and capital improvements required. With great respect for the administrators who operate this important public service, we believe that this effort will continue to be selfsupported and proffers are not, therefore- , required. 7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if there is the potential to provide for active recreational areas within the proposed residential development. This project will be all single family detached housing which does not require active recreational facilities. it is the applicants feeling that the proffer made for Parks and Recreation will provide for the needed facilities. 8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to accommodate the desires of the Ewing family to preserve access to and improve the area of the existing family cemetery. The Ewing family cemetery will be set aside as a separate lot with public road access and deeded, if possible, to the Ewing family with covenants for future maintenance by the Ewing family. 4 r January 1, 2001 A 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on - site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Proffers have been added to notify homeowners by plat and covenants of the nature of adjacent Ag Districts and the wastewater treatment functions and their position around the Southern hills subdivision. Additional setbacks and tree cutting provisions have been added after consultation with neighbors. Also, the GDP has been revised to move the South project entrance North on Town Run Lane in order to satisfy property owner concerns to the South. F G. W. Clifford &Associates, Inc 1 To: Mr Evan Wyatt, Planning Director CC: Mr David Holliday From: Charles E. Maddox, Jr PE Date: 1/1/01 Re: Southern Hills, Staff Issues The following are the requested applicant responses to staff comments of Dec22. ,2000. Responses are in italic and under the staff comment, for ease of review and reference "Staff believes that the applicant should adequately address the following issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors regarding this proposal:" 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. The intersection in question is scheduled by VDOT to become the Primary intersection on Rt277 East of I-81 . It will support traffic from the relocated Aylor Road as well as Stickley Drive. Further , it is VDOT's plan as presented In their Public Hearings on the Rte 277 design, to extend Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane, thus allowing contolled access to Town Run Lane from Rte 277 and the I-81 Interchange.It is obvious that VDOT plans to provide stoplight control to the subject Intersection when the upgrade is performed. Also, the (540) 667-2139 (540) 665-0493_ fax 1 January 1, 2001 i percentage of use of this expanded intersection by Southern hills will be very small i.n relation to this expanded use. Finally, any stoplight improvements done now , because of Right of Way acquisition and shifts in roadway centerlines , will be replaced when the VDOT Rte 277 project is constructed. In summary, it is the applicants position that construction of Stickley Drive extended and improvement of Town Run Lane are a more than adequate "Fair Share" for mitgation of traffic impacts. it improves the operating characteristics immediately for traffic in the area and it is felt that since Construction Drawings have been prepared by VDOT then the ROW acquistion and construction will be done well within the 5 to 10 year design life of Southern Hills. 2) The applicant should identify the scope of improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. The proffer statement and generalized development plan has been changed to reflect improvements to Town Run Lane including overlay of 2" of Bituminous Concrete on the existing prime and seal surface between Stickley Drive and the first project entrance and the addition of guardrails where needed, with work to be performed prior to the issuance of the 50th occupancy permit. Town Run Lane will be overlayed between the project entrances when the second entrance is constructed. 3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to obtain a deeded easement from the Stimpson parcel that provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow for the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. We have sent to your office a letter , signed by Mr Harry Stimpson, III, the owner, showing his intent to provide the necessary rights of way and easements for the applicant to construct Stickley Drive extension. 2 January 1, 2001 I 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. See applicants reply in 1 above. The applicant does not voluntarily proffer improvements at this intersection for the reasons stated. 5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. The applicant has received an updated reply for comments from Chief Greg Locke of the Stephens City Fire Company, stating that his Department now does not object to the rezoning after review of the Stickley Drive plan proposed by proffer. With regard to proffer amount, the applicant proffered the amount agreed to by the Board of Supervisors with the Top of Virginia Builders Assoc., namely 50% of the recently updated proffer model. In the case of Fire and Rescue, this constituted an amount many times previous proffers made by the applicant. Apparently, the Dept of Emergency Services desires a 100-W proffer which raises the proffer from $15 to $880 per lot (50 0 -2�+) 3 January 1, 2001 1 6) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate impacts associated with the increased use of the citizens convenience center and the need to expand that facility. The applicant believes that the Solid Waste Management function of the County Public Works Dept. is operated as an Enterprise activity where the fees charged pay for the operation and capital improvements required. With great respect for the administrators who operate this important public service, we believe that this effort will continue to be selfsupported and proffers are not, therefore , required. 7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if there is the potential to provide for active recreational areas within the proposed residential development. This project will be all single family detached housing which does not require active recreational facilities. it is the applicants feeling that the proffer made for Parks and Recreation will provide for the needed facilities. 8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to accommodate the desires of the Ewing family to preserve access to and improve the area of the existing family cemetery. The Ewing family cemetery will be set aside as a separate lot with public road access and deeded, if possible, to the Ewing family with covenants for future maintenance by the Ewing family. 4 January 1, 2001 i 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on - site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Proffers have been added to notify homeowners by plat and covenants of the nature of adjacent Ag Districts and the wastewater treatment functions and their position around the Southern hills subdivision. Additional setbacks and tree cutting provisions have been added after consultation with neighbors. Also, the GDP has been revised to move the South project entrance North on Town Run Lane in order to satisfy property owner concerns to the South. 5 \ Tratfic Impact \nalvsis of 9 Southern Hills Located in Stephens Giv, Virginia PART "A" prepared fbr- Flollidav Construction Companv 'Y.Gilhcrt W. Clifford & Associates 200 V Cameron Strect Winchester, Virginia 2?601 • prepared by PfwT k � Patton f larris Rust & %ssociatcs, Itc 1,15.32 Lcc Road Chantillti,. Viremia 20151-1670 %larch ].I. I'OM 0 • 0 Report Summary firs stud\ con;iders the trallic Impacts associated %kith the proposed Southern [fills development in Stephens ('Ity. Virtuinia The development is to be located South and east ()(-(he existin.,. Route 27Vl'0%vn Run Lane intersection and will include 250 single-fitmily detached residential units. ,Access to the site will be provided via two (2) ,Ile -driveways provided aloe, the east side ol`Town Run Lane 'traffic anal\,sis will be con►plclecl for the existin„ '00 background and future build -out trallic scenarios. NlETHODOl.U(;N' I'he traffic: inipacis accompanying the Southern Hills development were obtained throu,h a sequence of'activities as the narratives that hollow document • Calculation oftrip generation tier Suuthcrn Hills, • Assessment of back-rOUnd traffic including other planned projects in the area of Impact. • Di;tnhution and assi,tnnent Of Southern Hills generated trips onto the completed road netwoi k. • Analy,Si: of capacity, level oI' ser\ice and queue with the newest %ersion of the hi,hwav capacity sof fare, HCS.; 2. for future build -out conditions EXISTING CONDITIONS AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) counts were prOVIded by the VDOT (Vir inia Department of I tanS)ortatiun) along Route 277. 'fowrt Run lane and Slickluv Drive Manual AM and PM peak hour taaflic counts were also conducted at the flit cr,eetronS of Route 277,7omn Run Land and Route 277/Sticklov Olive figure I .how; the ev,Iln( AVVIM,tc Daily Trips) and A.M and PNJ peak hour trallic volrimes at kc%, location~ along the road network surrounding the proposed Southern Hill; developriunt Figure 2 prnvideti the I(,pccln-c existing lane ueometry and AM and PM peak hour levels Of' service 11 11,11tic count data and 11CSV3.2 level ofservice worksheets are ir)c:hrdccl In the ,lppcndIX ;cclltin of'this repor7 Pflltc-\�lx Tr.ilfiic Imfi,io Of Ilia .,"owlicni Hill K1.IrL1i 14 2(mI P;ripe I No S.:alc L«` S� 0(46) ; s(ix fiaa) SITE pI-TMA — i l uI -,l Figure 1 Existing, Traffic Conditions • Intersection LOS = B(B) R„ t1r� C(C) yopt UITT_ KA SITE No &Ae v AtiUPM) * Denotes Unsi�,nnliicc� (i it�cal �9u�•etnent Denotes Left -turn 1•anc \,lovemcnt —i 111 Zv .k Figure 2 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service ;-1-t-0i 2005 I3AC'I�C:ROUND CONDITIONS • O accurately depict (lltUiC conditions within the study area, I'IiR&,:\ considered all trips associated woh the Iiillowin�g, approved but not completed developments • �4 lo\%nhouses (located to the south along Stickley Drive); • I �.n�-acre site (located to the south along Stick -ley Drive) I: sink the ITI- /1 c1, (;rlrt c cr/inn a lunlccr/, h'h edition, PI iR&A has prodded Table I to summarize the calculated trips associated with the aforementioned development< Table I:-01het• Development" Trip Generation Sumnran, rrE ANI Peak Hour PhI Ptak Hour Land Use Arrn,unr AUT Code In Out 'total In 0111 Total 54 1'un•nhouw% _;�� I, �;,L,•o. iC',r,:Ju )•I onus ? 26 212 171711 Total $ 26 31 25 12 37 470 I12.h5-Acrev „/ Helad `t'tl Ncl:,il I17.75,► SI: 119 75 191 172 1113 776 9.176 Total I I H 75 193 372 4113 776 8,376 The total 200s back, -,round traffic conditions were determined by combining the "other devclopineriC ( fable I) trip assignments with the existing traffic volumes shox%n in Fi"tue I The 200, (:midition assumes the extension of Stickley Drive south to Town Run Lane Figure 3 pros ides the total 2005 background AllT and ANI and P\I peak hour !rabic %olumes alum, kcy roadways/intersections within the study area Figure 4 shows the respective 200 background lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of seivice I ICS ; 3 level of,eryice worksheets arc included in the :\ppendix section ol•this icpolt • Since the Route 277/Stickley Drive intersection operates unacceptably under stop-st,;ri control fior the 2005 analysis year, traffic signalization was assumed. In addition. signal %~arrant w•as completed and is provided in the Appendix section of -this report TRIP GENERATION The numhcr ol'trips produced by and attracted to this Southern (tills site %�crc estabh,hed using ITL•: Iic1, (Wycl-carry AIc11)rtrrl. bth Edition rates. '!'able 2 shn%ks the trip generation for the Southcin )-fills development Table 2: Southern [fills *FHp Generation Surnmary S(athrrm W11% ITE Land Uw ,\mount AN1 Peak Hour PNI Peak Hour 1DT ( odc In Out Total In Out Tot.tl In 1318 i 9 1 157 x:c '.1i .Silo Tot>tl aG 138 I84 157 Net 2.15 2,500 PER��1x • Tralfic Inipau An,ll„i1, of the ')'Ut1111Cin Hills %larch 14 2001 Pare a r 1 No Scale C � t R e+ h ! t3(60) 1 L 1 , 6( )(819) �r� ,rj �� 6 rl p// � ��,�y`.► I (38) t � 461 J N � � rJ =G U :J C h N N NOON 4:,(242) r-- 0(0 ) f� ) r� C h SITE -1 l l l l' -I A Figure 3 'Dotal 2005 Background Traffic Conditions 0 Intersection I,OS = C(I)) L DT-T?,K-A Intersection No Stile 4 C(C) :%%I(f'n1) I Denotes lCritical Mov er ■ l 1_■ l i 1 Figure 4 2005 Background Lane (;eometry and Level of Sen-ice 0 TRIP The dtsttthutnm of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road nemork surroundtn, the proposed site Figure 5 represents the trip distribution percenta c. into • and out ofthi- Southern Hills development Figure Cr shows the respective tle\elopmenl- ,eneratetl A\I mid I'1\1 peak hour trips and :\DT asswriments along the .turfy area roadway 2005 BVILD-OI IT C'ONDITIONS pl1R&.A hu�u prepared two (2) separate 2005 build-orll traffic scenarios fhe first includes the taps associated with each ofthe hackground de\clopnunts .ho%%n on Table I (S4 Irn%nhmm!s ,Ind 12.0s-acres of retail) plus those trips associated with the proposed Southern II111. development The second scenario is- identical to the first but dues not include the 12 0`,-acre background retail development. \�'rthrn each "I the future build -out scenarios. 1311MA have evaluated t\%,o (2) alternative roadway netx\trlk configurations The first assumes the roadway network as described to the 2005 13ack,tuund suction of this report (Stickley Drive extension to TUwtt Run I,,tne) The second r; tdcnttcal to the first but includes the relucatron uf:\ylur Road to the north leg ofthe Route 277/Stickley Drive tntersectiurt 131•I1,1)-0I' I• SCENAR10 NI I'hts scenario includes the trips associate with each of the back round developments shown on Table 1 (54 townhouses and 12 65-acres of retail) plus tho.,c trip; associated With the ptopwed Southern Ihils development Rwi(lwav Nehrurk .•I The titllo%.iriv assumes the roadway configuration as described in the 200S (3,tck,round section of Ihi, report (Sttcklev Drive extension to Town Run Lane) f-oture hudd-our traffic condilwn: were determined by adding the Southern Hills asstgncd trip. (figure 6) 10 the 1o1;11 -'ails hack round traffic volumes (Figure 3) Figure 7 shows loo( hutld-out .ADT and \\1 and f'\1 peak hour traffic volumes along key roadways.'tnter;ecltons wrthut the study .uc;t Figure 8 shows the respective build -out lane geometry and AM and I'M peak hour le�cl> of',ervice All HCS .i 2 level of'servtce %,olkshects ue Included ut the \p(tendr� -,cct ion of thi, report Rimilivav .V (wi)rk l3 In addition to the Sticklev Drlve southern extension• this analysis assume. the rclocattun of' "I R11,111 to the north le`! of the Route 277/Stickley Drive intersection Figure 9 -O)M-, _'ter): build -out :\DT and ANI and P.N1 peak hoar traffic volumeN alom1 key PfffiCA't f-rnllic I111p.10 An.rl%�r,, .)I rlrc SOrrtl)Cfrr Ifni; \I,rrch 14 'tin 1 P.rgC - Yir m.v.A I Illrri .f, Figure - Southern HillsTrip Distribution Percentages "f N n O"ft 9(31) N � ^ N � R •'�1 7p ■ ■ N nj n 69(44) Qitc I)ri%c\\•Iv SITE man DtJ T?,`A %no. g1311 JIL �.. 'A3,1 —1 I IIl?1 A Figure 6 Southern Hills Dcvelonment-Generated Trips ml A.%l(P%I) 0 r] L 0 0 nU, '''_ 1a3(60) l� ~" 69S(8I9) 16(54) Vi 00 !tr: f`J a5(2a2) iZ- CC h j 00 69(44) 11((1) Vl,rt1) ( Sllc I>rl, cwuv SITE r+ �lrill�l 111C.1)ri% cw:1v uMNSA a Nrn 69(44) t �O C lr um ANUPMI —L 111\11 Fignre 7 Fetal 2005 Build -out Traffic: Conditions - Scenario 41A 3-14-01 LOS — C(®) 4 Ci A(A)* tiil� Ihncw:n tinU:f: T t- iT?," gn tersection ' Derwies Unsl,-,nalrted Critical Movement ,lC, Figure 8 2005- Build -out lane Geometry and Level of Service -Scenario #LA Ll 111, <,,�� 'woo :J L1 ,,,r 78(260) J n _ �r T 69(44) I)r-f PIM N 7 n� r' � p. t No Scalc /ram Y � � t �r J J L .l 1L1,-'1 ,A Figure 1) 'Total 2005 Build -out Traffic Condition~ - Scenario 41 B 14-01 r tI%•, III tcI'cc!WIIs %\IIhill the ;toil% area Figure 10 sho%vs the lespcctnc hoild-out lane eomctr\ and •\\I and I'\t Beat, hour Ic%cls of service All 1ICS 1, 2 level ol',en•Ice work,heetS arc Included in the .Appcndix ,ecUon Of'thisrepol-t • BUILD -OFT SUF'NARIO 112 fluS .Scenario I, Identical to the IiISt but does not include the 12 05-acre haAztound retail development RouthrrtI- Nem wrk A 'File 66110 VII)LI assumes the roadway ctrnfi�,uration as described in the 200� Background Section of this report (Sttckley UIIvc extension to To\%n Run Lane) Future build -out trallic: conditions were determined by 1) addim, the Southern Hills asSigncd trip: (Ftgtlre (o to the total 2005 background traffic volumes (Fl,,ure 3). 2) ,ubtractim, the trips associated with the 12 05-acre retail background development Figure I I shoes 2005 build -out A1)F and AN and f'\1 peak hour trallic volumes alom-, kev roadwdysiIntcI,ectlone within the study area Figure 12 shows the Ie:perlmVc build -out lane emnutl\ and AM and PM peak hour Ictels ofservice All 11CS t 2 Ic\-cl Of -service worksheets art• Included in the .Appendix sccrion of this report Rttttthvttt• Nrhrnrk B In addition to the Stickley Drive southern extension. this analysis as�urnc, tllc IclucalI(In of Avlor Road to the north lei, of the Route 277/ Sticklev Drive Intersection Figure 13 Shows 200', build -out ADT and AM and PN1 peak hour trallic tolunleS alonS kev roads.;n•s intct,ections within the ,tudv area Figure 14 ,hogs the Ic,pectmc build -out lane 'cunit ry .111(1 :\\I and PM peak hour levels of• sct vice :%If I IC S 2 Icy cl of service work,heetS arL' included in the Appendix Section of this report C ONC'l.UiSION IitI11.D-0t"F SCE NARIQ ill Rnnrhvrtt' Netrwtrk . I The Uallit rtnllactS associated %pith Build -Out Scenario r'l Roadttiav \etttork A are acceptable and manaveable .°\II Intersections, except the Route 277/A.%lor Road uncrsectlon. maintain acceptable le\,cls of service 'C• or better Im future build -out conclittowS I he Route 277/A'vlor Road Intersection operates with Ic�elc of D' dunn, the PM prak hour with and tt ithout the proposed development Rnrtrlivii' • \-rnrtirk BThe traffic mill;Icts associated Btlild-(hut Scenario -11 Roadway Nctt,ork B are acceptable ;ula nl;ma-eable -\II nuerscctiow; maintain acceptable le\,el, ot',cmce '(-' or helter I'M Willie hulld-out contltllonS PHR?1x Tt;Illic, InItl.Icl Aii,ik,I, of III.- Somhcrn I lilt, V.Irch 1 1 21101 P;Irr I e-- A(A� :J pJ�r r- Site Drl\'C%% IV D( MNA n Intersection LOS = C(C) G /^ C-, No Sc;dc C(C (C}C .-�► V ^` V Denotcs Llnst`,ntih/..cd Umical %lovctnent JI —1 llfl!1 hitirure 10 ZUU, Build -out Lane Geometry anti Level of Sen-ice - Scenario 91 R I1-UI L� M E No Scale mm UI MS A%1(PNI) — 1 1 11 vi 1 'k Figure I I Total 200.5 Build -out Traffic Conditions - Scenario 42A 3-14-01 I[Iterscctio[I C.� erne U LM A IIIC- I)IIvCwav Entersection B /ti (1 No Scale C (C) " Denotes I:nsi,nallzuci Critical N•lovement —I I III-,-v 0%, Figure 12 Build -out Lane Geometry and level of yen -ice - Scenario 42A -14-01 0 NHRAFFigure 13 \„111) Site Driveway SITE Solith .1I IC-Urv, c\\ a\' (362)3" 0,60 (I 161315'w� t198)51 00% 1 � a 0(0) G n �, y o a' v I No Scal, 655��31) 41� Total 2005 Build -out Traffic Conditions - Scenario #2I3 Im A )At P.\ i 0 r'~ A(��) !l ^ AfA1 -)ilc-uri%,CX%av Sotth IIIC Drlvewitt D UJP, ll�li 7 C r'. intersection c G LOS — C(C) No Scale C(c) JkA (C)c -N J Ll :1�1(f'ti1) " Denote; (;nsi,-,nah/cd Crincal Movement — I I I I 111 A,. Figure 14 2005 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service - Scenario H2B 0 13E'lE,1)-0[:'I' tiC'[:!',ERrQ 02 RoathraY Net ►rork A The trallic impacts associated �klth Build -(hut Scenario !�2 - Roadway Net,.vork A are acceptable and manag,cable. All intersections maintain acceptable levels of .cr,-Icc 'C­ or • better tier linurC build -out conditions • 11, 0 Roaths,ttl ; etivork B The tratlic impacts associated with Build -Out Scenario :r2 — Road«av Nctv..ork 13 are acceptable and mana,eable All intersection; maintain acceptable levels of .ervicc 'C' or better liar IiltUIL' build -out conditions. 0 APPENDIX �1 J 0 yol,lATE INPUTS FOR WARRANT ANALYSES SHLETS 2005 BACK'GIZOUND WITH 12.65-ACRE 1ZETAIL SITE • • 0 Southern I lills - Route 277 g Slicklcv Drier MAJOR J 1 REST MINOR STRFAA Nour Route 277 Sticklev Drive Time Be,m F:B NVB NB/SR 12 (10 V\ 1 ; 77 GW 'uU 1:00 1'\I :VI 761 134 2:00 P , I 61 R) t,n l 11! j 3 OU I'll _(li'h6 _'.1� 4.00 f \I 31 I S`i l '71 5:001'\' Ji5 Itl;; zI�J 0:001'\1 S5l) i)) i _'N7 O'lllll'\I 366 iV'7 1=' 10:001'\1 `111 n: 76 1100 11\I I ISM) 15 12.00 AV 6; 117 1 :00 :\ \ 1 51 2.00.\\1 101 II 00 \\I 31 I I6 IL 1 00 AN 1 17 I').1 : I 5 (10AN1 237 8 57 0:00 AN 1 176 h78 7.1 7 01) :\ \ 1 1140 ',66 91s 9*011 .\ \ 1 410 9.00 \ \ I 11 i�l; hh 1001)A I 'Cn 1(0 �I 2005 HACKG[lOuN''I) %% ITN I2.6S-M"RF:ti RETAI1. SITE ti„�.:hi•.0 luil> - I(nn:c ' -,\ til mil':, . �: ,� \! \ I( Numhrr of I.all ti I I II(ull nl dd� IunrISc"un I It111 \I1�11 ll';tr�rl I 1 00 •\\I 1' I' 1621 I4(1.' —1? 100 11 IS IS 121101'\1 '60 134 1.001'\1 2.00 f \1 -1 103 11 -.001\I la:l IS I (XI I'\1 ]69, 271 IS 5.001'\1 194), :19 li h11A I'\t I?9' 1471 'R7 B 7 wI'M -- `).00 I'M '6 NIA 10 00 1'\I ;6I 76 MA I 1 00 11Ai ") 1 . N 1' 00 AA1 IX_' 13 N I00A.\1 ;.I _ 11 N 200,\Al N 16 N 4 00 \ NJ :00 , I i00 AN1 XOi —; Mn 7 (H) •\\1 I :•Ih qI, I MA X 00 -\\I I I ib K� \IA _ HIN),1M v�; 66 NIA \feet- Warrant: \ 1 Iteyuucd Minimum \ olume% -;no ISO Legend: \lA - Al,\J( R \11 = MINOR APPRO,\l I I B - HOI II AfTROA('liti N - NE I f l II'll AIII'I(( ),\< f lu\ ) ,I)¢Icnnincd uau, till I R 1) li••.u,•, I h ,;n.l J-X N N 1 FS 750 75 B B NCA u,-1 N N N MA MA MA MA A%\ MA 1 I. 400 1N ®vv v v 0 v N I', 1 I 1 I S, 600 60 10 Ej VOIJIN-IF INPUTS FOR \E'ARIZAa T:\1NikLVSISSHl,:f:FS 2005 BACKGROUND W/OUT 12.65-ACRE REA'AIL SITE • • • Southern Hills - Runte 277 8: Sticklev Drive MAJOR STREET MINOR STREET Ilour of tla% Route 277 Stickle% Drive Film Bcgtn EQ '11 Vl1/S11 I 00 AM 50K SS(, r) 1.00 1'\1 1:UI 652 116 1.00I'\I of)'; ;(,(, IM oo 1'\1 70i 6*;6 117 XU [is g70 14 7 00 1'\I 65('9-001'\1 i:56 00 1) UU I'S1 ;h(, ; IU 61 I 1 UU 11\1 1 1711 ;I 12:00.\\1 III c) 1:00 AN ;.1 q' 7 1:00 A N I C I I: ;{ I I ano \\I 11"17 1K1 IS 5.00 \\I 'K7 1')U ;v 6:00 \\1 176 6-12 7.11U .\ \. 110; x 14 (.h 10uU•\\1 1.7 .taIid, -i:u:r,c .\!sckIc, I)r.%,: \l \ R lit MINOR �iu:rncr nl I.anc> i I Il.mrni.la\ Rot.t_ �tul;.. i) Nan.unX I mtc nce,tl I It \\ :, \it \It \\',trcant I \\ arrant _' Ilan I Pan ? \4'.I:ranl') \\'amu,t 1 I 11110 r\\1 115.1 91) MA B \I:\ N 11 00 P\I 1 J99 111, MA B \t•\ —+ li I 1.00I'M 1?5 110 XIA Il \I•\ It ) 110 PM 117,� 101 _ CIA li MA It ? IN) 1'\1 161 11 1 \L1 B MA I1 J 00 P\1 1 114 Air\ B MA It ilmlI'M IR): 158 B B MA B 600 PA9 16is la? IVIA B MA B 7.001'\I ItbI I17 MA B MA B 8 (1l) P\1 , 99_ MA B MA B •) uu I'\t 706 61 MA N MA N M001'\1 4.4 MA N 1iA N II 1101'\1 N N- N 12:1N1 AM 176 ) 7 N N . N. N \1 N N N 1.00 A NI 146 201)An) 1t, K N N N N . ).00 AN1 `I'± I I N N N N . 4 0l1 A \1 ?90 15 N N: N N 5.1X1 AM 77"1 79 MA MA MA MA 6.00:\\1 1t)IR V 66 MA MA MA MA 7 of) A\I I'9') MA -MA MA VIA' S 00 A.M I 1 IU S6 MA MA M \1:\ O 0(1 AM \U \,IA \lA MA 10 00 r\M b9: 1` MA \ NIA N Mcclh Warrant: M) 1 I'.1 \0 1 Vs \ 1.1' 1 l.s• Itcyutred \Itntmum \'ulumr% MKI 750 400 600 ISO 75 1211 flit 1 c�rntl: NI MAJOR MTROAt if .MI — %A IN0It AI'VROA( I I It • n(>'I II APPROAl I IN N Nl'I I I II•R .\PPROA( Ilt t�l '1)ClcrmtI1cd uwy \11: I CD li�iorr, J_6 and d-K r 0 A Tratiic Impact •\nalvsis of is • 9 Southern Hills Located in Stephens C:io , Virginia PART "B" prepared fir Holliday Construction Companv 'Y.Gilhert W. Clifford & associates 200 N Cameron Street Winchester. Virumia 22601 prepared by PI wJ� Patton Ilarris Rust & associates, pc 1,15.12 Lee Road Chantilly, Vireima 20151-1671) March 1.1. IOM 0 1 1 P1 fpm ' To: Holliday Construction. LLP From: Jahn ('allow, Pi IR&A Mermorancd%Aaik 14572Lt,-FbA !lr„tee VJA49Fi7.r �7art 4: VA I'.iw 703449G714 201�4.•tE79 F"'.; bvn(b'rwO443kcon Dante: March 19, 2001 Re: Southern Hills -- Existing Traffic plus Development Traffic Patton Hand; Rust & Associates (PHR&A) has prepared this document to provide a supplemental build -out scenario for the report titled: A 7rc�Tc /mInicy (liar/ s•i.N! o Souther» //i//.N, by PHR&,:dated March 2, 2001. This scenario examines a build -out condition that includes only the existing traffic volumes and the Southern Hills development traffic. The proposed condition assumes the extension of Stickley Drive south to Town Run Lane. From the March ? 2001 traffic impact analysis, Figures I and 2 are provided to show the existing trallic volumes and levels of service/lane geometry, respectively. along the existing roadway network The Southern Hills development -generated trip assignments (included as Figure 6 in the March 2, 2001 report) are provided as Figure 3. The trips sho.vn in Figure .; were then added to the existing traffic volumes shown in Figure I to determine the "existing plus Southern Bills" build -out scenario. Figure 4 shows "existing plu: Southern Hills" build -nut ADT and ANI and I'M peak hour traffic volumes along key roadways/intersections within the study area. Figure 5 shows the respective build -out lane ge,•ornetry and AM and I'M peril: hour levels of service. All I ICS 3 2 level of service and signal warrant worksheets are attached to the back of this memorandum 11 til `- PH I LF 0 No Scalc �l6 ry c = 400 �11�3) J L �3 0 J No Scale c7 0 Intersection LOS = B(B) v V C r )B v v J Q/ -�C U U7 J C' SITE A%I(PM) Denotes Unsignalized C-rilical \lovcmcnt Denotes Two-way Left -turn Lane Movement —1 Illlll Figure 2 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service -20-01 In u T No Scalc mi AM(PM) IjLrDXn 1 111LI-1 .k Figure 3 Southern I [ills Development -Generated Trips 3-20-01 0 L cY�' — No Seine M = ; = ev 6A3(6 R°urn 2 j " �► ec _ � `rr� 77 � � 110(46) � � L � (z �� 141(644) 6 64(49 919)393„'r� o F �, a+ N cv < <35)12 ""1► of \r Ci ..J e U U N 9(31) II N _ 1 69(44) OP--- 0(0) Nonh 69(44) Sire-DTl\°".ay �, eft■ 0(0) �o SITE l� I South `" o Site -Driveway v AL ■ li lli A& Figure 4 Build -out Traffic Conditions - Existing plus Southern Hills 3-ZO-OI 0 1,ntergection LOS = B(C) No Scale rre >11 � �r . C(C) c� qA,:. North Si1c Driveway AM(P�1) * Denotes Critical Movement Denotes Fwo-�%av Left -turn Lane Movement -- r lui ii J, Fissure -5 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service b 3-20-u 1 VOLUME INPUTS FOR WARRANT ANALYSIS SHEETS EX1STINC TRAFFIC PLUS SOUTHERN HILLS r)EVELOPMFNT TRIPS Southern Ilills - Route 277 & Stickler Drive MAJOR STREET MINOR S•('REET Hour of day Route 277 Sticklev Drive Time BePin EB *N'B \B/SB 11.00 ANI 478 177 85 12:00 I'ti l r+_' i 619 1 1 1 1:00 PXI 560 551) 100 2:00 P\1 187 lxi <)� 1:00 P\1 56 1 5G'_ 100 4:00 P\1 (,4S 646 1 I 5:00 1'\I -b ` 761 I ,(, 6:00 P\ 1 686 OS; 12' 7:00 P\1 ;f, 5,62 1110 8•00 P\1 479 477 85 9:00 P\I j92 29-2 5 ) 10:00 I'\ I 161 39-1 4-; 11.00 P\I X,) 1•16 0 12:00 A\1 90 �> I :00 ;\,\I •16 75 7 2:00 A\1 47 78 7 +:00 ANI 1 12 11 4:00 A,N1 91 148 14 5:00 AN -74 i .391S i$ 6:00A\1 118 57» 49 7-00 AM JOB, -- GGh +. 9:00 AM 147 5(,9 :;•1 9:00 :1\1 -1 -1 4?H a i 10.()0 ANI 217 : 55 ? 1 0 SIGNAL WARRANT A:`ALYS[S PCIti TING TRAFFIC PLUS SOl THERM HILLS DEVELONNILN I TRIP1 \I \IOI: I MINOR Number of I anc5' I I I L Nuurul'd.n R, :c. Warrant Time Bccu: I 1 \', ! l \ 11 111 lti arrant 1 \I tn'an: _' Part I 11.00 AM IF"i 1 MA li I NMI 11\1 11 1 )111 n I.. W.I:rart') L Wan:mt I 0 5:00 1'`I _ I >' I 1 J 1 36 122 MA MA. MA- IS B B VIA\ MA MA B B :B � — 6-00 PM _ t ;, i _ 7-00I'M 1121 _ 100 MA :....:... .. B. Mv,...:. B 8:00 P`I 954 85 MA B MA B - 9:00 1'M �H t N MA N 1000IM .1i4 _ JS N' N N N .— I1001'�t '0 N N N.: N - - 12:(8) A1'I I-li q N N N I :00 AM 1 7 N::..::.::.. .. _... N N• . N - 2.00 AEI 12; 7 N. t1 N N 3-041 A M 181 I I N.• .... :. -.. N Tv' N -- - 1 04) AM ';) I� N: .:'. N N . N 5 01) ANI 1,41 :8 MA N MA N 6.00 AM 9.10 40 MA MA .: MA - MA . 7.01► AM 107? 63 MA MA MA !vtA 800AM )I6 54 MA NIA CIA \1IA ' 9-00 AM "37 43 MA N MA M,\ 10.00 A. 11 N Mr\ N 11cct% Warrant: \0 1 Es M) 1 F� 1 I.�'' \'E S" Required Minimum Volumes .(H 750 300 600 151) 75, 120 60 Legend: NIA - MAJOR AITR11:1( I I Ml -MINOR APPRl)A( I I B - 110'111 APPROAC1 1.1, N - NIA 111'R API'R011 I Iu\1 'Dcicrmincd tmn^ III I ( 1) ti:, reti 4-6and 1-8 CJ PREVIOUS COMMENTS FROM G. W. CLIFFORD 0 & ASSOCIATES 0 • G. W. Clifford &Associates, Inc To: Mr Evan Wyatt, Planning Director CC: Mr David Holliday From: Charles E. Maddox, Jr PE Date: 2/1/01 (rev from 1/1/01) Re: Southern Hills, Staff Issues The following are the requested applicant responses to staff comments of Dec22. ,2000. Responses are in italic and under the staff comment, foi=_ease of review and reference faff�believes that the applicant should adequately address the IIovyin_g=issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior =a -recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors �garding this proposal:" 1) The applicant should demonstrate Service (LOS) conditions at the Run Lane and Stickley Drive with future LOS conditions assuming project. the current Level of intersections of Town Fairfax Pike, and the the build -out of this The intersection in question is scheduled by VDOT .to become the Pri-mazy intersection on Rt2 77 East of I-81 . It will support traffic from the relocated Aylor Road as well as Stickley Drive. Further , it is VDOT's plan as presented In their Public Hearings on the Rte 277 design, to extend Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane, thus allowing contolled access to Town Rua Lane from Rte 277 and the I-81 Interchange.It is obvious that VDOT plans to provide stoplight control to the subject intersection when the upgrade is performed. Also, the (540) 667-2139 (540) 665-0493. fax 1 February 1, 2001 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. See applicants reply in. 1 not voluntarily proffer intersection for the reason. above. The applicant does improvements at this stated. 5) The applicant should address the. concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for .emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. The applicant has received an updated reply for comments from Chief Greg Locke of the Stephens City Fire Company, stating that his Department now does not object to the rezoning after review of the Stickley Drive plan proposed by proffer. With regard to proffer amount, the applicant proffered the amount agreed to by the Board of Supervisors with the Top of Virginia Builders Assoc., namely 50$ of the recently updated proffer model. In the case of Fire and Rescue, this constituted an amount many times previpus proffers made by the applicant. Apparently, the DVpt of Emergency Services desires a 100-W proffer Which raises the profffer from $15 to $880 per lot (500*+) . The proffer ode is $446.00 per home created and i q cons dgFed appropriate by the applicant. 0 January 1, 2001 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on - site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Proffers have been added to notify homeowners by plat and covenants of the nature of adjacent Ag Districts and the wastewater treatment functions and their position around the Southern hills subdivision. Additional setbacks and tree cutting provisions have been added after consultation with neighbors. Also, the GDP has been revised to move the South project entrance North on Town Run Lane in order to satisfy property owner concerns to the South. Or 5 • Harry Stampson, III Rte X, Box X 73-C Boyce, VA 22620 December 22, 2000 Frederick County Planning Department Attn: Mr. Evan Wyatt 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Southern Hills Rezoning Dear Mr. Wyatt, This letter will serve to show my intent to provide by way of dedication the 50' right of way, including temporary and permanent easements as necessary, to construct the Stickley Drive extension as shown in concept on the attached plan. I am the owner of the subject property. It is understood that I may make adjustments in line and grade during the design phase of the project to properly suite development of my B-2 zoned property but understand that the alignment will generally be in accord with the alignment shown. I also have an understanding with Mr. David Holliday that he will pay for all improvements necessary within the right of way so dedicated. Please advise if you will need anything additional in this regard. Sincerely, _ J Harry Stimpson, III Cc: Mr. David Holliday M i Drive alit ,xte sion • Ex Hol I I ry Stl zpso E ss • 0 PHR&A .t, Memorandum 14532 lee R>ad Phone: 703A49-6700 Chantilly, VA Fax 703A49-6714 20151-1679 Email: John.CalVAiWHF2Aoom To: Chuck Maddox From John Callow, PHR&A oats: May 15, 2001 Re: Response to May 1, 2001 Comments by VDOT Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) has prepared this document in response to comments addressed in VDOT's May 1, 2001 letter regarding the report titled: A Tr c Impact Analysis o{Southe»i Hills, by PHR&A, dated March 14, 2001. In addition to providing responses to VDOT comments, PHR&A has evaluated a supplemental 2005 build -out scenario to further describe the impacts relating to the proposed Southern Hills development. The following provides responses to each of the review comments included in VDOT's May 1, 2001 letter: 1) VDOT Conunent — In the traffic impact analysis, the existing lane geometry for westbound Route 277 traffic at Aylor Rand shows iivo through lanes, the rightmost being a shared through/right lane. A true shared through/izght turn lane has right turning traffic sharing the lane with the through movement. This is not the case here. Westbound traffic in the right lane at this intersection is in a dedicated right turn lane and must turn right either at Aylor Road or in 175' at the I-81 northbound on ramp. Therefore there is one westbound through lane and one westbound right turn lane. This misrepresentation of lane assignments affects the Level of Seii ice computations at Aylor Road for the existing traffic (Figure 2), the 2005 background traffic (Figure 4), 2005 build -out traffic scenario #IA (Figure 8), and the 2005 build -out traffic scenmio #2A (Figure 12). PHR&A Response — PHR&A has attached the following revised figures in order to present accurate lane geometry and levels of service at the intersection of Route 277/Aylor Road: 1) Figure 2 — existing lane geometry and levels of service. Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 2 of 9 2) figure 4 — 2005 background (includes 54 townhouses & 12.65-acres retail) lane geometry and levels of service. 3) Figure 8 — Scenario #1A 2005 build -out (includes Southern Hills plus the 2005 background volumes) lane geometry and levels of service. 4) Figure 12 — Scenario #2A 2005 build -out (includes Southern Hills plus the 2005 background volumes minus the 12.65-acres retail trips) lane geometry and levels of service. The Route 277/Aylor Road intersection operates with levels of service `D' and `E' during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, with and without the proposed development. Under Scenario #2A (without 12.65-acres retail trips), the PM peak hour would improve to a level of service `D'. 2) VDOT Comment — In some computation, it is assumed Route 277 will be five to seven lanes wide in 2005 when the subdivision is built out Although VDOT is performing apreliminaty study to widen Route 277, no money has been appropriated for purchasing the right of way or scheduling construction. In 2005, the only road widening anticipated will be whatever is proffered by this developer. This misrepresentation of number of traffic lanes available affects the level of service computations at Stickley Drive for the 2005 background traffic (Figure 4), the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #IA (Figure 8), the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #IB (Figure 10), the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #2A (Figure 12) and the 2005 build - out traffic scenario #2B (Figure 14). PHR&A Response — This issue has been address in the March 16, 2001 and March 19, 2001 memorandums where PHR&A evaluated 2005 build -out conditions with existing lane geometry along Route 277. The following lists each of the build -out scenarios analyzed by PHR&A to -date: • March 14, 2001 report — 2005 Build -out #1 A (future geometry) • March 14, 2001 report — 2005 Build -out #1B (future geometry) • March 14, 2001 report — 2005 Build -out #2A (future geometry) • March 14, 2001 report — 2005 Build -out #2B (future geometry) • March 16, 2001 memo — 2005 Build -out (existing geometry) • March 19, 2001 memo — 2005 Build -out (existing geometry) 3) VDOT Comment — The consultant performed manual traffic counts at the intersections of Route 277ITrnvn Run Lane (March 7, 2001) and Route 277IStickley Drive (MtrYch 8, 2001) and computed the AMand PMpeak hour factors. These peak hour factors should have been used in their analyses I* 0 Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 3 of 9 PHR&A Response — Using the computed AM and PM peak hour factors, PHR&A has re -analyzed (HCS 3.2) existing traffic volumes at the intersections of Route 277/Town Run Lane and Route 277/Stickley Drive. Implementing these factors created negligible impacts to existing HCS 3.2 levels of service. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS - 2005 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS PHR&A has evaluated a supplemental 2005 build -out scenario to further describe the impacts relating to the proposed Southern Hills development. The build -out traffic volumes for this condition were obtained via the following: existing traffic volumes; general traffic growth through 2005 (at a rate of 6% per year); specific background trips associated with a 54-townhouse development; and the trips generated trips by the proposed Southern Hills development. The respective roadway configuration includes all existing lane geometry with a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 277/Stickley Drive. Trip distribution and assignment methodology for this analysis remains consistent with that of the March 14, 2001 traffic impact study. For the purpose of this scenario, PHR&A assumed the intersection of Route 277/Town Run Lane would provide inbound Southern Hills access only. The Route 277/Stickley Drive intersection would continue to provide inbound and outbound access to Southern Hills. Figure SA-1 has been attached to show 2005 build -out ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes along key roadways/mtersections within the study area. Figures SA-2 includes the respective build -out lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS 3.2 level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. The traffic impacts associated with this supplemental build -out scenario are acceptable and manageable. All intersections maintain acceptable levels of service `C' or better for future build -out conditions. 0 0 Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 4 of 9 .CU No Scale CU Intersection o LOS = C(C) Rout ,r C(C) I q� COD U U a 94 z 3 E° SITE AM(PM) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Denotes Two-way Left -turn Lane Movement TlT Y"VIA Figure 2 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service 5-15-01 Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 5 of 9 Intersection LOS = D(E) A No Scale Intersection T eNcl _ eIf4"\ AM(PM) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Figure 4 2005 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service 5-15-01 3 0 • Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 6 of 9 0 Intersection 0 LOS = D(E) �AB* TT Til9_l Intersection LOS = C(C) n (C)C No Scale 40"' c�C� �1 AM(PM) I * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Figure 8 2005 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service - Scenario #1A 5-15-01 Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 7 of 9 Intersection LOS = D(D) PH R8A Figure 12 CU al Intersection No Scale � Cpy AM(PM) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement A& 2005 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service - Scenario #2A 5-15-01 • 0 0 Cluck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 8 of 9 CU ro 0 No Scale _0 00 M N vvM cn o o 40000 Routo277 I63(73) IL �■ 757(858) Q �' 6(23) (8p9JJ3p9 (I,,J�OQ� wr (858)41 o^ G� al q x w v al a a H SITE T1T T F16V l AM PM 7-1 111tr1 A, Figure SA-1 Supplemental Analysis - 2005 Build -out Traffic Conditions 5-15-01 Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 • Page 9 of 9 Signalized Signalized Intersection a Intersection No Scale LOS = QQ ��, LOS = QQ 4out� U. C(C) + SITE AM(PM) PHRIW , Figure SA-2 Supplemental Analysis - Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service 5-15-01 • NEWEST COMMENTS FROM G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES • giIfert «. difford & associates, ine INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Land Planners — Water Quality 109 March 2001 Board „fDirectom: Mr. Charles DeHaven, Jr. President: Chairman, Frederick CountyPlanning Commission _ ciomasiden I�x�lc I�i � vice rresiaents: 2075 Martinsburg Pike Charles F. Maddox. Jr.. P.i?. Winchester, Virginia 22603 Earl R. Suthcrland.l'.I{. Ronald A, Mklo%%skv. l'.li. Daxid J. Saunders. P.H. RE: Southern [[ills Directors: William I.. Wright Dear Chuck, Michael A. I Iarnmer 'Ihomas W. Price: Since our February 21" meeting we have generated the attached traffic study using actual site traffic counts and available data. This report has been prepared by Mr. John Callow of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PI-IR&A, pc) A Traffic In►pact Analt,sis o('Southern Iiills dated March 14, 2001 that documents the present and future traffic conditions along Route 277 east of Interstate 81 with approved and proposed land uses in the vicinity. The study has been prepared in two parts as will be described in this letter. Southern Hills is a proposed single family detached community south of Route 277 with direct access to Town Run Lane. It has been estimated that the community at the earliest would be built -out by the year 2005. As part of the proposed rezoning package, the developer is offering to extend, at his cost, Stickley Drive south and west to connect to Town Run Lane at the beginning of the development of the community. This allows the future residents of' Southern Hills the possibility of using either Town Run Lane or Stickley Drive to access/egress Route 277. The Part "A" traffic study assesses study area conditions where the VDOT Route 277 improvement project is Orn plemented as follows: ( I ) Existing conditions (2) 2005 Background conditions with normal area traffic growth, with and without a by -right retail development located between Town Run Lane and the proposed extension of Stickley Drive (3) 2005 build conditions with current Route 277 intersections and road configurations at 'Town Run Lane/Aylor Road and at Stickley Drive (4) 2005 build conditions with Town Run Lane/A_vlor Road closed at Route 277, Aylor Road is assumed to be relocated opposite Stickley Lane in this scenario as well VDOT may close all access at the existing intersection adjacent to the Interstate. The study findings are as follows: (1) Existing conditions operate at marginal but acceptable conditions using single intersection analysis techniques. (2) 2005 background conditions with normal area traffic growth and the inclusion of the by -right retail south of Route 277 shows the need for the VDOT Route 277 project that would include a 5-lane cross section with 2 through lanes in each direction and a continuous left turn lane. A traffic signal would be required at the intersection of Route 277 and Stickley Drive. (3) 2005 background conditions with normal traffic growth and without the by -right retail also requires the VDOT Route 277 widening project and warrants a traffiic signal at Route 277 and Stickley Drive. (4) 2005 build conditions (Southern Hills projected traffic is layered on top of' background conditions) and for all scenarios does not alter the levels of' service shown in background. The impact of Southern Hills traffic is manageable, within VDOT accepted criteria of' level of service " C" or better), with a traffic signal at Stickley Drive. QUO Worth Cameron Street. Winchester, Virginia 23601 (540) 667-2 139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwclitl Tcmnsinc.com A hvnhe l..•IInerrc un ('on.vnlim,Q A'ligmeer.c (u�utc it gilbert w. clifford and associates, inc Page 2 (5) The closing of Town Run Lane intersection is not required except as it conflicts with interchange c (outside the scope of this model). It is assumed that VDOT programs underway will improe interchange to operate acceptably. Alternatives for Town Run Lane under Part "A" include leaving Town Run Lane open, closing Town Run Lane or converting to "right in" traffic only, all with the developer improvement of Stickley Drive. The Part "B" tragic studv looks at an impact scenario where "Southern Hills" builds out with existing background traffic and with existing lane configurations on all streets at both intersections. This study confirms that Southern Hills tragic is manageable with the Stickley Drive extension and the addition of a stoplight at Stickley Drive. Consideration of the results of this report has prompted the finding that: (1) Southern Hill's contribution of the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane allows the redistribution of background and Southern Hills traffic and facilitates the completion of the VDOT widening project earlier than previously possible. A contribution towards the tragic signal will help existing tragic issues as well. (2) The extension of Stickley Drive and a stoplight at Stickley Drive and Route 277 is needed under all growth scenarios regardless of the rezoning of Southern Hills. The Route 277 VDOT project is necessary for the proper function of the roadway system under normal growth conditions. Frederick County needs to continue to promote funding for the Route 277 widening project or as an alternative, 3 below. (3) The Southern Hills contribution of the extension of Stickley Drive also otters and guides the potential selection by VDOT of a new south interchange alternative which has been endorsed by business and political leaders in the area. This scenario, depending on when it is built, would shift the need for major improvements to the Stickley corridor and reduce the scope of improvements needed on Route 277 and allow Town Run Lane and Aylor Road to function acceptably. • The impact of Southern Hills traffic is manageable with the addition of proffers including a contribution towards stoplight control at Stickley Drive and Route 277 with existing Route 277 lane configurations. In consideration of the findings, the developer of Southern Hills offers an additional proffer of $25,000.00 to be paid to VDOT when it is decided a stoplight at Stickley Drive is needed under present or future lane configurations at this intersection. I look forward to answering any questions you may have prior to the hearing and I have asked Mr. John Callow, P.E. to attend the Wednesday, March 2 1 " meeting to address this issue. Sincerely yours, gilbe ord & associates, inc. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice-Presi t CEM/V Enclosure cc: Planning Commission Members Evan Wyatt. Planning Director Jem, Copp, Resident Engineer. VDOT C— COUNTY of FREDERICK DepartmeIIt of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 tsI OTIFIC ICAM OF P013L IC F ENRIPIG June 27, 2001 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #01-01 OF "SOUTHERN HILLS" On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on July 11, 2001 at 7:15 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This hearing is to consider Rezoning 901-01 of "Southern Hills," submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone a 105-acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) to establish 250 single-family residential lots. This property is located south of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike on the east side of Town Run Lane/Route 1012), and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-138 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library approximately one week prior to the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, i, L111 �1' Evan A. vatt Director EAW/ch O.blgcndasVldj oincrs\-1001 \Southcm I lills_ILCZ.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on Z 0 O from the Department ol'Planning anti Development, Frederick CouI)'Irglma: s 85-A-59 G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Estep, Mary Virginia Stickley 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 c/o Robert M. Bushong, POA Winchester, VA 22601 W&COt-1 14502 Saint Stephens Place Midlotthian, VA 23113-6358 85-A-137D & 137E 85-A-60 & 138 Ramey, William L. Herrell, William H. Shirley A. 824 Peace and Plenty Lane 1680 Marlboro Road Stephens City, VA 22655-5839 Stephens City, VA 22655-5125 85-A-131 Ritenour Farm L.P. 85-A-139 Scothorn, Gary L./Stephen/Dennis c/o Mary Ritenour 506 Ewings Lane 514 Peace and Plenty Ln Stephens City, VA 22655-5306 Stephens City, VA 22655-5836 85-A-141 Frederick -Winchester P.O. Box 43 0 6iCtq// Winchester, VA 22604-0043 l� UZZ�a¢ 85-A-142 85—A-137 Stephens City, Town of Kent, Henry F. & J oyce E. P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, VA 22655-0250 625 Town Run Lane Stephs City/1/1VA —_ Evan A. WWY(att, Planni g Director Frederick Co. Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, &Th inn I -fa l I , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated &-al • 0j , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this clay of�` My commission expires on aB OTARY PUBLIC COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 11WIFICrIVIONI Or PUIB IC r1E'A%R11 IG June 6, 2001 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #01-01 OF "SOUTHERN HILLS" On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on June 20, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This hearing is to consider Rezoning #01-01 of "Southern Hills," submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone a 105-acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) to establish 250 single-family residential lots. This property is located south of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike on the east side of Town Run Lane/Route 1012), and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-08 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library approximately one week prior to the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, , ,tom Evan A. Wyatt Director EAW/ch 0. Agmdn NAdjoinca\2001lSoudieml1i11s_AGZ.wpd 107 North Dent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • 6,71 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on Zoo from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick Coun irgmia: 85-A-141 Frederick -Winchester P.O. Box 43 Winchester, VA 22604-0043 85-A-142 Stephens City, Town of P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, VA 22655-0250 G.W. Clifford & Associates. Inc. 1 1 7 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 i 85-A-59 Estep, Mary Virginia Stickley c/o Robert M. Bushong, POA 14502 Saint Stephens Place Midlofthian, VA 231 13-6358 85-A-60 & 138 Herrell, William H. Shirley A. 1680 Marlboro Road Stephens City, VA 22655-5125 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 85-A-131 Ritenour Farm L.P. c/o Mary Ritenour 514 Peace and Plenty Ln Stephens City, VA 22655-5836 pp. 3� � s a�6o4- Evan A. 14yatt, Planng Director Frederick Co. Planning Dept. I, 60h Onn Hc-, I I , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated Lr (t - C I , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this Ilth day of .'(_i i 1 C �C My commission expires on )f b2u n/ ` �Jcc 3 I NOTARY PUBLIC Eft COUNTY o1' FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/66S-56SI FAX: S40/66S-6395 March 7, 2001 INIWIFICAr1UNI OF PURL IC r EARING, TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #01-01 OF "SOUTHERN HILLS" (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 21, 2001) On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on March 21, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This hearing is to consider Rezoning #01-01 of "Southern Hills," submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone a 105-acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) to establish 250 single-family residential lots. This property is located south of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike on the east side of Town Run Lane/Route 1012), and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-138 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library (temporary Loudoun Street Mall location) approximately one week prior to the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, Lc LG Evan A. Wyatt Director EAW/ch A V%djoincrs%Southcm11i11s_RE7. wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on _ from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Agaa: 85 - A- - 59- ESTEP, MARY VIRGINIA STICKLEY CIO ROBERT M BUSHONG, PDA 14502 SAINT STEPHENS PL MIDLOTHIAN, VA 23113.6358 85 - A. - 60. a" 13 9 HERRELL, WILLIAM H & SHIRLEY A 1680 MARLBORO RD STEPHENS Ch Y, VA 22655.5125 85 -A- - 131- RITENOUR FARM L.P. CIO MARY RITENOUR 514 PEACE AND PLENTY LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5836 85 - A- - 137- KENT, HENRY F & JOYCE E 625 TOWN RUN LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 /� 0're "t 85 - A- - 137-D f'C RAMEY, WILLIAM L 824 PEACE AND PLENTY LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5839 85 - A- - 139- SCOTHORN, GARY L & STEPHEN P & SCOTHORN, DENNIS A 506 EWINGS LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5306 85 - A- - 141- FREDERICK-WINCHESTER PO BOX 43 WINCHESTER, VA. 22604.0043 85 - A- - 142- STEPHENS CITY, TOWN OF PO BOX 250 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0250 C —� Evan A. yatt, Plai#nd Director Frederick Co. Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, 6ft nnn I-h I i , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated 3. 7 - 0 1 , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this I day of I� '.�� o w l jMy commission expires on fti un� �U, a� N ARY PUBLI 6 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department or Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 �IOTIFICAfIUINi Ur" PJ3L IC ;-IEARHNIG February 7, 2001 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #01-01 OF "SOUTHERN HILLS" On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on February 21, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This hearing is to consider Rezoning #01-01 of "Southern Hills," submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone a 105-acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) to establish 250 single-family residential lots. This property is located south of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike on the east side of Town Run Lane/Route 1012), and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-138 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library (temporary Loudoun Street Mall location) approximately one week prior to the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt Director EAW/ch A: %djoincrs\SouIhcmHiIls_RCL.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certifv that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on Ide '%, �2 (0/ from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: B5 - A- - 60- 85 - A. - 139- HERRELL, WILLIAM H & SHIRLEY A SCOTHORN, GARY L & STEPHEN P 1680 MARLBORO RD & SCOTHORN, DENNIS A STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-5125 506 EWINGS LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5306 8b - A- - 141- FREDERICK-WINLHESTER PO BOX 43 WINCHESTER,VA. 22604.0043 85 - A- - 142- STEPHENS CITY, TOWN OF PO BOX 250 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0250 85 - A- - 137-D RAMEY, WILLIAM L 824 PEACE AND PLENTY LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5839 85 - A- - 59. ESTEP, MARY VIRGINIA STICKLEY CIO ROBERT M BUSHONG, PDA 14502 SAINT STEPHENS PL MIDLOTHIAN, VA 23113.6358 STATE OF VIRGINIA COL 'NTY OF FREDERICK tlb -A- - IJI- RITENOUR FARM L.P. CIO MARY RITENOUR 514 PEACE AND PLENTY LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5836 8b -A- - 13/- KENT, HENRY F & JOYCE E 625 TOWN RUN LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 Gilbert \V. Clifford & Assoc. Attn: Charles Maddox 200 N. Cameron Street %Vinchcster. VA 22601 Mr. Dave Holliday P.O. Box 2715 Winchester, VA 22604 — &XLtl a - bya— Evan A. yatt, Plan ng Director Frederick Co. Planni g Dept. I. �fth Onn ka I a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated a j Cl , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. -1 h day of 1 0 i Given under my hand this f� l y � My commission expires on I f 1 �(Ln ► q j(, � ,.),CC -�) �L i �NARY PUBLIC I COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540166s-s6s1 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 December 20, 2000 INIWIFICKMA I F PUBLIC r ":AiRI1 IG TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #01-01 OF "SOUTHERN HILLS" On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on January 3, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This hearing is to consider Rezoning #01-01 of Southern Hills, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone a 105-acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to (RP) Residential Performance to establish 250 single-family residential lots. This property is located south of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike on the east side of Town Run Lane (Route 1012), and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-138. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library (temporary Loudoun Street Mall location) approximately one week prior to the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, L-�l 1, Evan A. Wyatt Deputy Director EAW/ch A bldjuincB\N1id-At1m1ic_RGL.wpd This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on �z\I, ip;. 7 from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 85 - A. -137-D � C RAMEY, WILLIAM L 85 - A. - 59- ESTEP, MARY VIRGINIA STICKLEY CIO ROBERT M BUSHONG, PDA 14502SAINT STEPHENS PL MIDLOTHIAN, VA 23113-635B 85 -A- - 60- �11j V5_A-1') HERRELL, WILLIAM H & SHIRLEY A 1680 MARLBORO RD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5125 85 -A. -131- RITENOUR FARM L.P. C/O MARY RITENOUR 514 PEACE AND PLENTY LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-5836 85 - A- - 137- KENT, HENRY F & JOYCE E 625 TOWN RUN LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 85 - A- - 137.0 RAMEY, WILLIAM L 824 PEACE AND PLENTY LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-5839 85 A - 138. ' ER LLI LL, WI0 RY 68 MAR RD S1THN ITY, 22655 5125 824 PEACE AND PLENTY LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-5839 85 - A. - 139- SCOTHORN, GARY L & STEPHEN P & SCOTHORN, DENNIS A 506 EWINGS LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5306 85 - A- - 141- FREDERICK-WINCHESTER PO BOX 43 WINCHESTER, VA. 22604-0043 85 - A. - 142- STEPHENS CITY, TOWN OF PO BOX 250 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0250 V.. V �' Evan A. W att, Depuiq Director Frederick Co. Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGE IA COUNTY OF FREDERICK r, inn nnn 1 , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director, for_be Department of Planning and Development whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated I c) 20. cu , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this �l day of Lil My commission expires on J Q )-30� ha L� TARY PUBLIC • G. W. Cl iffoOd &Associates, Inc To: Mr Evan Wyatt, Planning Director CC: Mr David Holliday From: Charles E. Maddox, Jr PE Date: 1 /1 /01 Re: Southern Hills, Staff Issues The following are the requested applicant responses to staff comments of Dec22. ,2000. Responses are in italic and under the staff comment, for ease of review and reference "Staff believes that the applicant should adequately address the following issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors regarding this proposal:" 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. The intersection in question is scheduled by VDOT to become the Primary intersection on Rt277 East of I-81 . it will support traffic from the relocated Aylor Road as well as Stickley Drive. Further , it is VDOT's plan as presented in their Public Hearings on the Rte 277 design, to extend Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane, thus allowing contolled access to Town Run Lane from Rte 277 and the I-81 Tnterchange.Xt is obvious that VDOT plans to provide stoplight control to the subject intersection when the upgrade is performed. Also, the (540) 667-2139 (540) 665-0493_ fax 1 • January 1, 2001 percentage of use of this expanded intersection by Southern hills will be very small in relation to this expanded use. Finally, any stoplight .improvements done now , because of Right of Way acquisition and shifts in roadway centerlines , will be replaced when the VDOT Rte 277 project is constructed. In summary, it is the applicants position that construction of Stickley Drive extended and improvement of Town Run Lane are a more than adequate "Fair Share" for mitgation of traffic impacts. It improves the operating characteristics immediately for traffic in the area and it is felt that since Construction Drawings have been prepared by VDOT then the ROW acquistion and construction will be done well within the 5 to 10 year design life of Southern Hills. 2) The applicant should identify the scope of improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. The proffer statement and generalized development plan has been changed to reflect improvements to Town Run Lane including overlay of 2" of Bituminous Concrete on the existing prime and seal surface between Stickley Drive and the first project entrance and the addition of guardrails where needed, with work to be performed prior to the issuance of the 50th occupancy permit. Town Run Lane will be overlayed between the project entrances when the second entrance is constructed. 3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to obtain a deeded easement from the Stimpson parcel that provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow for the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. We have sent to your office a letter , signed by Mr Harry Stimpson, III, the owner, showing his intent to provide the necessary rights of way and easements for the applicant to construct Stickley Drive extension. 2 • 0 January 1, 2001 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. See applicants reply in 1 above. The applicant does not voluntarily proffer improvements at this intersection for the reasons stated. 5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. The applicant has received an updated reply for comments from Chief Greg Locke of the Stephens City Fire Company, stating that his Department now does not object to the rezoning after review of the Stickley Drive plan proposed by proffer. With regard to proffer amount, the applicant proffered the amount agreed to by the Board of Supervisors with the Top of Virginia Builders Assoc., namely 50-%� of the recently updated proffer model. In the case of Fire and Rescue, this constituted an amount many times previous proffers made by the applicant. Apparently, the Dept of Emergency Services desires a 100* proffer which raises the proffer from $15 to $880 per lot (500$+) 3 • 9 January 1, 2001 6) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate impacts associated with the increased use of the citizens convenience center and the need to expand that facility. • The applicant believes that the Solid Waste Management function of the County Public Works Dept. is operated as an Enterprise activity where the fees charged pay for the operation and capital improvements required. With great respect for the administrators who operate this important public service, we believe that this effort will continue to be selfsupported and proffers are not, therefore , required. 7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if there is the potential to provide for active recreational areas within the proposed residential development. This project will be all single family detached housing which does not require active recreational facilities. It is the applicants feeling that the proffer made for Parks and Recreation will provide for the needed facilities. 8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to accommodate the desires of the Ewing family to preserve access to and improve the area of the existing family cemetery. The Ewing family cemetery will be set aside as a separate lot with public road access and deeded, if possible, to the Ewing family with covenants for future maintenance by the Ewing family. 0 9 January 1, 2001 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on - site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Proffers have been added to notify homeowners by plat and covenants of the nature of adjacent Ag Districts and the wastewater treatment functions and their position around the Southern hills subdivision. Additional setbacks and tree cutting provisions have been added after consultation with neighbors. Also, the GDP has been revised to move the South project entrance North on Town Run Lane in order to satisfy property owner concerns to the South. 5 TO: Barbara in Data Processing F jQM: Planning Department . Rezoning PW print �� sets of labels by: _)ohs .I THANK YC v I IJ Tax I.D. Number Name and Address Mary Virginia Stickley Estep c/o Robert M. Bushon 85-A-59 14502 St. Stephens Place Midlothian, VA 23113 William H. & Shirley A. Herrell 85-A-60 1680 Marlboro Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Ritenour Farm LP c/o Mary C. Ritenour 85-A-131 514 Peace & Plenty Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 Henry F. Kent & Joyce E. Myers 85-A-137 625 Town Run Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 85-A-137D _ William L. & Elizabeth N. Ramey 824 Peace & Plenty Lane ns City, VA 22655 85-A-137E m L. & Elizabeth N. Ramey L824ace & Plenty Lane ns City, VA 22655 85-A-139 Gary L. Scothorn & Stephen P. Scothorn & Dennis A. Scothorn 506 Ewings Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 85-A-141 Frederick — Winchester Service Authority P.O. Box 43 Winchester, VA 22604 85-A-142 Stephens City Town of PO Box 250 Stephens City, VA 22655