Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07 Comments/CorrespondenceCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 August 15, 2011 Venture I of Winchester, LLC Attn: Randy Kremer 827 Armistead Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Right -of -Way Proffer for Artillery Business Center, Rezoning #08 -07 Dear Mr. Kremer: This letter is the County's formal request for the transfer of right -of -way to the County from tax map parcel 74 -A -68, otherwise known as the Carbaugh property, per proffer 2.2.1 of the Artillery Business Center Rezoning. The proffers are attached for reference. If I can offer any assistance or address any concerns you may have, please feel free to contact me at 540- 665 -5651. Sincerely, John A. Bishop AICP Deputy Director - Transportation Frederick County Planning and Development Enclosures JAB /bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Ir` • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Memo to Files: ,/Artillery Business Center Rezoning (Rezoning 408 -07) Renaissance Commercial Center (MDP 410 -07) FROM: John A. Bishop AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation's RE: CSX Crossing DATE: March 16, 2009 Written correspondence and working papers directly related to the procurement on a new railroad crossing associated with this development and connecting with Renaissance Drive on the Renaissance Commercial Center is located in a separate file in the transportation files labeled "New CSX Crossing - Renaissance Drive ". JAB /bbd 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 / 0 Benjamin P. Biesterveld Principal Engineer - Public Projects 500 Water Street (S /C J301) Jacksonville, FL 32202 Te1.904- 359 -1158 Benjamin_Biesterveld@csx.com March 10, 2009 Mr. John A. Bishop Deputy Director- Transportation County of Frederick 107 North Kent St., Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 I* Subject: Establishing a new crossing in Stevens City, Virginia: Renaissance Drive. Dear Mr. Bishop: This letter is to acknowledge your letter dated February 17, 2009 received by CSX Transportation Public Projects March 9, 2009 regarding a formal request for a new crossing at the above location. CSXT is willing to work with the County to establish the new crossing as long as the following requirements are met: ♦ The three (3) crossings shown below will be closed: • Springdale Road (Route 649) • Cougill Road (Route 634) • Emporia, Virginia — Park Avenue (Closure already in process) ♦ CSX will not be responsible for any costs associated with the design and construction of the subject project as will be laid out in the Preliminary Engineering and Construction Agreements. If I can be of further assistance please feel free to call. Sincerely, Benjamin iesterveld Principal Engineer, Public Projects -- cc: David Farley MAR 1 6 2009 f L j The Winchester Star: WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA Today's Weather - Winchester, VA 26 °F Clear at 8:40 AM " Click for Forecast ;Thc Winchester Star Deliver my_ E- Editi '�,1rkVAiniadtr5tir , Nw Nlp LIFE Try out The Star's new E- Edition for Free Every page of The Winchester Star delivered to your desktop. It's the print edition— minus the ink on your hands. Ouestions comments SITE FEATURES Auto Guide Homes Guide Auctions Help Wanted Lap By Lap NASCAR Place Classifieds Advertising Rates Stocks Dear Abby Movie Listings TV Listings Other Newspapers Online Games The Star Story Engagement Form Thursday, February 14, 2008 Back to H Pa Artillery Business Center rezoning approved By Robert Igoe The Winchester Star Winchester — The rezoning of the Artillery Business Center will proceed after all. At its regular meeting on Wednesday in the Frederick County Office Complex, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors voted 6 -1 to approve a request by Patton, Harris, Rust, and Associates to rezone 58.7 acres of property along Shady Elm Road from Rural Areas to Light Industrial. The board's decision went against the recommendation of the Frederick County Planning Commission, which opposed the rezoning last month after a series of spirited public hearings in which nearby residents urged denial. The commission based its recommendation for denial on concerns over the impact the rezoning would have on vehicle traffic patterns and levels. A traffic impact analysis states that the rezoning would create more problem areas on roads in the Kernstown area, though the same study also showed that a connector road between Shady Elm Road and U.S. 11, which is part of PHR&A's plan, would mitigate some of these problems. Several residents presented their concerns again at the board's hearing on Wednesday. "Until the road is finally built, we would have to rely upon current road conditions," said Jim Clark of Cross Creek Village. "Do we really want to worsen these problems ?" Not everyone was opposed to the rezoning. "I've travelled those roads for 20 years," said developer Bruce Dawson. "I see no problem there. Pagel of 3 FAITH TEMPLE CHRISTIAN CHURCH $i:.ckss;rr, 4rg;ria L " I v..., R http: / /www.wiDchesterstar.com/article details.php ?ArticleID =4661 2/14/2008 Tne Winchester Star Wedding Form Anniversary Form BYRD NEWSPAPERS The Winchester Star Daily News- Record The Warren Sentinel Shen. Valley - Herald Page News & Courier The Valley Banner *THE VALLEY SCOPE* PHR&A officials told the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday that the Planning Commission's decision punished them unfairly. "It's not fair to ask us to offset impacts caused by other developments and existing conditions," said PHR&A engineer Ron Mislowsky. "Our task is to mitigate impacts caused by our own developments. I think we have done more than our fair share in doing that." The commission also based its decision on the firm's presentation of two proffer agreement options the day of the final hearing, and felt that allowing an applicant to force the commission to chose between agreements would set a bad precedent. Two changes to the PHR &A plan since then seemed to tilt the scale in the Artillery Business Center's favor. One change was a revised proffer agreement that eliminated the other alternatives and offered the county $250,000 for transportation improvements, as well as a promise to design and build a railroad crossing over CSX tracks in the road's path. The plan also called for PHR &A to build two 1,100 -foot lanes in a four -lane, east -west connector road from Shady Elm Road to the edge of the business center, which borders land owned by the Carbaugh family. The other change was an agreement with the Carbaugh family, who owns property that part of the road would be built on, for a right of way that would allow the road to be built up to the CSX railroad tracks. "We have to look to the future," said Supervisor Gary Lofton, who made the motion to approve the request. "In the long term, it is better to have that east -west connector road. Without the right -of -way agreement, I would not approve this. But with the right -of -way, the road is closer to completion, and this will mitigate a lot of transportation issues." A relative of the property owners spoke against the plan out of concern that the road would not be able to go any farther. "I hate to see good farmland go out of production, because it never comes back," said Joe Carbaugh, "I just don't see the purpose of this road. It will just go to the railroad tracks and no farther." While an agreement to cross the tracks was not part of the deal, PHR &A engineer Patrick Sowers said during the Planning Commission hearings that he was confident that an agreement with CSX could be reached, though he said the railroad would prefer an overpass to a new grade crossing. Supervisor Charles DeHaven was the only board member to vote against the request on Wednesday. The center's approval was met by frustration from opponents who shouted their feelings to the Page 2 of 3 t " Get Local . TV Listing e > View TV Listings Ads by Ci0agte HomeBu Local Online Homes Guide Search for Homes in VA & VW w homebuzz.info http:// www. winchesterstar. com/article_details.php ?ArticleID =4661 2/14/2008 The Winchester Star Page 3 of') s as they left. ften to us," said Chuck Hunter. then the road is done," said Greg Brown. — Contact Robert Igoe at rigoe iinc com Back to Home Page Click here to review past issues of www.wiacheslerstaccom Fe February 131 February 12 February 11 Febru - 9 ARCHIVES Copyright © 2002 -2008 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVA POLICY http: / /www.winchesterstar.eom /article details.php ?ArticlelD =4661 2/14/2008 Fe6.12, 2008 10:36AM El February 12, 2008 • Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Panning Director Frederick County, Virginia rIX SYo LLS Dear Mr. Ruddy: I am faxing to you the following: No. 4234 P. 1 • Memo - February 12, 2008 - Subject: REZONING APPLICATION #08 -07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER • Copy of Letter to Venture I of Winchester, LLC -February 6, 2008 -Subject: Your LETTER OF INTENT, January 27, 2008, Artillery Business Center In light of the upcoming meeting that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors has scheduled for Wednesday, February 13, 2008, at 7:15 p.m., I am submitting to you on behalf of my father, Henry J. Carbaugh, the above documentation. I am unable to attend the meeting, due to other commitments. It is not Henry Carbaugh's intentions, nor my intentions, to speak against any neighbor or owner of property along Shady Elm Road. We do see and understand the significant development along Shady Elm Road, both light industrial and residential. • A significant amount of the light industrial development was located along Shady Elm Road some time before any of the residential development of the most recent years. This was not unknown to the residential owners. • We do not envision any property on the East side of Shady Elm Road for residential usage, as the railroad and high voltage power line would somewhat prohibit residential development. • The residential subdivisions are so located on the West/Southwest side of Shady Elm Road, where there is not any significant negativity and adverse elements for the residential owners. Shady Elm Road does in a somewhat defining way, separate the rural and residential area from the light industrial, along the West side of Shady Elm Road from Soldiers Rest Lane to Springdale Road. • There is light industrial development on the East and West side of Shady Elm Road, and this has been the intent of the Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan for 15 to 20 years. • Owners must learn to work together for improvement of roadways and public safety. The development is already there, and now what roadways will best address better roadways and public safety? I hope this is some way gives our views, as our family has been owners at 831 Shady Elm Road for nearly 90 years, while all the other owners have sold off their property over the last 30 — 40 years. You may share any of this documentation with any member of the Board of Supervisors'for their upcoming meeting. Venture I of Winchester, LLC have signed the Letter of Intent of February 6, 2008. Sincerely, ugh Wa e W. Carbaugh Feb. 12. 2008 10 :36AM February 12, 2008 No-4234 P. 2 TO: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director, Frederick County, Virginia FROM: Wayne W. Carbaugh for Henry J. Carbaugh (Owner of Knoll Dale Farm) Subject: REZONING APPLICATION #08 -07 FOR ARTILLERX BUSINESS CENTER My father understands that the owners of the Artillery Business Center will be presenting their plans before the board of supervisors on February 13, 2008. He is not able to attend the meeting, and no authorized individual will be there to speak on his behalf. There are certain items I would like to address as follows: Henry Carbaugh continues to support the efforts of the Artillery Business Center Group, particularly for improving public safety and roadways He has a signed intent to sell four to six acres, more or less, to support the planned collector road from the railroad property to a certain point along the line of the Carbaugh property and the Artillery Business Center property. This intent to sell is strictly contingent with the following two conditions with certain time limitations The Artillery Business Center Group must receive approval from the appropriate Frederick County officials and departments for their rezoning request. The Artillery Business Center Group must receive approval from the Frederick County's Transportation Department and VDOT for their collector roadway design and plans. There should be a high priority for improving the road system to support the development that has and is occurring along the Shady Elm corridor We recognize the development that has occurred and will continue to increase on the East and West of Shady Elm Road with the following statements, as was made on January 18, 2008: • The Artillery Business Center Group does appear to be aligning its development within Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan. • The Artillery Business Center Group's property is in a designated urban development area. It is a property that would not be suitable for residential construction, because of the railroad and the high voltage power line. • Henry Carbaugh has never opposed any development of any neighboring property owners, as he has always believed a property owner should have the freedom to develop within the guidelines of Frederick County. He has never spoken against any neighbor's development efforts, which has occurred to the west and north of his farm. • It is recognized that Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road need improvements for public safety and to meet VDOT standards for business and light industrial Feb. 12. 2008 10:36AM • No-4234 P. 3 developmenP have addressed my views toward roatiprovement for Shady Elm Road to Mr. Bishop of the Frederick County Transportation Department. • Development of businesses and light industrial facilities along Shady Elm has been approved for some time. • Any property East of Shady Elm Road should not be developed for residential homes, because of the railroad and high voltage power line. In summary, the Shady Elm Roadway needs to be improved, and it is believed that the East to West roadway from U. S. Route 11 to Shady Elm Road is most essential to support the traffic and public safety needs on Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road. The intent agreement to sell/purchase between Henry ,I. Carbaugh and Venture I of Winchester, LLC (Artillery Business Center Group) is a private agreement, being signed by Henry I Carbaugh and Venture I of Winchester, LLC. Venture I of Winchester, LLC has permission to disclose the terms and conditions of the agreement to the Board of Supervisors, upon their request. 1 Wayne Carbaugh, am the only person who is authorized to speak for Henry Carbaugh. W ne W. Carbaueh (540) 868 -7127 work (540) 667 -0655 home Feb. 12. 2008 10:36AM 11 February 6, 2008 Mr. H. Paige ]Manuel, Managing Member Venture I of Winchester, LLC Winchester, Virginia 22601 is No. 4234 P. 4 Subject: Your LETTER OF INTENT, January 27, 2008, Artillery Business Center Dear Mr. Manuel: Thank you for the opportunity to review and consider your offer of intent to purchase four acres, more or less, far a minimum price of $150,000.00, or up to six acres for a maximum price of $224,000.00. It is understood and agreed that the price for four acres is at a price of $37,500.00 per acre. Further it is understood and agreed that the purchase over four to six acres, more or less, will be based on a price of $37,000.00 per acre. The four to six acres, more or less, is located in the North/Northeast corner of the Carbaugh property, having boundary with the Venture 1 of Winchester, LLC property and railroad property. This letter is to document certain terms and conditions of the sale for prices stated above, and based on the following two conditions: The sale will only occur if the rezoning to M -I (Light Industrial) is approved for Venture 1 of Winchester, LLC for 58 acres, more or less, located at 551 Shady Elm Road (Tax Map 75 -A -1), Frederick County, Virginia, by the appropriate governing authorities of Frederick County, Virginia. The sale will only occur if approvals are granted by the Virginia Department of Transportation for the designated collector road from a certain point at Shady Elm Road to the railroad property, bordering the East/Northeast comer of the Carbaugh property. Closing and settlement will be determined for a future date, based on the fulfillment of the above two conditions. it is agreed that as part of this agreement, an $18,500.00 non- refundable option payment will be made to Henry J. Carbaugh, Trustee, not later than July 30, 2008, for purpose of extending the closing and settlement beyond July 30, 2008. it is understood and agreed if settlement occurs on or before July 30, 2008, the payment due will be $18,500.00, with the balance of one half of the purchase price. due on or before December 31, 2008. It is agreed that the $18,500.00 option payment will be part of the purchase price, if the sale is completed after July 30, 2008. It is understood and agreed by both parties that the closing and settlement will not extend beyond December 31, 2008. Should settlement occur on or before December 31, 2008, one half of the purchase price will be paid at settlement, as stated above, with the balance paid in the calendar year 2009, but no later than June 30, 2009, Feb.12. 2008 10 :36AM No-4234 P. 5 • • I£ Venture I of Winchester, LLC purchases the four to six acres, more or less, they agree to the following three conditions: 1. The four to six acres, more or less, will be surveyed at the expense of Venture I of Winchester, LLC. 2. Cattle fencing along the Carbaugh property and new boundary line will be installed at the expense of Venture I of Winchester, LLC. The fence shall be no less than six feet in height. 3. Venture I of Winchester, LLC will request in writing from Frederick County authorities that any "roll -back real estate taxes" be waived for Henry I. Carbaugh, Trustee, in light of goodwill for the transaction to support the proposed new roadway from Shady Elm Road to the railroad property. My signature below indicates my intent to sell four to six acres, more or less, per the terms and conditions, as stated in this letter. If you are in agreement with the terms and conditions, please indicate your acceptance by returning a signed copy of this letter to me. Sincerely, Henry I. Carbaugb, Trustee Owner of Knoll Dale Farm Accepted and Approved: Date. H. Paige Manuel, Managing Member Venture I of Winchester, LLC �F& Jan. 16. 2006 1:54PM No. 3911 s u. e U January 16, 2008 TO: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director, Frederick County, Virginia FROM: Wayne W. Carbaugh for Henry J. Carbaugh (Owner of Knoll Dale Farm) Subject: REZONING APPLICATION #08 -07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER I will not be able to attend this evening's public hearing for the Rezoning Application #08 -07 for Artillery Business Center. I have had discussions with my father, Henry, the owners of the proposed Artillery Business Center, and Darrell and Andrea Habron at 188 Hockman Court. There are certain items I would like to address as follows: • Henry Carbaugh does not oppose the efforts of the Artillery Business Center. He did offer to sale a certain tract of land, either 3.97 acres or 5.182 acres to provide in part an East to West roadway from U. S. Route 11 to Shady Elm Road. It is our contention that a better road system is needed to support the development that has and is occurring along the Shady Elm corridor. We recognize that development has occurred and will continue on the East and West of Shady Elm Road. The Artillery Business Center Group has not agreed to purchase any property for a roadway easement from Henry Carbaugh. • The Artillery Business Center Group does appear to be aligning its development within Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan. • The Artillery Business Center Group's property is in a designated urban development area. It is a property that would not be suitable for residential construction, because of the railroad and the high voltage power line. • Henry Carbaugh has never opposed any development of any neighboring property owners, as he has always believed a property owner should have the freedom to develop within the guidelines of Frederick County. He has never spoken against any neighbor's development efforts, which has occurred to the west and north of his farm. • It is recognized that Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road need improvements for public safety and to meet VDOT standards for business and light industrial development. I have addressed my views toward road improvement for Shady Elm Road to Mr. Bishop of the Frederick County Transportation Department. • Development of businesses and light industrial facilities along Shady Elm has been approved for some time. • Any property East of Shady Elm Road should not be developed for residential homes, because of the railroad and high voltage power line. In summary, the Shady Elm Roadway needs to be improved, and it is believed that the East to West roadway fzom U. S. Route 11 to Shady Elm Road is most essential to support the transportation needs on Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road. I, Wayne Carbaugh, am the only person who is authorized f Henry Carbaugh. � Wayne W. Carbaugh (540) 868 -7127 JAN 1 6 2008 ld'� January 8. 2008 To: Patrick R. Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application From: Liz Hunter Andi Habron The following is a list addressing the aesthetics/use of the proposed application property: Building height shall be restricted to no more than 50 feet in height for primary and auxiliary aspects of any structures. Per the Zoning Code 165 -37 D stating that "Whenever land is to he developed in the B3, M1 or M2 zoning district that is adjacent to land used for residential purposes in the RA district a C Category bt ffer shall be provided on the land to be developed ". The property proposed to be rezoned is not directly adjacent to residential, however, the property is within 1,000 feet of residential which the code allows that "if proposed developments are within 1000 feet of the boundaries of existing uses the Planning Commission may require increased or additional distance buffers to separate different uses to achieve the intention of this section ". Therefore the developer shall provide Category C screen/buffer which provides 150' inactive distance buffer and 50' active (parking). The Planning Commission is being requested to require this level of screening/buffering. This will ensure a consistent appearance with future development along Shady Elm Road. The increased landscape buffer is detailed on the attached diagram. Evergreen trees should be a combination of Leyland cypress and various species of pines and should be at least 6' in height at planting. Hardwood deciduous trees should be a minimum of 10' in height and 8" caliper /diameter at planting and should be a combination of hardy varieties (i -e., red maple, oaks). The street trees should be 8" caliper, 12' in height and ornamental trees a minimum 6" caliper and 8' in height. No warehouse distribution center to be located at this site. 0, Y) c15G��e oarQnS7-" -ea- h eda e roL�1 .v o u CD 0 v 000wv c� —� - - -- �� 62 ( E.) harclwooc� col 6- ecICALAbUl gees �evo� 1S' 3 eUP�'� reedy �r 2�5 (Pe >IIr � ��c,�Ime��r�Z; -t shn !o � ao� i s- lr_e_+ -�"e es 2�r� UL o ,L orna11 -r4o LZ O O QI SIR o N, n 00i 4 1 0 ?, 4;5 Zil IVI 41, A m X LZ O O QI a ' Ll Madam Chairman and members of the commission P JAN 1 6 2008 � Thank you for your time and your service. I would like to express my concerns regarding the Artillery Business Center re- zoning application. First, in the interest of aesthetics and continuity, as I'm sure you are aware, Zoning Code 165 -37 D allows the commission to require increased buffers on Ml development that is within 1,000 feet of land used for residential purposes, just as if the Ml property were directly adjacent to residential land. This would constitute a Category C screen /buffer which provides for 150' of inactive distance buffer and 50' active buffer. I respectfully request that, if this application is approved, The Planning Commission require this level of screening/ buffering in this instance. This will make the proposed development much more palatable to the area residents as well as ensure a consistent appearance with future development along Shady Elm Road that will be directly adjacent to residential properties. With regard to health and safety, it has been pointed out in relation to past rezoning applications on neighboring properties that the ground in T that area has a high concentration of very dense limestone. Limestone contains asbestos that will inevitably be released into the air during the construction phase, especially when any drilling or blasting occur. What plan does the developer have to protect the surrounding area from airborne asbestos and more importantly how are they going to protect my family and the families in my community from this hazard? I have seen no mention of this in any of the paperwork that the developer has submitted. Next, because of the close proximity to residential areas that are currently operating with well water systems, what assurances is the developer offering that any interruption of water availability or adverse impact on these wells caused by any phase of construction will be corrected? I have seen no mention of this in any paperwork that the developer has submitted. Finally, with regard to the impact on the existing road network, there is absolutely no realistic way to expect that the current network will be able to support the increase in usage that will without question occur when this and the other projects in this area are completed. The TIA submitted by VDOT in relation to this application does not take into account the other projects currently under construction in this area that will contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic that the current roads cannot support. Each morning when I leave for work I see traffic on Route 1 1 North that is backed up all the way up the ramp to westbound Route 37 and often onto 1 -81. This, already bad, situation will only get worse. In addition, basing a decision to approve this rezoning on a feeder road and railroad bridge or at grade crossing that may or may not ever be built is pure fantasy. Not only is there is no county funding allocated for these projects, or any request for state or federal funding assistance, there hasn't even been a serious attempt to determine what these projects would cost. For all we know these projects may not be completed for S, 10 or 20 years... if ever. In addition, Mr. Sowers himself, at previous meetings has said that CSX would require other crossings to be closed if one were proposed here. This would seem to necessitate additional costs to the county and state for roads to be re- routed or other bridges to be built to replace the crossings that are closed. It is interesting to note that while VDOT apparently considers this current TIA adequate without taking other development projects into account, in a November 2006 letter from VDOT that I have attached to my comments they found fault with an independent TIA done by GSA regarding the proposed FBI facility for exactly that reason; not taking into account the 0 0 impact other development would have on the road network. Specifically, the letter stated "The study does not mention or consider any surrounding land development projects that are currently underway, nor does the study appear to include background traffic growth or traffic to be generated by adjacent development recently approved or currently being built." That letter closed by saying "Until this study includes a thorough analysis of each development scenario and is prepared according to recommendations provided in previous meetings, VDOT cannot conduct a detailed review and provide adequate comments." Even without including these other projects, the GSA TIA indicated that peak hours on Apple Valley Road, Route 11 and Route 37 would see service level F. Failing to include these other development projects makes the current VDOT TIA theoretical at best and quite possibly flawed. This commission should expect better information with which to base decisions that will impact the entire county. Development of this magnitude has to be approached in a measured and deliberate way and this requires facts. The facts present at this time do not support approval of this application. i C� Federal Bureau of Investioation Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX F Responses to Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement E RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Central Records Complex in Winchester, Virginia was released to the public and the Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2006. Written comments of the draft Environmental Impact Statement were accepted until December 11, 2006, and are addressed herein. A Public Hearing was held on the draft EIS on November 14, 2006. A transcript of the hearing and responses to comments received at the hearing follow the written comments. The following table of contents can be referenced in order to find comments from specific people /organizations and the responses to those comments. Reponses to individual comment letters /emails follow after each letter /email. F- 1 Ms. Katrina M. Scarpato Page 13 on -site contractors, regular field inspection, prompt action against non- compliance, and/or other mechanisms consistent with agency policy. The GSA is encouraged to contact the Department of Conservation and Recreation to #21 (con't) obtain plan development or implementation assistance so as to ensure project compliance during and after construction; see "Regulatory and Coordination Needs." item 6, below. (b) Stormwater Management. GSA must also comply with the Stormwater Management Law (Virginia Code section 10.1 -603)_ A Stormwater Management Plan is required for any project involving land disturbance of 1 acre or more. Types of projects include clearing and grading activities, installation of staging areas, parking lots, roads, buildings, utilities, or other structures, soNdredge spoil areas, or related land conversion activities. It is recommended that the proposed project be considered in conjunction with other existing or planned projects so as to minimize slormwaler runoff on nearby waterways and other natural resources. As with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan requirement (above), GSA is ultimately responsible for achieving project compliance through oversight of on- site contractors, regular field inspection, prompt action against non - compliance, and/or other mechanisms consistent with GSA policy. For stormwater management plans, GSA is encouraged to contact the Department of Conservation and Recreation to obtain plan development or implementation assistance so as to ensure project compliance during and after construction. The project should be considered in conjunction with any other existing or proposed land use conversion or expansion plans for the property in order to adequately address the cumulative impacts upon the receiving drainage, as well as to identify appropriate strategies for reducing the non -point source pollution from the developed and developing areas of the site (see also item 2(d)(vi), above). See "Regulatory and Coordination Needs' item 8, below. (c) VPDES Stormwater General Permit. Projects involving land disturbance of one acre or more are also subject to the requirements of the Virginia Pollutant Discharge System (VPDES) Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities. See "Regulatory and Coordination Needs," item 9, below. #22 9. Transportation, The Department of Transportation (VDOT) points out several deficiencies in the transportation analysis of the Draft EIS. VOOT indicates that its staff has attended a number of meetings with Federal Bureau of #23 Investigation (FBI) representatives, discussing items that should be in a traffic study (i.e., the Carbaugh site), and notes that the traffic portions of the Draft EIS have been prepared contrary to VDOT's recommendations. Accordingly, limited comments on the deficiencies follow. F -20 0 0 Ms. Katrina M. Scarpato Page 14 The Draft EIS does not adequately depict or evaluate impacts of the proposed complex on the surrounding road system. Instead, it presents a "snapshot' of existing conditions, and adds the complex to those conditions to predict future conditions. No analytical supporting documentation, or study methodology, is provided. • The Draft EIS does not mention or consider surrounding land developments taking place. Nor does it appear to include background traffic growth, or traffic to be generated by current or recent surrounding development. Some mitigation discussions are over- simplgied, and presented without analysis. For example, the Draft EIS concludes that an improvement would require "provision of dual receiving lanes on the Virginia Route 37 ramp' (page 4 -77). Given the close proximity of Interstate Route 81, there is very limited weaving area available for eastbound Route 37 traffic to 6 81. This "provision" would be costly and difficult to approve and build with acceptable safety and level of service. Frederick County has also offered comments on the Transportation Impact Analyses for two of the sites and levels of service; see item 15(b), below. 10. Natural Area Preserves. According to the Department of Conservation and Recreation, there are no state Natural Area Preserves in the project vicinity. 11. Forest and Tree Protection. #23 (con't) (a) Findings and Recommendations of the Department of Forestry. The Department of Forestry indicates that the construction of the Central Records Complex, at any of the sites under consideration, would not significantly affect #24 the forest resources of the Commonwealth. Open areas not proposed for building construction could be planted to improve aesthetics and water filtering capacity of the property. (6) General Guidance. In order to protect trees not slated for removal from the effects of construction activities associated with this project, the proponent should mark and fence them at least to the dripline or the end of the #25 root system, whichever extends farther from the tree stem. Marking should be done with highly visible ribbon so that equipment operators see ;he protected areas easily. Parking and stacking of heavy equipment and construction materials near trees can damage root systems by compacting the soil. Soil compaction, from I #26 F -21 0 0 David S. Ekcrn, P.E. W,Fl.I:SSw`.vEfl November 29, 2006 RECEIVED NOV 3 0 2M COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA 0EQ4iMdEvwFn¢rW DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1101 rA5r BP6'.D Si nfrr gl1:,i1.IGN'J, 4,i1C.IMP $)jl<}$'AD Mr. Charles H. Ellis!IJ Department of Environmental Quality Office of Environmental Impact Review 629 East Main Street, Sixth Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Re: Federal Bureau of Investigation Central Records Complex Dear Mr. Ellis: The Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed the information provided for the referenced project. Our review covers impacts to existing and proposed transportation facilities. Following are OUT mnuncnts for the above project: I. The stud as presented does not adequately depict or evaluate impacts of the proposed FBI facility on the surrounding road system. The study presents a snap -shot of existing conditions (traffic count data and minimal analysis), an overlay of future conditions by simply adding the FBI site to existing conditions, and offers no analytical supporting documentation or description of study methcdology 2. The study does not mention or consider any surrounding land development projects that are cut enty underway, nor does the study appear to inciude background irailic growth or traffic to be generated by adjacent development recently approved or currently being built. 3. Discussion of some mitigation solutions are over simplified and presented without analysis. As an example, referencing page 4 -77, the conclusion is made that an improvement would require "the provision of dual receiving lanes on the VA Route 37 ramp ", Willi the close proximity of 1 1, There is a very limited weaving area available for eastbound Rt. 37 ramp traffic to 1 -81; this "provision" would be quite costly and difficult, if not impossible, to approve and build with acceptable safety and Level of Service. VirginlzDOT.crg WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING #1 #2 #3 F -55 P 0 V DOT staff cannot review and provide significant traffic - related comments to this EIS in its present form. VDOT staff has attended many meetings with FBI representatives discussing items that should be included in this traffic study (i.e., the Carbaugh Site) and have noticed that the #4 traffic portions of this EIS report have been prepared contrary to V DOT's recommcndations. Until this study includes a thorough analysis of each development scenario and is prepared according to recommendations provided in previous meetings, VDOT cannot conduct a detailed review and provided adequate comments. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on tt.is project. Sincerely, Mary VStarilcy V Environmental Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation (8(4)786 -0868 F -56 0 0 The three eligible properties are Sarsparilla Springs, which is a farm house adjacent to the site on the southeastern corner, the Millcreek Ridgeway Historic District located north of the site in West Virginia and a small front gable cottage house located north of the project site in West Virginia. If the properties are determined eligible, the Sarsparilla Springs farm house is located within visual range of the Sempeles property and construction would induce visual elements inconsistent with the historical setting and character of the rural farm house, thus creating an adverse effect. The Millcreek Ridgeway Area Historic District and the cottage house are located within visible range of the property, but because they would be screened by some vegetation, there would only be a slight adverse effect to these properties. Ground disturbing activities would occur at any of the three sites under consideration. Past archeological investigations in the general vicinity of the sites indicate that there is a high potential for the presence of archeological resources at each location, which could be adversely effected by construction The location of the complex at any of these sites could necessitate infrastructure improvement and housing and commercial constructions to accommodate the increased work force which would entail additional ground disturbing activities. These activities could also adversely impact archeological resources. Regardless of which site is selected, GSA will continue coordinating with the Virginia Department of Historical Resources and the West Virginia Division of Culture and History to identify and mitigate adverse impacts to cultural resources. A traffic study for each of the three sites was prepared as part of this analysis. The study analyzed the level of service for each site. The level, a level of service is defined as a qualitative measure for describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and the perception by a motorist. There are six levels of service ranging from A to F, with A presenting the optimal operating conditions with minimal delays and F representing congestion, most areas considering an OSD acceptable. For the Carbaugh site, two scenarios for the access to the site were analyzed. Under scenario one, access to the Carbaugh site would be provided from Shady Elm Road. The intersection of Apple Valley Road, US 11, and the US 11 Virginia 37 west and east bound F -109 0 0 ramps are expected to operate at a level of service F under this condition during peak period times. All other intersections are expected to operate at a LOSD or better. This would create a major adverse impact on the roadway network. Under scenario two, access to the site would be provided by a new road that would connect Shady Elm Road with US 11. Under this scenario, the US 11 VA 37 west and east bound ramps are expected to operate at a LOSF during peak times periods. This would create major adverse impacts All other intersections are expected to operate at an LOSD or better, however under either scenario, mitigation would occur such that all intersections would be expected to operate at an LOSD or better. The Carpers Valley Golf Course site was approved for rezoning in October 2005. Conditions for this approval included the following transportation improvements. A new collector road, which means constructing a four lane major collector road, Coverstone Drive connecting US 50, Sulphur Springs Road intersection and Prince Frederick Drive, connection to US 50. No additional connections to US 50 would be allowed. The existing Golf Course entrance, the existing entrance would be restricted to a right in right out only and the existing median opening would be closed. Traffic signal improvements and traffic plans at US 50 Sulphur Springs Road, Costello and Prince Frederick Drive and US 50 Victory Lane. Hiker /Biker trail - a hiker and biker trail would be built adjacent to planned major collector road Traffic impact studies - additional traffic impact studies and mitigation measures would be provided to reflect changing uses of the property and extend the collector road to US 522, provide partial funding to extend major collector road to future realigned US 522. Given these improvements and restrictions at the existing entrance, access options into the Carpers Valley Golf Course property are generally expanded. Options for site access include from US 50 the existing entrance, which be a right in and right out only, Sulphur Springs Road intersection to Coverstone Drive, Prince Frederick Drive to Coverstone Drive and from US 522 to Costello Drive to Prince Frederick Drive to Coverstone Drive. F110 MS. ESTES: Thank you. MR. LAWRENCE: Thank you. MS. ESTES: John Conrad? MR. CONRAD, It's not very often I have a chance to follow Eric, so this is a real treat for me. This is, oh John Conrad, C- O- N- R -A -D. I felt that the EIS was probably the most comprehensive program I've ever seen and you certainly should be congratulated for all the work you did. Two issues that I'd like to speak to are the geotechnical report are as it relates to limestone and the social aspect that leads to the corporate enjoyment of the campus community. I've had more experience in the excavation of limestone than I ever want to have in my life. It is our #6 understanding that both the Sempeles site and the Carbaugh site are, have a high proximity to limestone composition. Our knowledge of the two sites say that the limestone is very, very dense. Besides the cost involved in the excavation, which could run between $50 and $100,000 per acre, there are other issue that come with limestone. First of all, there is a presence of asbestos in limestone that has to be dealt with, particularly once the drilling of limestone occurs and the asbestos becomes airborne. There's also a consequential damage to the neighboring property, potential for consequential damage to neighboring properties. First of all, with the blast zone, with the blast wave and also the chance of well interruption with water. The social aspect is something a little bit more subjective, but it really centers around the potential for the location of the facility that is remotely removed from restaurants, shopping and retail. Ideal location for an employment center is one that has close by, and preferably walkable, retail facilities. Public transportation is also something that brings with it a certain level of comfort for employees and also it opens a ride range of employees who may not have vehicles at the time. Thank you for your time, thank you for your bringing this to us. MS. ESTES: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to give any comments at this time? I notice that some people came in as we were talking, if you didn't get a chance to, if you could just sign in before you leave so we just have a record of who came, that would be great. #7 F -114 Statement of lames E. Clark Pertaining to Rezoning Application 08 -07 January 16, 2008 I 1. JAN 1 6 2DO8 L �! iY p My name is James E. Clark and I reside at 126 Ladderback Court in Cross Creek Village on Apple Valley Road,. Shawnee District. I appeared at the December 19 hearing on this matter, so I will not repeat my criticisms of the disconnect between the status of highway development and land development in this part of the county. The applicant cannot possibly provide the highway improvements required to support this development. Let me quickly enumerate what the applicant's own analysis deems necessary. • A new four -lane connection between Shady Elm Road and US -11 including a bridge over a railroad.. • Four through lanes on US -11 at Apple Valley Road. • Four through lanes on US -11 at the proposed connector. • No improvements on tiny Springdale Road but up to a 400 percent traffic increase. • New signalization at four intersections. A pledge of $250,000 for highway design and construction, and additional width for right -of -way on Shady Elm Road, as generous as they are, are no assurance of these multi - million dollar improvements What is needed is an approved scheduling and funding plan for these major highway upgrades. Only then would it make sense for the government of Frederick County to consider approvals of upzoning. Comprehensive plans are just that. f~ They prescribe a number of united actions. Going forty• with only the land development components of a comprehensive plan is just another form of plan non - compliance. I believe the ball is in the county's court. Begin preparing for these needed highway improvements so that land developments do not overwhelm the existing highway network. "The transportation impacts associated with this request ... have not been fully mitigated." Although delicately stated, these words from your own professional staff are words of warning. Except for those who would have us believe that denial of upzoning is tantamount to holding an applicant hostage, rejection of upzoning proposals is precisely what is expected from a public body when it identifies unacceptable or unmitigated impacts. To do less would be a betrayal of the trust we have placed in our public officials. \ - Statement of James E. Clare Pertaining to Rezoning Application 08 -07 December 19, 2007 My name is James E. Clark and I reside at 126 Ladderback Court in Cross Creek Village on Apple Valley Road. From my reading of the public documents you have supplied, the applicant for the Artillery Business Center is certainly justified in applying for light industrial zoning of a 59 acre parcel of land on Shady Elm Road. The request appears to conform to the Comprehensive Plan and the land is within an area currently served by both water and sewer services. But, as you know, the applicant is also expected to avoid costly or unmanageable impacts of land development. We, the public, encourage and expect you to examine zoning proposals for any unmitigated impacts that the public can suffer and to reject those proposals that cause unacceptable impacts.. I have concluded that this development proposal is terribly flawed, as well as untimely, because of traffic impacts on the adjacent two -lane road network. The single improvement that would appear to significantly aid in traffic management is a good concept, but not a reality. The developer can give no assurances that a connector road between Shady Elm Road and US -11 will ever be built. So far as I know, the connector is not designed, nor priced, nor funded, nor scheduled, nor is it known what right -of -way acquisition problems may be involved. The promise of a short section of this road on the applicant's property is simply of no use unless the entire roadway is built. The development must, therefore, depend on the existing road network for access and egress. Have you observed current conditions, particularly at the intersection of Apple Valley Road and US -I I in the aftemoons when traffic on US -11 must A • - • wait through three and four signal cycles— service level E, in other words. Or have you witnessed the delays caused by train traffic at the US -I I crossing. These are not signalization or turn lane problems. They are capacity problems. Have you thought how this congestion will be exacerbated by the traffic impacts of the other two developments under construction on Shady Elm and Apple Valley Roads. At this stage, those impacts are all estimates. Have those estimates been added to the estimates for the current proposal? And how good are the estimates. The Opus developer is still determining the split between office and warehouse uses. We should remember that level of service analyses do not take into consideration weather, or darkness, or accidents, or train crossings or other inevitable fluctuations of traffic patterns . It is not an exact science. And please let us not forget the impacts on the residents of Apple Valley Road, a road with no pedestrian or bicyclist accommodations. Excessive traffic speeds will continue to be a concern, but think of the growing conflict with the 40 driveways that connect to this thoroughfare. Most traffic engineers will agree that driveway entrances on major roads should be minimized for safety reasons, all the more reason to be concerned as Apple Valley Road begins to take on the characteristics of an arterial road. In conclusion, I suggest that serious consideration be given to the denial of this application. The cumulative impacts of this proposal and those of ongoing developments are too serious to risk. It is in no one's interest to overload an already stressed network of two lane roads. This proposal is a classic case of putting the cart in front of the horse. Tell the developer that the traffic impact of his proposal is not acceptable at this time. Page 1 of 1 ,I hunter,.; JAN 1 6 2008 From: <RobPT @aofcom> To: <hunter @wave2net.com> - -- - Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:22 PM Subject: Re: Planning meeting Weds. - letter to submit Dear Planning Commission of Frederick County. Unfortunately, we could not be present at the planning commission meeting on Wednesday, January 16. Our son is getting married this weekend. We have some very serious concerns regarding the rezoning application for property on Shady Elm Rd. that we would like to express. ;first, the application fails to address the transportation impacts generated by this request, as stated on page 6 of Rezoning Application #08 -07. The surrounding roads will not be able to handle the increased traffic, particularly truck traffic, that this project, as well as the new FedEx and Opus projects, will produce. This will cause major trafic issues, as well as major tax increases, since there is presently no money available to do any of the necessary improvements. Secondly, the property is within 1000 feet of residential property and no proffers have been written stating what the developer plans to do to comply with the existing code. They could build a major distribution center right in the midst of residential and agricultural areas. This would be a major detriment to residents' properties in the area. We urge you to seriously consider these concerns before you allow the Shady Elm property to be rezoned. Sincerely, Robert and Donna Diaz 1006 Shady Elm Rd. Winchester, VA Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http: / /body. aol.com /fitness/ winter - exercise ?NC I D= aoiGmp00300000002489 -�G r6out5 �ecc� I vec� cat o 8 � 01/15/2008 0 0 Mike Ruddy From: Patrick R. Sowers [Patrick. Sowers @phra.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 3:44 PM To: Ingram, Lloyd, Eric Lawrence, Mike Ruddy, John Bishop Cc: Ronald A. Mislowsky Subject: Artillery Revisions Lloyd and Fred Co Planning Staff: Page 1 of I've attached a revised proffer that I hope you will find in accordance with our conference call earlier today. The revised GDP breaks the Property into two tracts - A 28.7 acre tract which fronts Shady Elm Road and a 30.0 acre tract which fronts the railroad on the back side of the Property. The revised proffers provides for the construction of the 1100 foot section of the east west collector road with the following triggers (whichever occurs first): 1) Prior to issuance of the 4th building permit. 2) Upon bridge construction over the railroad. 3) Prior to issuance of a building permit in Land Bay 2. 4) Prior to December 31, 2013. 5) Should one large user take down the site, I have also added a clause to Proffer 2.2 which states that if a structure is proposed in Land Bay 1 but includes land located within Land Bay 2 as depicted on site plan then the roadway would have to be constructed prior to a certificate of occupancy for that building. Proffer 2.2.2 requires that Land Bay 2 have access provided via the easternmost entrance on the East -West Collector road as shown on the GDP. After talking to the client, I have modified the signalization agreement language to place a $200,000 cap on the agreement. Let me know if you would like to see any language modifications or if you have any questions. Thanks, Patrick Patrick R. Sowers Planner Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 www.phra.com 11/6/2007 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. P A 117 East Piccadilly Street E i� \ \ Winchester, Virginia 22601 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 Memorandum To: Mike Ruddy Organization /Company: Frederick County Planning From: Patrick Sowers Date: February 7, 2008 Project Name /Subject: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application My client has reached an agreement with Mr. Carbaugh to purchase the land necessary to extend the East -West Collector Road from Shady Elm Road to the railroad right of way. As such, I have attached a revised proffer statement dated 2/7/08 which provides the land area necessary for this extension of the Collector Road. In addition to providing this off site area, my client has now proffered to design the roadway as an R4D cross section from Shady Ehn Road to the railroad right of way. The proffer statement maintains the previously provided transportation commitments including construction of 1100 feet of the Past West Collector, Shady Elm Road Improvements, funding of an at grade crossing of the railroad, and a monetary contribution of $250,000.00 for offsite road improvements. Additionally, proffer 4.2 regarding signage has been modified to clarify that if the County adopts stricter sign controls than what is proffered, then the sign limits will be regulated by the future ordinance. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the revisions. PRS FEB 7 2008 P. sp Feb. 12. 2008 10:36AM February 12, 2008 • Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Panning Director Frederick County, Virginia rJX .53a- 665-6395 Dear Mr. Ruddy: I am faxing to you the following: 0 No. 4234 N. 1 • Memo —February 12, 2008 —Subject: REZONING APPLICATION #08 -07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER • Copy of Letter to Venture I of Winchester, LLC — February 6, 2008 — Subject: Your LETTER OF INTENT, January 27, 2008, Artillery Business Center In light of the upcoming meeting that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors has scheduled for Wednesday, February 13, 2008, at 7:15 p.m., I am submitting to you on behalf of my father, Henry J. Carbaugh, the above documentation. I am unable to attend the meeting, due to other commitments. It is not Henry Carbaugh's intentions, nor my intentions, to speak against any neighbor or owner of property along Shady Elm Road. We do see and understand the significant development along Shady Elm Road, both light industrial and residential. • A significant amount of the light industrial development was located along Shady Elm Road some time before any of the residential development of the most recent years. This was not unknown to the residential owners. • We do not envision any property on the East side of Shady Elm Road for residential usage, as the railroad and high voltage power line would somewhat prohibit residential development. • The residential subdivisions are so located on the West/Southwest side of Shady Elm Road, where there is not any significant negativity and adverse elements for the residential owners. Shady Elm Road does in a somewhat defining way, separate the rural and residential area from the light industrial, along the West side of Shady Elm Road from Soldiers Rest Lane to Springdale Road. • There is light industrial development on the East and West side of Shady Elm Road, and this has been the intent of the Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan for 15 to 20 years. • Owners must learn to work together for improvement of roadways and public safety. The development is already there, and now what roadways will best address better roadways and public safety? I hope this is some way gives our views, as our family has been owners at 831 Shady Elm Road for nearly 90 years, while all the other owners have sold off their property over the last 30 — 40 years. You may share any of this documentation with any member of the Board of Supervisors for their upcoming meeting. Venture I of Winchester. LLC have signed the Letter of Intent of February 6, 2008. Sincerely, Wayrk W. Carbaugh Feb. 12. 2008 10:36AM 9 February 12, 2008 0 No. 4234 Y. 2 TO: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director, Frederick County, Virginia FROM: Wayne W. Carbaugh for Henry J. Carbaugh (Owner of Knoll Dale Farm) Subject: REZONING APPLICATION #08 -07 FOR ARTILLERX BUSINESS CENTER My father understands that the owners of the Artillery Business Center will be presenting their plans before the board of supervisors on February 13, 2008. He is not able to attend the meeting, and no authorized individual will be there to speak on his behalf. There are certain items I would like to address as follows: Henry Carbaugh continues to support the efforts of the Artillery Business Center Group, particularly for improving public safety and roadways He has a signed intent to sell four to six acres, more or less, to support the planned collector road from the railroad property to a certain point along the line of the Carbaugh property and the Artillery Business Center property. This intent to sell is strictly contingent with the following two conditions with certain time limitations 1. The Artillery Business Center Group must receive approval from the appropriate Frederick County officials and departments for their rezoning request. 2. The Artillery Business Center Group must receive approval from the Frederick County's Transportation Department and VDOT for their collector roadway design and plans. There should be a high priority for improving the road system to support the development that has and is occurring along the Shadv Elm corridor We recognize the development that has occurred and will continue to increase on the East and West of Shady Elm Road with the following statements, as was made on January 18, 2008: • The Artillery Business Center Group does appear to be aligning its development within Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan. • The Artillery Business Center Group's property is in a designated urban development area. It is a property that would not be suitable for residential construction, because of the railroad and the high voltage power line, • Henry Carbaugh has never opposed any development of any neighboring property owners, as he has always believed a property owner should have the freedom to develop within the guidelines of Frederick County. He has never spoken against any neighbor's development efforts, which has occurred to the west and north of his farm. • It is recognized that Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road need improvements for public safety and to meet VDOT standards for business and light industrial heb. 12. 1008 lU:3bAM [NO.4Zj4 r. j development. I hav0dressed my views toward road impro *ent for Shady Elm Road to Mr. Bishop of the Frederick County Transportation Department. Development of businesses and light industrial facilities along Shady Elm has been approved for some time. Any property East of Shady Elm Road should not be developed for residential homes, because of the railroad and high voltage power line. In summary, the Shady Elm Roadway needs to be improved, and it is believed that the East to West roadway from U. S. Route 11 to Shady Elm Road is most essential to support the traffic and public safety needs on Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road. The intent agreement to sell/purchase between Henry .I. Carbaueh and 'Venture I of Winchester LLC (Artillery Business Center Group) is a private agreement, being signed by Henry I Carbaueh and Venture I of Winchester. LLC. Venture I of Winchester, LLC has permission to disclose the terms and conditions of the agreement to the Board of Supervisors, upon their request. 1, Wayne Carbaugh, am the only person who is authorized to speak for Henry Carbaugh. WrW. Cazbaugh (540) 868 -7127 work (540) 667 -0655 home Feb. 12. 2008 10:36AM 0 February 6, 2008 Mr. H. Paige Manuel, Managing Member Venture I of Winchester, LLC Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 No. 41i4 F. 4 Subject: Your LETTER OF INTENT, January 27, 2008, Artillery Business Center Dear Mr. Manuel: Thank you for the opportunity to review and consider your offer of intent to purchase four acres, more or less, for a minimum price of $150,000.00, or up to six acres for a maximum price of $224,000.00. It is understood and agreed that the price for four acres is at a price of $37,500.00 per acre. )lather it is understood and agreed that the purchase over four to six acres, more or less, will be based on a price of $37,000.00 per acre. The four to six acres, more or less, is located in the North/Northeast comer of the Carbaugh property, having boundary with the Venture 1 of VrTinchester, LLC property and railroad property. This letter is to document certain terms and conditions of the sale for prices stated above, and based on the following two conditions: 1. The We will only occur if the rezoning to M -i (Light Industrial) is approved for Venture 1 of Winchester, LLC for 58 acres, more or less, located at 551 Shady Elm Road (Tax Map 75 -A -1), Frederick County, Virginia, by the appropriate governing authorities of Frederick County, Virginia. 2. The sale will only occur if approvals are granted by the Virginia Department of Transportation for the designated collector road from a certain point at Shady Elm Road to the railroad property, bordering the East/Northeast comer of the Carbaugh propefty. Closing and settlement will be determined for a future date, based on the fulfillment of the above two conditions. it is agreed that as part of this agreement, an $18,500.00 non - refundable option payment will be made to Henry T Carbaugh, Trustee, not later than July 30, 2008, for purpose of extending the closing and settlement beyond July 30, 2008. It is understood and agreed if settlement occurs on or before July 30, 2008, the payment due will be $18,500.00, with the balance of one half of the purchase price.due on or before December 31, 2008. It is agreed that the $18,500.00 option payment will be part of the purchase price, if the sale is completed after July 30, 2008, It is understood and agreed by both parties that the closing and settlement will not extend beyond December 31, 2008. Should settlement occur on or before December 31, 2008, one half of the purchase price will be paid at settlement, as stated above, with the balance paid in the calendar year 2009, but no later than June 30, 2009. r40. IL. 2UU0 IU:S0AM • 0 NO. gz3q r. 7 If Venture I of Winchester, LLC purchases the four to six acres, more or less, they agree to the following three conditions: 1. The four to six acres, more or less, will be surveyed at the expense of Venture I of Winchester, LLC- 2. Cattle fencing along the Carbaugh property and new boundary line will be installed at the expense of Venture I of Winchester, LLC. The fence shall be no less than six feet in height. 3. Venture I of Winchester, LLC wig request in writing from Frederick County authorities that any "roll -back real estate taxes' be waived for Henry I Carbaugh, Trustee, in light of goodwill £or the transaction to support the proposed new roadway from Shady Elm Road to the railroad property. My signature below indicates my intent to sell four to six acres, more or less, per the terms and conditions, as stated in this letter. If you are in agreement with the terms and conditions, please indicate your acceptance by returning a signed copy of this letter to me. Sincerely, Henry I Carbaugh, Trustee Owner of Knoll Dale Farm Accepted and Approved: Date: H. Paige Manuel, Managing Member Venture I of Winchester. LLC Patton Har Rusf & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. January 29, 2008 Mr. Michael Ruddy Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 RE: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application JAN 2 9 2008 PH R [ A Dear Mike: At the January 16, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting, I presented two alternative proffer statements for the Planning Comrnission's consideration regarding the CORPORATE I Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application. I would like to formally withdraw Chaniill the proffer statement identified as Alternative 2 as submitted to your office. As VIRGINIA OFFICES: such, the proffer statement previously identified as Alternative 1 will be the proffer Bridgewater statement that we will present to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration at Ch. ntmy the public hearing scheduled for February 13, 2008. Charloltesvl Ile Fredeiicksburg I have attached a proffer statement that is identical to the previously submitted Leesburg Newoorr News Alternative 1 but without the heading on the title page identifying it as such to avoid Virginia Beach anyconfuslon. Winchester wOOdbnd If you have any questions, please feel free to can me at (540) 667 -2139. LABORATORIES- chautlu Sincerely, Freeerlc'a6urg Patton Harris Rust & Associates MARYLAND OFnces' Baltimore Columbia Patrick R. Sowers Frederick Germantown Enclosure Hollywood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENNSVNANIA OFFICE. Allentown WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE Ma rtii nsbuig T 540.6672139 F 540 665 0493 1 17 EOSt Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Patton Hag Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors_ Planners. Landscape Architects. PHPA coRVOSA,E: chanlilly �nzcrwA 011111,_ Bndeewcter Chantilly Charlottesville Frederictrsbura Leesburg Newport News Vlrginla Beach Wincneslei Woodbrdoe LABORArCLES'. chanlill Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES'. Baltimore colvmblc Frederick Germantown Hol lyvvood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENN 1I1ANIA Orrice Allentown WE$' VII( IA OFFICE- Martinsburg i 540.667.2139 F 540 665 0493 117 Ernst Piccadilly Sleet Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 January 29, 2008 Mr. Michael Ruddy Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application Dear Mike: JEt ! ? � 2C0 At the January 16, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting, I presented two alternative proffer statements for the Planning Commission's consideration regarding the Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application. I would like to formally withdraw the proffer statement identified as Alternative 2 as submitted to your office. As such, the proffer statement previously identified as Alternative 1 will be the proffer statement that we will present to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration at the public hearing scheduled for February 13, 2008. I have attached a proffer statement that is identical to the previously submitted Alternative 1 but without the heading on the title page identifying it as such to avoid any confusion. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (540) 667 -2139. Sincerely, Patton Harris Rust & Associates Patrick R. Sowers Enclosure Patton Harris Rust & Associates I Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. P 7 117 East Piccadilly Street H Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 To: Mike Rudd}, AICP Organization /Company: Frederick County Planning and Development From: Patrick Sowers Date: October 12, 2007 Project Name /Subject: Artillery Business Park Rezoning Application Please find attached the following revised materials for the Artillery Business Park Rezoning Application: 1. Revised Proffer Statement 2. Revised Impact Analysis Statement 3. VDOT Comment Feel free to call if you have any questions. Thanks. PRS OCT 2 2001 SEP 2 1 2001 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 Candice Angie Mark Dana Eric Mik John Lauren COMMENTS Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time): U:\Pam \Common\Document Approval Form.wpd