Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06 Meadows Edge Revised Single Family - Opequon - Backfilei MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN TRACKING SHEET % (Note: The application does not need to be complete to be accepted but will not be scheduled for the PC or BOS until all items have been received.) Submission Package Comment sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan: VDOT Fire Marshal Sanitation Authority Inspections Dept. x Health Department County Engineer X City of Winchester GIS (Mapping) Parks & Recreation X Winchester Regional Airport t/---One copy of the master development plan application. Appropriate number of blueprint plans, colored maps, etc. to cover the PC and BOS meetings. submission Fee Date ald,7/01 /`1 A NOTES: TRACKING Application received Fee Paid (amount: $ cl66�6 W Preliminary MDP heard by Planning Commission - Action taken: Preliminary MDP heard by Board of Supervisors - Action taken: Letter to. applicant regarding Board action and revisions (if required). Final MDP submitted with review agency, PC and BOS comments addressed. Final MDP signed by County Administrator and Planning Director (send two copies to applicant). Administratively approved; letter sent to applicant. DATE: A a? File opened. 01� 1Y, Reference Manual updated/number assigned. D-base updated. List of adjoiners given to staff member for verification. Aft, One black & white location map requested from Mapping & Graphics. /VA Four sets of labels requested from Data Processing. File given to Renee' to update Application Action Summary. CLOSE OUT FILE: Approval (or denial) letter mailed to applicant (*Note: Be sure Joe Wilder in Public works and Jane Anderson in Real Estate receive a copy of the administrative approval letter. Jane wants a copy of the final action letter even if the application was denied or withdrawn.) v li d�v File stamped "approved"/"denied" or "withdrawn." Reference Manual updated. D-base updated. a7 ""File given to Renee' for final update to Application Action Summary. File in file drawer. U \Carol\Common\Tracking sheets\TRACKING.MM Rev 0121/03 DATE -) L2-7/(-) ((' RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS-� 98 ' j FOR / / P-TIJ<i-5-A- /c/o AMT. OF CASH ACCOUNT I I AMT. PAID /y�, �`� CHECK J BALANCE I MONEY 1 DUE ORDER W ID i �G�LCt vrm� �2()r 51 DOLLARS $ T C7t'o BY �0()--�Y .tX-: Please note: The Floodplain Study/Alteration plans associated with this file are located in file room. CENTEX HOMES J U N 2007 June 7, 2007 County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development Eric Lawrence 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Meadows Edge Proffer #7 Interpretation Request Dear Eric, 3684 Centerview Drive Suite 100 Chantilly, VA 20151 Phone:703-679-1600 Fax: 703-961-7400 At the request of VDOT, we have modified our construction operations for the improvement of the Fairfax Pike and Stickley Drive intersection to extend the widening of Fairfax Pike from a taper to a full 14' lane between stations 111+45 to 114+50. On May 1, 2007 we met at your offices to discuss this work and how it may satisfy a portion of Proffer #7 for Meadows Edge. It was agreed that the value of the work would qualify to offset the $200,000.00 cash contribution. It was also agreed that a formal plan change would not be required and that the work can be picked up on the as-builts. It was also agreed that this change to the work would not hold up the bond release process, since the plans won't match the work performed. Centex was requested to prepare a letter detailing the costs of the work for review by Planning. It was discussed that the value would be approximately $32,000.00 plus some guardrail which had not been priced at that time. Attached you will find a change order from Perry Engineering Company, Inc. which represents the costs associated with the modification. Please understand that as the work proceeds field conditions may require changes that could affect those numbers. As such I request that Centex be authorized to approve changes for no more than 10% of the original change order value without consultation of VDOT or Frederick County. Any such changes will be forwarded to you with backup as soon as possible for your records. Should the changes total more than 10%, approval of the amounts must come from Centex, VDOT and Planning. I have had lengthy discussions with Perry Engineering and they have assured me the change order represents the total amount and they do not anticipate any additional charges. (Continued) ��v L rf-�?H 1TMK N(OMMS Cont'd: 3684 Centerview Drive Suite 100 Chantilly, VA 20151 Phone:703-679-1600 Fax:703-961-7400 The amount of the change order is $37,625.39. This amount will offset our cash contribution requirement, which will now be $162,374.61. Unless there are additional changes this will be the atnount of cash to be paid to Frederick County upon completion of proffered improvements. Please sign the Acceptance Block below indicating your acceptance of the above and that this is in conformance with Proffer #7 for Meadows Edge and the intent of the $200,000.00 cash contribution requirement, and return one copy to me for my records. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, CENTEX HOMES ACC PTANCE BLOCK Jeff Edelman Land Feasibility Manager SY LD 1 — 07.doc Attachment cc: Marls Flynn, Centex Homes File Director, Dept. of Planning and Development - C ( Iz- Date ,ky64R#,4q� 1945 MiLUWCOD PiitE a 5 WINCHES ER, VIRGINIA 22602 540 667-4 310 FAX 40 722-2505 www,perryc-ng.com Rt 277 Widening - Meadows Edge 14' Lane from Stations 111+45 to 114+50 1 Earthwork 1 LS $14,205.00 2 Remove & relocate silt fence 1 LS $ 1,162.00 3 Relocate & lower drop inlets 2 EA $ 5,000.00 4 Paving Stone 92.59 TN $ 1,851.80 BM-25 71.92 TN $ 4,542.47 IM-19 25,21 TN $ 1,647.73 SM-9.5n 18.91 TN $ 1,353.20 5 Guardrail $ 7,863.19 GR-2 (60" posts) 212.5 LF Radial GR-2 (60" posts) 12.5 LF W-Beam end section 1 EA GR-9 Terminal 1 EA Offset blacks (for areas in conflict with storm piping) TOTAL $37,625.39 WE ARE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMI~'LOYER. CONTEX H®MES 3664 Centerview Drive Suite 100 Chanlllly. VA 20151 Phone: 703-679-1600 Fax:703-961.7400 .June 7, 2007 County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development Eric Lawrence 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Meadows Edge Proffer #7 Interpretation Request Dear Eric, At the request of VDOT, we have modified our construction operations for the improvement of the Fairfax Pike and Stickley Drive intersection to extend the widening of Fairfax Pike from a taper to a full 14' lane between stations 111+45 to 114+50. On May 1, 2007 we met at ,your offices to discuss this work and how it may satisfy a portion of Proffer #7 for Meadows Edge. It was agreed that the value of the work would qualify to offset the $200,000.00 cash contribution.. It was also agreed that a formal plan change would not be required and that the work can be picked up on the as-builts. It was also agreed that this change to the work would not hold up the bond release process, since the plans won't match the work performed. Centex was requested to prepare a letter detailing the costs of the work for review by Planning. It was discussed that the value would be approximately $32,000.00 plus some guardrail which had not been priced at that time. Attached you will find a change order from Perry Engineering Company, Inc. which represents the costs associated with the modification. Please understand that as the work proceeds field conditions may require changes that could affect those numbers. As such I request that Centex be authorized to approve changes for no more than 10% of the original change order value without consultation of VDOT or Frederick County. Any such changes will be forwarded to you with backup as soon as possible for your records. Should the changes total more than 10%, approval of the amounts must come from Centex, VDOT and Planning. I have had lengthy discussions with Perry Engineering and they have assured me the change order, represents the total amount and they do not anticipate any additional charges. (Continued) 3684 Canierview Drive Suite 100 Chantilly. VA 20151 Phone: 703-679-1600 Fax: 703.961-7400 Cont'd: The amount of the change order is $37,625,39. This amount will offset our cash contribution requirement, which will now be $16.2,374.61. Unless there are additional changes this will be the amount of cash to be paid to Frederick County upon completion of proffered improvements. Please sign the Acceptance Block below indicating your acceptance of'the above and that this is in conformance with Proffer #7 for Meadows Edge and the intent of the $200,000.00 cash contribution requirement, and return one copy to me for my records.. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue, please do not hesitate to call me, Sincerely, CENTER HOMES Jeff Edelman Land Feasibility Manager• SY L D t - 07 doc Attachment cc: Mark Flynn, Centex Homes File ANCE BLOCK Eric Lawrence Director, Dept. of'Planning and Development IL Date --1— K 1-2 02 1945 Mlt..l_NOOQ PIKE wltvcNESTER. vIRGltalA 22602 54.0 667-431 O FAX 540 722-2505 www.perryeng.com Rt 277 Widening - Meadows Edge 14` Lane from Stations 111+45 to 114+54 1 Earthwork 1 LS $14,205 00 2 Remove & relocate silt fence 1 LS $ 1,16200 3 Relocate & lower drop inlets 2 EA S 6.000 00 4 Paving Stone 92.59 TN $ 1,851 80 BM-25 71,92 TN $ 4,54247 IM-19 25.21 TN $ 1,64773 SM-9.5D 18.91 TN $ 1,35320 5 Guardrail $ 7,863.19 GR-2 (60" posts) 212.5 LF Radial GR-2 (6`0" posts) 12 5 LF W-Beam end section 1 EA GR-9 Terminal 1 EA Offset blocks (for areas in conflict with storm piping) TOTAL WE ARE AN EQUAL. OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER $37,625.39 FREDERICK COUNTY GOV �l�,pc CIS t=AC� PAGE 02/ 03 12/06/2006 08:33 5406670370 Corps 4U4 only Public Notice Norfolk district US Army Corps of Engineers CENA O--TS-REG 06-V 1414-40 MbP i so,3 t'cc..-- Page 1 of 2 November 6.2006 FED E I PUB LI.0 NOTICE The District Commander has received a joint application for Federal and State permits as described below: ,PsP UCANI' Centex Homes Attn: Mr. Bryan Condie Suite, 100 3654 Centerview Drive Chantilly, VA 20151 W- The project is located on an approximately 165-arse parcel southeast of the intersection of I-81 and Route 277 adjacent to Ewings LAne near Stephens City in Frederick County, Virginia, P$M SED—WORK AND PURPOSEN The proposed project consists of the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States associated with the residential development of the subject tract_ The project is called Meadows Edge. Approximately 1.28 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands, 0.06 acre Pond and 364 linear feet of streambeds will be impacted by the proposed work. A contribution to the Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund is planned for mitigation. In addition to the required Department of the Army permit, the applicant must obtain a Virginia Water Protection Permit from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) assuring that applicable laws and regulations pertaining to water quality are not violated. A vicinity reap and project plans are attached. This public notice and the drawings can also be viewed at http://www.nao.usace.army.nniil/Regulatory/PN/PN.html. AiJ'T iQgr : Permits are required pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Waver Act (Public Law 95-217) and Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia. M 39�L EVI AL IM The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. The decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits which reasonably may be expected from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detziments. All of the proposal's relevant factors will be considered, including, conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood iut7„ards, flood plain values, land use classification, navigation, shmhne erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, consideration of property ownership and in gcneml, the needs and welfare of the people. The Environmental Protection Agency's "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material" will also be applied (Section 404(b)(1) of http://wwu,,nao.usace.army.milheci:nnical%20=viccs/kegulatory%20branchlPNINAO-20.'., 11/6/2006 a - d xti a i arNiRwi Aw wA2-, : c gnn7_ cn oan 12/06/2006 08:33 5406670370 FREDERICK COUNTY GOV PAGE 031/0' Wla,Ul it LL A lEfle-AnNA MEADOWS EDGE Propowd Impacts to Horftv/ wetam afthe U.S. Frederick County, Virginia 0 X A, PL-7, ��' it Sheet TWO: MATCHLINE SHEET INDEX Scale: 1" 6 SM Date. JUNE 2006 31vat 3o(29 C-d XUJ l3r823WI dH wda*,:s 9002 so 00a ` RECIPIENT COPY (WHITE) %�Ilf %4m FJ - urban. NOV 8 � 2006 TO: Frederick County Dept. of Planning and Development DATE: November 8, 2006 107 North Kent Street, 2nd Floor JOB #: 05-018 Winchester, VA 22601 PRINT TICKET #: 8726 ATTN: Mark Cheran ® ORIGINALS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑ COLOR PRINTS PLANNERS ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LAND SURVEYORS RE: Meadows Edge Floodplain Study/Alteration TRANSMITTED HEREWITH: ❑ PHOTOCOPIES ❑ CD ® BLACKLINE PRINTS ❑ COMPUTATIONS ❑ INVOICE ❑ MYLAR PRINTS ❑ SITE NOTICES ❑ OTHER QUANTITY DRAWING NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 1 FP-20109 11/3/06 Floodplain Study/Alteration - Meadows Edge - Stephens Run 1 MT-2 Form 1 (Please Sign and Return Form to Urban, Ltd.) 1 MT-2 Forms 2 and 3 1 11/6/06 Further Explanations to MT-2 Forms 1 Copy of FIRMETTE showing project location FOR: ❑ SUBMISSION ❑ RESUBMISSION ❑ INSERTS ❑ FIELD USE ❑ YOUR FILES ❑ COMMENTS SENT BY: ❑ FIRST CLASS MAIL ® OUR MESSENGER ❑ PICKUP PLEASE: ® RETURN MT-2 Form 1 - Signed ❑ SUBMIT COMMENTS: Mark. ® APPROVAUSIGNATURE ❑ OTHER ❑ COURIER ❑ OTHER ❑ OVERNIGHT Please review the included materials and sign/date the MT-2 Form 1 where indicated. Please return the signed MT-2 form to our office so we can submit it with the CLOMR application package to FEMA. Thanks. RECEIVED BY: SENT BY: 7&r4444 q, sekuid* RECIPIENT COPY (WHITE) Urban, Ltd. 210 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 PH 540.450.0211 FX 540.450.0210 www.urban-ltd.com Annandale, VA Chantilly, VA Winchester, VA Wilmington, NC FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.BNo. 3067-0I48 OVERVIEW & CONCURRENCE FORM Expires September 30, 2005 PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hour per response.. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right corner of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. A. REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM FEMA This request is for a (check one): ® CLOMR: A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would justify a map revision, or proposed hydrology changes (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65 & 72). ❑ LOMR: A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show the changes to floodplains, regulatory floodway or flood elevations. (See Parts 60 & 65 of the NFIP Regulations.) B. OVERVIEW 1. The NFIP map panel(s) affected for all impacted communities is (are): Community No. Community Name State Map No. Panel No. Effective Date Ex: 480301 City of Katy TX 480301 0005D 02/08/83 480287 Harris County TX 48201C 0220G 09/28/90 510063 Frederick County, Virginia VA 0200 B 07/17/78 2. Flooding Source: Stephens Run 3. Project Name/Identifier: Meadows Edge 4. FEMA zone designations affected: A (choices: A, AH, AO, Al-A30, A99, AE, AR, V, V1-V30, VE, B, C, D, X) 5. Basis for Request and Type of Revision: a. The basis for this revision request is (check all that apply) ® Physical Change ❑ Improved Methodology/Data ® Regulatory. Floodway Revision ❑ Other (Attach Description) Note: A photograph and narrative description of the area of concern is not required, but is very helpful during review. b. The area of revision encompasses the following types of flooding and structures (check all that apply) Types of Flooding: ® Riverine ❑ Coastal ❑ Shallow Flooding (e.g., Zones AO and AH) ❑ Alluvial fan ❑ Lakes ❑ Other (Attach Description) Structures: ❑ Channelization ❑ Levee/Floodwall ® Bridge/Culvert ❑ Dam ® Fill ❑ Other, Attach Description FEMA Form 81-89, SEP 02 Overview & Concurrence Form MT-2 Form 1 Page 1 of 2 f C. REVIEW FEE FHastheeview fee for the appropriate request category been included? Yes Fee amount: $4,000.00 ❑ No, Attach Explanation ee the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.govlmititsd/frm_fees.htm for Fee Amounts and Exemptions. D..SIGNATURE All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Name: Bryan Condie Company: Centex Homes - DC Metro Division Mailing Address: Daytime Telephone No.: Fax No.: 3684 Centerview Drive, Suite 100 703-679-1838 703-814-9093 Chantilly, VA 20151 E-Mail Address: bryan.condie@centexhomes.com Signature of ester (required): Date: - � As the community official responsible for floodplain management, I hereby acknowledge that we have received and reviewed this Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or conditional LOMR request. Based upon the community's review, we find the completed or proposed project meets or is designed to meet all of the community floodplain management requirements, including the requirement that no fill be placed in the regulatory floodway, and that all necessary Federal, State, and local permits have been, or in the case of a conditional LOMR, will be obtained. In addition, we have determined that the land and any existing or proposed structures to be removed from the SFHA are or will be reasonably safe from flooding as defined in 44CFR 65.2(c), and that we have available upon request by FEMA, all analyses and documentation used to make this determination. Telephone No.: 69 Community Official's Name and Title: om 11 arv, Oleron �ViSI`©�1 �' �Ot}irla �C]41�i�iiS�r sr' Community Name: Frederick County, VA Community Official's ure (re ' d): Date: CERTIFICATION BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND/OR LAND SURVEYOR This certification is to be signed and sealed by a licensed land surveyor, registered professional engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information. All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Certifier's Name: David E. Lellock, PE License No.: 0402 34203 Expiration Date: January 31, 2008 Company Name: Urban, Ltd. Telephone No.: 540-450-0211 Fax No.: 540-450-0210 Signature: Date: Ensure the forms that are appropriate to your revision request are included in your submittal. Form Name and (Number) Required if ... ® Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form (Form 2) New or revised discharges or water -surface elevations -® Riverine Structures Form (Form 3) Channel is modified, addition/revision of bridge/culverts, addition/revision of levee/floodwal, addition/revision of dam ❑ Coastal Analysis Form (Form 4) New or revised coastal elevations ❑ Coastal Structures Form (Form 5) Addition/revision of coastal structure Seal (Optional) ❑ Alluvial Fan Flooding Form (Form 6) Flood control measures on alluvial fans FEMA Form 81-89, SEP 02 Overview & Concurrence Form MT-2 Form 1 Page 2 of 2 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT O.M.B Nb. 3067-0148 Expires September 30, 2005 Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to. respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right corner of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. Flooding Source: Stephens Run Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. HYDROLOGY 1. Reason for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) ❑ Not revised (skip to section 2) ® No existing analysis ❑ Improved data ❑ Alternative methodology ® Proposed Conditions (CLOMR) ❑ Changed physical condition of watershed 2. Comparison of Representative 1%-Annual-Chance Discharges Location Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) NO EXISTING ANALYSIS 3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) FIS (cfs) Revised (cfs) ❑ Statistical Analysis of Gage Records ® Precipitation/Runoff Model [TR-20, HEC-1, HEC-HMS etc.] ❑ Regional Regression Equations ❑ Other (please attach description) Please enclose all relevant models in digital format, maps, computations (including computation of parameters) and documentation to support the new analysis. The document, "Numerical Models Accepted by FEMA for NFIP Usage" lists the models accepted by FEMA. This document can be found at: http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/en_modl.htm. 4. Review/Approval of Analysis If your community requires a regional, state, or federal agency to review the hydrologic analysis, please attach evidence of approval/review. 5. Impacts of Sediment Transport on Hydrology Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. B. HYDRAULICS 1. Reach to be Revised Description Cross Section Water -Surface Elevations (ft.) Effective Proposed/Revised Downstream Limit Stephens Run/Trib. Intersection Sta. 21+00 699.25 699.20 Upstream Limit Town Run Lane Sta. 30+81.57 708.92 708.64 2. Hydraulic Method Used Hydraulic Analysis HEC-RAS [HEC-2 , HEC-RAS, Other (Attach description)] FEMA Form 81-89A, SEP 02 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT-2 Form 2 Page 1 of 2 B. HYDRAULICS (CONTINUED) Pre -Submittal Review of Hydraulic Models FEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS, to aid in the review of HEC-2 and HEC-RAS hydraulic models, respectively. These review programs verify that the hydraulic estimates and assumptions in the model data are in accordance with NFIP requirements, and that the data are comparable with the assumptions and limitations of HEC-2/HEC-RAS. CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS identify areas of potential error or concern. These tools do not replace engineering judgment. CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS can be downloaded from http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/frm—soft.htm. We recommend that you review your HEC-2 and HEC-RAS models with CHECK-2 and CHECK- RAS. If you disagree with a message, please attach an explanation of why the message is not valid in this case. Review of your submittal and resolution of valid modeling discrepancies will result in reduced review time. HEC-2/HEC-RAS models reviewed with CHECK-2/CHECK-RAS? ❑ Yes ® No 4. Models Submitted Duplicate Effective Model* Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: Corrected Effective Model* Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: Existing or Pre -Project Conditions Model Natural File Name: Stephens Run Floodway File Name: Stephens Run Revised or Post -Project Conditions Model Natural File Name: Stephens Run Floodway File Name: Stephens Run Other - (attach description) Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: *Not required for revisions to approximate 1 %-annual-chance floodplains (Zone A) — for details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions. The document "Numerical Models Accepted by FEMA for NFIP Usage" lists the models accepted by FEMA. This document can be found at: http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/en—modl.htm. C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS A certified topographic map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): the boundaries of the effective, existing, and proposed conditions 1%-annual-chance floodplain (for approximate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 1%- and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplains and regulatory floodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, and AH revisions); location and alignment of all cross sections with stationing control indicated; stream, road, and other alignments (e.g., dams, levees, etc.); current community easements and boundaries; boundaries of the requester's property; certification of a registered professional engineer registered in the subject State; location and description of reference marks; and the referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.). Note that the boundaries of the existing or proposed conditions floodplains and regulatory floodway to be shown on the revised FIRM and/or FBFM must tie-in with the effective floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries. Please attach a copy of the effective FIRM and/or FBFM, annotated to show the boundaries of the revised 1%- and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplains and regulatory floodway that tie-in with the boundaries of the effective 1 %- and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplain and regulatory floodway at the upstream and downstream limits of the area of revision. D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. For CLOMR requests, do Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase? ® Yes ❑ No For CLOMR requests, if either of the following is true, please submit evidence of compliance with Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations: • The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway and would result in increases above 0.00 foot. • The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with BFEs established and would result in increases above 1.00 foot. 2. Does the request involve the placement or proposed placement of fill? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, the community must be able to certify that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structures or proposed structures, meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(a)(3), 65.5(a)(4), and 65.6(a)(14). Please see the MT-2 instructions for more information. 3. For LOMR requests, is the regulatory floodway being revised? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, attach evidence of regulatory floodway revision notification. As per Paragraph 65.7(b)(1) of the NFIP Regulations, notification is required for requests involving revisions to the regulatory floodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 1 %-annual-chance floodplains [studied Zone A designation] unless a regulatory floodway is being added. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision notification can be found in the MT-2 Form 2 Instructions.) 4. For LOMR requests, does this request require property owner notification and acceptance of BFE increases? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (if available). Elements of and examples of property owner notification' can be found in the MT-2 Form 2 Instructions. FEMA Form 81-89A, SEP 02 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT-2 Form 2 Page 2 of 2 w E FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B. No. 3067-0148 RIVERINE STRUCTURES FORM I Expires September30,2005 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 7 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right corner of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. Flooding Source: Stephens Run Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. GENERAL Complete the appropriate section(s) for each Structure listed below: Channelization............... complete Section B Bridge/Culvert................ complete Section C Dam ............................... complete Section D Levee/Floodwall............. complete Section E Sediment Transport....... complete Section F (if required) Description Of Structure 1. Name of Structure: Triple 7' x 10' Box Culvert Type (check one): ❑ Channelization ® Bridge/Culvert ❑ Levee/Floodwall ❑ Dam Location of Structure: Stephens Run Tributary Sta. 1+46.26 Downstream Limit/Cross Section: 0+77:80 Upstream Limit/Cross Section: 2+42.76 2. Name of Structure: Type (check one): ❑ Channelization ❑ Bridge/Culvert ❑ Levee/Floodwall ❑ Dam Location of Structure: Downstream Limit/Cross Section: Upstream Limlt/Cross Section: 3. Name of Structure: Type (check one) ❑ Channelization ❑ Bridge/Culvert ❑ Levee/Floodwall ❑ Dam Location of Structure: Downstream Limit/Cross Section: Upstream Limit/Cross Section: NOTE: For more structures, attach additional pages as needed. FEMA Form 81-89B, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 1 of 10 ti• Flooding Source: Name of Structure: 1. Accessory Structures • B. CHANNELIZATION 0 The channelization includes (check one): ❑ Levees [Attach Section E (Levee/Floodwall)] ❑ Superelevated sections ❑ Debris basin/detention basin ❑ Other (Describe): 2. Drawinq Checklist 3 4. ❑ Drop structures ❑ Transitions in cross sectional geometry ❑ Energy dissipator Attach the plans of the channelization certified by a registered professional engineer, as described in the instructions. Hydraulic Considerations The channel was designed to carry (cfs) and/or the -year flood. The design elevation in the channel is based on (check one): ❑ Subcritical flow ❑ Critical flow ❑ Supercritical flow ❑ Energy grade line If there is the potential for a hydraulic jump at the following locations, check all that apply and attach an explanation of how the hydraulic jump is controlled without affecting the stability of the channel. ❑ Inlet to channel ❑ Outlet of channel ❑ At Drop Structures ❑ At Transitions ❑ Other locations (specify): Sediment Transport Considerations Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, then fill.out Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. C. BRIDGE/CULVERT . Flooding Source: Stephens Run Name of Structure: Triple Tx 10' Box Culvert 1. This revision reflects (check one): ® New bridge/culvert not modeled in the FIS ❑ Modified bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS ❑ New analysis of bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS 2. Hydraulic model used to analyze the structure (e.g., HEC-2 with special bridge routine, WSPRO, HY8): HEC-RAS If different than hydraulic analysis for the flooding source, justify why the hydraulic analysis used for the flooding source could not analyze the structures. Attach justification. 3. Attach plans of the structures certified by a registered professional engineer. The plan detail and information should include the following (check the information that has been provided): ® Dimensions (height, width, span, radius, length) ® Shape (culverts only) ® Material ❑ Beveling or Rounding ❑ Wing Wall Angle ❑ Skew Angle ❑ Distances Between Cross Sections 4. Sediment Transport Considerations ❑ Erosion Protection ❑ Low Chord Elevations — Upstream and Downstream ❑ Top of Road Elevations — Upstream and Downstream ❑ Structure Invert Elevations — Upstream and Downstream ❑ Stream Invert Elevations — Upstream and Downstream ❑ Cross -Section Locations Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. FEMA Form 81-89B, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 2 of 10 0 D. DAM Flooding Source: Name of Structure: 1. This request is for (check one): ❑ Existing dam ❑ New dam ❑ Modification of existing dam 2. The dam was designed by (check one): ❑ Federal agency ❑ State agency ❑ Local government agency ❑ Private organization Name of the agency or organization: 3. Does the project involve revised hydrology? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2). 4. Does the submittal include debris/sediment yield analysis? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why debris/sediment analysis was not considered. 5. Does the Base Flood Elevation behind the dam or downstream of the dam change? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2) and complete the table below. Stillwater Elevation Behind the Dam FREQUENCY (% annual chance) FIS REVISED. 10-year (10%) 50-year (2%) 100-year (1 %) 500-year (0.2%) Normal Pool Elevation 6. Please attach a copy of the formal Operation and Maintenance Plan FEMA Form 81-89B, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 3 of 10 0 E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL 0 1. System Elements a. This Levee/F000dwall analysis is based on (check one): ❑ upgrading of an existing levee/floodwall system ❑ a newly constructed leveelfloodwall system ❑ reanalysis of an existing levee/floodwall system b. Levee elements and locations are (check one): ❑ earthen embankment, dike, berm, etc. Station to ❑ structural floodwall Station to ❑ Other (describe): Station to c. Structural Type (check one): ❑ monolithic cast -in place reinforced concrete ❑ reinforced concrete masonry block ❑ sheet piling ❑ Other (describe): d. Has this levee/floodwall system been certified by a Federal agency to provide protection from the base flood? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, by which agency? e. Attach certified drawings containing the following information (indicate drawing sheet numbers): 1. Plan of the levee embankment and floodwall structures. Sheet Numbers: 2. A profile.of the levee/floodwall system showing the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), levee and/or wall crest and foundation, and closure locations for the total levee system. Sheet Numbers: 3. A profile of the BFE, closure opening outlet and inlet invert elevations, type and size of opening, and kind of closure. Sheet Numbers: 4. A layout detail for the embankment protection measures. Sheet Numbers: 5. Location, layout, and size and shape of the levee embankment features, foundation treatment, floodwall structure, closure structures, and pump stations. Sheet Numbers: 2. Freeboard a. The minimum freeboard provided above the BFE is: Riverine 3.0 feet or more at the downstream end and throughout ❑ Yes ❑ No 3.5 feet or more at the upstream end ❑ Yes ❑ No 4.0 feet within 100 feet upstream of all structures and/or constrictions ❑ Yes ❑ No Coastal 1.0 foot above the height of the one percent wave associated with the 1 %-annual-chance stiliwater surge elevation or maximum wave runup (whichever is greater). ❑ Yes ❑ No 2.0 feet above the 1 %-annual-chance stiliwater surge elevation ❑ Yes ❑ No FEMA Form 81-89B, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 4 of 10 E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED 2. Freeboard (continued) Please note, occasionally exceptions are made to the minimum freeboard requirement. If an exception is requested, attach documentation addressing Paragraph 65.10(b)(1)(ii) of the NFIP Regulations. If No is answered to any of the above, please attach an explanation. b. Is there an indication from historical records that ice jamming can affect the BFE? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, provide ice jam analysis profile and evidence that the minimum freeboard discussed above still exists. 3. Closures a. Openings through the levee system (check one): ❑ exists ❑ does not exist If opening exists, list all closures: Channel Station Left or Right Bank Opening Type Highest Elevation for Type of Closure Device Opening Invert (Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference) Note: Geotechnical and geologic data In addition to the required detailed analysis reports, data obtained during field and laboratory investigations and used in the design analysis for the following system features should be submitted in a tabulated summary form. (Reference U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] EM-1110-2-1906 Form 2086.) 4. Embankment Protection a. The maximum levee slope landside is: b. The maximum levee slope floodside is: c. The range of velocities along the levee during the base flood is: (min.) to (max.) d. Embankment material is protected by (describe what kind): e. Riprap Design Parameters (check one): ❑ Velocity ❑ Tractive stress Attach references Reach Sideslope Flow Depth Velocity Curve or Straight Stone Riprap Depth of Toedown Dloo Dso Thickness Sta to Sta to Sta to Sta to Sta to Sta to (Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference each entry) FEMA Form 81-8913, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 5 of 10 E_ LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED0 4. Embankment Protection (continued) f. Is a bedding/filter analysis and design attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No g. Describe the analysis used for other kinds of protection used (include copies of the design analysis): Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. 5. Embankment And Foundation Stability a. Identify locations and describe the basis for selection of critical location for analysis: ❑ Overall height: Sta. ; height ft. ❑ Limiting foundation soil strength: Sta. depth to strength = degrees, c = psf slope: SS = (h) to (v) (Repeat as needed on an added sheet for additional locations) b. Specify the embankment stability analysis methodology used (e.g., circular arc, sliding block, infinite slope, etc.): c. Summary of stability analysis results: Case Loading Conditions Critical Safety Factor Criteria (Min.) I End of construction 1.3 II Sudden drawdown 1.0 III Critical flood stage 1.4 IV Steady seepage at flood stage 1.4 VI Earthquake (Case 1) 1.0 (Reference: USACE EM-1110-2-1913 Table 6-1) d. Was a seepage analysis for the embankment performed? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, describe methodology used: e. Was a seepage analysis for the foundation performed? ❑ Yes ❑ No f. Were uplift pressures at the embankment landside toe checked? ❑ Yes ❑ No g. Were seepage exit gradients checked for piping potential? ❑ Yes ❑ No h. The duration of the base flood hydrograph against the embankment is hours. .Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. FEMA Form 81-8913, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 6 of 10 E. LEVEEIFLOODWALL (CONTINl1FD1 6. Floodwall And Foundation Stability a. Describe analysis submittal based on Code (check one): ❑ UBC (1988) or ❑ Other (specify): b. Stability analysis submitted provides for: ❑ Overturning ❑ Sliding If not, explain: c. Loading included in the analyses were: ❑ Lateral earth @ PA = psf; Pp = psf ❑ Surcharge -Slope @ ❑ surface psf ❑ Wind @ Pw = psf ❑ Seepage (Uplift); ❑ Earthquake @ Peq = %g ❑ 1 %-annual-chance significant wave height: ft. ❑ 1 %-annual-chance significant wave period: sec. d. Summary of Stability Analysis Results: Factors of Safety. Itemize for each range in site layout dimension and loading condition limitation for each respective reach. Criteria (Min) Sta To Sta To Loading Condition Overturn Sliding Overturn Sliding Overturn Sliding Dead & Wind 1.5 1.5 Dead & Soil 1.5 1.5 Dead, Soil, Flood, & 1.5 1.5 Impact Dead, Soil, & Seismic 1.3 1.3 (Ref: FEMA 114 Sept 1986; USACE EM 1110-2-2502) (Note: Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference) e. Foundation bearing strength for each soil type: Bearing Pressure Sustained Load (psf) Short Term Load (psf) Computed design maximum Maximum allowable f. Foundation scour protection ❑ is, ❑ is not provided. If provided, attach explanation and supporting documentation: Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. FEMA Form 81-89B, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 7 of 10 a M. LtVtC/r'LUUUWALL (GUN I INUtU) 7. Settlement a. Has anticipated potential settlement been determined and incorporated into the specified construction elevations to maintain the established freeboard margin? ❑ Yes ❑ No b. The computed range of settlement is ft. to ft. c. Settlement of the levee crest is determined to be primarily from ❑ Foundation consolidation ❑ Embankment compression ❑ Other (Describe): d. Differential settlement of floodwalls ❑ has ❑ has not been accommodated in the structural design and construction. Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. 8. Interior Drainage a. Specify size of each interior watershed: Draining to pressure conduit: acres Draining to ponding area: acres b. Relationships Established Ponding elevation vs. storage ❑ Yes ❑ No Ponding elevation vs. gravity flow ❑ Yes ❑ No Differential head vs. gravity flow ❑ Yes ❑ No c. The river flow duration curve is enclosed: ❑ Yes ❑ No d. Specify the discharge capacity of the head pressure conduit: cfs e. Which flooding conditions were analyzed? • Gravity flow (Interior Watershed) ❑ Yes ❑ No • Common storm (River Watershed) ❑ Yes ❑ No • Historical ponding probability ❑ Yes ❑ No • Coastal wave overtopping ❑ Yes ❑ No If No for any of the above, attach explanation. f. Interior drainage has been analyzed based on joint probability of interior and exterior flooding and the capacities of pumping and outlet facilities to provide the established level of flood protection. ❑ Yes ❑ No If No, attach explanation. g. The rate of seepage through the levee system for the base flood is cfs h. The length of levee system used to drive this seepage rate in item g: ft. FEMA Form 81-8913, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 8 of 10 • E_ LFVFF/FLnnnwAi i /CnNTINIIFn* 8. Interior Drainage (continued) I. Will pumping plants be used for interior drainage? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, include the number of pumping plants: For each pumping plant, list: Plant #1 Plant #2 The number of pumps The ponding storage capacity The maximum pumping rate The maximum pumping head The pumping starting elevation The pumping stopping elevation Is the discharge facility protected? Is there a flood warning plan? How much time is available between warning and flooding? Will the operation be automatic? ❑ Yes ❑ No If the pumps are electric, are there backup power sources? ❑ Yes ❑ No (Reference: USACE EM-1110-2-3101, 3102, 3103, 3104, and 3105) Include a copy of supporting documentation of data and analysis. Provide a map showing the flooded area and maximum ponding elevations for all interior watersheds that result in flooding. 9. Other Design Criteria a. The following items have been addressed as stated: Liquefaction ❑ is ❑ is not a problem Hydrocompaction ❑ is ❑ is not a problem Heave differential movement due to soils of high shrink/swell ❑ is ❑ is not a problem b. For each of these problems, state the basic facts and corrective action taken: Attach supporting documentation c. If the levee/floodwall is new or enlarged, will the structure adversely impact flood levels and/or flow velocities floodside of the structure? ❑ Yes ❑ No Attach supporting documentation d. Sediment Transport Considerations: Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. FEMA Form 81-8913, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 9 of 10 E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL 10. Operational Plan And Criteria a. Are the planned/installed works in full compliance with Part 65.10 of the NFIP Regulations? ❑ Yes ❑ No b. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for closure devices as required in Paragraph 65.10(c)(1) of the NFIP regulations? ❑ Yes ❑ No c. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for interior drainage as required in Paragraph 65.10(c)(2) of the NFIP regulations? ❑ Yes ❑ No If the answer is No to any of the above, please attach supporting documentation. 11. Maintenance Plan a. Are the planned/installed works in full compliance with Part 65.10 of the NFIP Regulations? ❑ Yes ❑ No If No, please attach supporting documentation. 12. Operations and Maintenance Plan Please attach a copy of the formal Operations and Maintenance Plan for the levee/floodwall. F. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT Flooding Source: Name of Structure: If there is any indication from historical records that sediment transport (including scour and deposition) can affect the Base Flood Elevation (BFE); and/or based on the stream morphology, vegetative cover, development of the watershed and bank conditions, there is a potential for debris and sediment transport (including scour and deposition) to affect the BFEs, then provide the following information along with the supporting documentation: Sediment load associated with the base flood discharge: Volume acre-feet Debris load associated with the base flood discharge: Volume acre-feet Sediment transport rate (percent concentration by volume) Method used to estimate sediment transport: Most sediment transport formulas are intended for a range of hydraulic conditions and sediment sizes; attach a detailed explanation for using the selected method. Method used to estimate scour and/or deposition: Method used to revise hydraulic or hydrologic analysis (model) to account for sediment transport: Please note that bulked flows are used to evaluate the performance of a structure during the base flood; however, FEMA does not map BFEs based on bulked flows. If a sediment analysis has not been performed, an explanation as to why sediment transport (including scour and deposition) will not affect the BFEs or structures must be provided. FEMA Form 81-8913, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 10 of 10 Meadows Edge Floodplain Study/Alteration MT-2 Application for Conditional Letter of Map Revision Further Explanations to MT-2 Forms November 6, 2006 1.) MT-2 Form 2, Section A.S.: Sediment transport was not considered for the floodplain study and alteration since there is no existing analysis. A copy of the Construction Plans and Profiles - Meadows Edge Collector Road Plan, dated 11/6/2006, has been included with this application. One cell of the three in the box culvert has been countersunk 6-inches on the plan in order to allow a natural channel to reestablish itself in the box culvert. This was done in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation specifications. o APPROXIMATE SCALE 2000 0 2000 FEET 0 Stephens City \ o ® NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 271 e !J (ONINCORPORATED AR EAS) COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER 1- 510063 0200 B / T prod c, Lei *ion ... PAGE 200 OF 200 —� - - (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PAGES NOT PRINTED) EFFECTIVE \ o JULY 17, 1978 i P P e,t•s o / U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION O 0 O This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It ZONE A was extracted using F-MIT On -Line. This map does not reflect changes \ or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title dock. For the latest product Information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.mac.fema.gov is co Department of Planning and 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 April 27, 2006 Mr. Brian Nolan Christopher Consultants 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166 RE: REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN # FOR MEADOWS EDGE Final Master Development Plan Approval Dear Brian: The revised Meadows Edge Master Development Plan was administratively approved on April 27, 2006. This MDP provides for a total of 228 single family detached cluster lots (total I 0,000sf total lot area/minimum 8,000sf lots) within the Opequon Magisterial District. This Master Development depicts revisions to the road network to enable the preservation of wetlands on the site. All requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance have been addressed in the plan. Please note that approval of a subdivision design plan is required prior to the subdivision or development of this parcel. Attached are three copies of the approved Final Master Development Plan. Please contact me with any questions regarding this approval. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins Planner Il CEP/bad Enclosures cc: Bill Ewing, Opequon Magisterial District Supervisor Roger Thomas, Opequon Magisterial District Commissioner Rick Ours, Opequon Magisterial District Commissioner Jane Anderson, Real Estate Brian Condie, Centex Homes, 3684 Centerview Dr., Ste. 100, Chantilly, VA 20151 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • L�O MAR 1 5 Frederick County Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Department of Public Works Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County 4th Floor Department of Public Works 107 N. Kent Street 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5643 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach three (3) copies of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Address: Phone Number: Centex Homes 3684 Centerview Drive, Suite 100 Chantilly, VA 20151 703-934-2600 Name of development and/or description of the request: Meadows Edge (formerly Racey Tract) Requesting comments for Master Development Plan Location of property: Near Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.5 miles south or Rt. 277 (Fairfax Pike); east of Rt. 1012 (Town Run Lane); south on Rt. 1065 (Ridgefield Avenue) to Ewings Lane. Department of Public Works Comments: � U_)�)4ks M 0 P as ILA C IAUIC-17,AAOn Pno<< i I.6,At( v;_ r4 a 'Gr I-). 1�. _oc,. iSrea lU, C Department of Public Works use only Date received Review Review Number: 1 2 3 4 5 (please circle one) Date received Date approved Q G M12f, Revision required Signature and Date 1 OC. Page 24 0 Ah 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 March 14, 2006 Mr. Brian Nolan Christopher Consultants 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, Virginia 20166 RE: Preliminary Review Comments for Revised Meadow's Edge Master Development Plan Property Identification Number (PIN) 85-A-140 Dear Mr. Nolan: Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review the revised master development plan for the proposed development referred to as Meadow's Edge, submitted to staff on February 24, 2006. A Special Limited Power of Attorney is required as well as review comments from the following agencies: Frederick County Fire Marshal and Frederick County Department of Public Works. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins Planner II cc: Bryan Condie, Centex Homes, 3684 Centerview Drive Suite 100, Chantilly, VA 20151 CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Frederick County, Virginia „�� q 200Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Town of Stephens City Mail to: Hand deliver to: Town of Stephens City 1033 Locust Street -1 Attn: Town Manager Stephens City Town Hall�/ar P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, VA Stephens City, Virginia 22655 (540) 869-3087 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach three (3) copy of the MDP with the sheet. Applicant's Name: Address: Phone Number Centex Homes 3684 Centerview Drive, Suite 100 Chantilly, VA 20151 703-934-2600 Name of development and/or description of the request: Meadows Edge (formerly Racey Tract) Requesting comments for Master Development Plan Location of property: Near Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.5 miles south or Rt. 277 (Fairfax Pike); east of Rt. 1012 (Town Run Lane); south on Rt. 1065 (Ridgefield Avenue) to Ewings Lane. Town of Stephens City Comments: / Ax- /0 hAs a ,,!'P_e d l!? 6-c c -e S .c -r S l S Q cl /I Avg - inr ! "!� f T� z ! e c i.,,c� a ` /1 a S A `4 Town of Stephens City use only Date received V Date received Signature and Date Review Number: 1 2 3 4 5 (please circle one) Date approved Page 31 Revision required 0 0 • Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Department of Planning and Development Use Only. Date application received "Q7 Application # 01—C Complete. Date of acceptance. Incomplete. Date of return. 1. Project Title: Meadows Edge 2. Owner's Name: Centex Homes, A Nevada General Partnershi (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: Centex Homes, A Nevada General Partnership Address: c/o Bryan Condie 3684 Centerview Drive, Suite 100, Chantilly, VA 20151 Phone Number: 703-934-2600 4. Design Company: christopher consultants, ltd. Address: 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166 Phone Number: 703-444-3707 Contact Name: Brian Nolan Page 11 0 • Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package 5. 6. 7. APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Location of Property: Stephens City, east of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Rt. 277 (Fairfax Pike), east of Rt. 1012 (Town Run La.), south on Rt. 1065 (Ridgefield Ave.) to Ewings Lane. Total Acreage: 132.1 Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): bJ Current Zoning: c Present Use: d) Proposed Uses: e) Adjoining Property Information: 85 A 140 RP/RA Vacant Property Identification Numbers North See attached sheet South East West Magisterial District: Single -Family Detached 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original _ Amended x Property Uses Opequon I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. Signature: g � Date: C Page 12 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County 4th Floor Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the MDP with the sheet. Applicant's Name: Address: Phone Number: Centex Homes 3684 Centerview Drive, Suite 100 Chantilly, VA 20151 703-934-2600 Name of development and/or description of the request: Meadows Edge (formerly Racey Tract) Requesting comments for Master Development Plan Location of property: Near Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.5 miles south or Rt. 277 (Fairfax Pike); east of Rt. 1012 (Town Run Lane); south on Rt. 1065 (Ridgefield Avenue) to Ewings Lane. Department of Planning and Development's Comments: Department of Planning and Development use only Date received Review Number: 1 2 3 4 5 (please circle one) Date reviewed Date approved Revision required Page 22 Christ® her consultants engineering • surveying • land planning February 23, 2006 Ms. Candice Perkins Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Preliminary Review for a revision to Meadow's Edge Master Develop Property Identification Number (PIN) 85-A-140 Dear Ms. Perkins: Thank you for your approval of the Master Development Plan IV�DP), dated 6l referenced project. In order to reduce potential impacts to ju�is�c\ nal tl minor revisions have been made to the MDP as further explained k?l�ow. f majority of these revisions have been localized to the northwestern,portiont f the 15/05, for the note The revisions to the MDP resulted from comments provided by the Ar y Corp�of Engineer's during their review of the application to mitigate jurisdictional wetlands, After coo dinati coordinating effo� s with the Army Corp of Engineers and Frederick County, we have revised the layout of�the proposes development to preserve a jurisdictional wetland area in the northwesterrortion of the�s>i e. It 1nras determined by Frederick County that an administrative approval would be permitted to processlhe revised MDP. To complete this process, we are resubmitting the revised MDP to all referral agencies to regain your approval. As stated previously, the majority of the changes occurred in the northwestern portion of the site, this area has been highlighted on a separate exhibit or clarcation. Other changes throughout the site were lot width adjustments to maintain the number of lots approved with the rezoning application, while limiting any impacts to the adjacent properties We have included 2 copies of the revised MDP for your review. If you should have any !dLestion�so'r would like to meet with us and/or the property owner to review these revisions, we would e happ � provide you with that opportunity. Please do not hesitate to contact us. Very Truly Yours, Brian Nolan Landscape Designer II BN/dml cc: Mr. Bryan Condie, Centex Homes christopher consultants, ltd. voice 703.444.3707 45940 horseshoe drive, suite 100 fax 703.444.5230 sterling, virginia 20166 web site www.christopherconsultants.com �+� christopher consultants / / "'9VnrrnrK3 %IKWNY� -3 t rn-10;wnrig LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: ATTN: MS. CANDICE PERKINS Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 DATE: 02/24/06 PROJECT: Meadows Edoe FEB 2 4 2pot PROJECT NO: 01-51-03.00 WE ARE SENDING (X) HEREWITH ( ) UNDER SEPARATE COVER SENT VIA ( ) REGULAR MAIL ( ) FEDERAL EXPRESS ( ) YOUR MESSENGER ( ) PRIORITY MAIL ( X ) OUR MESSENGER ( ) 45940 horseshoe drive, suite 100 sterling, Virginia 20166 voice 703.444.3707 fax 703.444.5230 www.christopherconsultants.com NO. COPIES DWG. NO. DWG. DATE DESCRIPTION / TITLE a 3 i O 1 Cover Letter x 1 Master Development Plan Application Package x 1 Request for Master Development Plan Comments x 2 LC-3564 Master Development Plan x 1 LC-4152 Master Development plan Revision Area Exhibit x 1 Fee Check in the amount of $2,000.00 dated Jan. 15, 2006 from Centex Homes x REMARKS: RECEIVED BY: COPY TO: Brvan Condie BY: Brian Nolan www.christopherconsultants.com 0 0 Document Approval Form PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TIME OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COMPLETED. INITIALS DATE & TIME Bernie Mark Susan Eric Mike Kevin John COMMENTS: Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time): P j C� Z-I Z —1 ( 6z j 9 '. Z Z