Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08 CommentsTO: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director FROM: Roderick B. Williams fk County Attorney DATE: September 2, 2008 MEMORANDUM 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us RE: HHHunt Route 50 Assisted Living Facility Revised Proffer Statement I have reviewed the above referenced Revised Proffer Statement, dated August 18, 2008. It is my opinion that the Revised Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following: Second paragraph To avoid any potential ambiguities, the language at the beginning would better read, "Any improvements or other requirements proffered herein and the word "proffered" should appear before "improvement" in the second line. Also, the term "at the time of development" is unclear as to precisely what constitutes "development" for purposes of commencing proffered obligations. Finally, it would be helpful if the reference to the GDP stated that the GDP is comprised of one page. Proffer 2.2 The Revised Proffer Statement does not include the referenced Exhibit A. In the absence of such an exhibit, the Revised Proffer Statement should at least state any minimum percentages of each surface (brick and siding) that would be required in the elevations. Proffer 3.1— The ultimate dedication of the 25 feet of right -of -way for the Round Hill Road extension is contingent on a factor out of the County's control, namely that "others" would "install" the facility. In this regard, the Revised Proffer Statement does not account for what happens if the "others" inform the County that "construction of said road will commence within a reasonable period of time as the Revised Proffer Statement suggests, and the County in turn Michael T. Ruddy, AICP September 2, 2008 Page 2 informs the Applicant, per the Revised Proffer Statement, but for some reason the construction does not occur or is not completed. Proffer 3.3 Again, consistent with my comment above regarding the second paragraph of the Revised Proffer Statement, which paragraph provides that the proffered improvements "shall be provided at the time of development the proffer may be unclear as to when the obligation would commence. Also, the reference to `Botanical Drive" should be changed to "Botanical Boulevard which is the correct name of the road My previous comments remain that the Rezoning Application and the Revised Proffer Statement will need to be signed by both of the individual owners (Darla Poe Funkhouser and Sharon S. Poe, or their attorney(s) -in -fact) of Parcels 53 -A -81 and Parcels 53 -A -82. In addition, the application materials need to include copies of any powers of attorney that have been used, with the power of attorney for Parcel 53B -3 -25 indicating the capacity (office /title) in which the signatory for PHTH Properties, LLC is acting. Along similar lines, the Applicant will need to resolve the questions regarding the ownership of Parcels 53 -A -81 and 53 -A -82. The only documentation that the Applicant has produced so far are two deeds for Parcel 53 -A -82 (the eight acre parcel), each conveying a one quarter interest jointly to Ms. Funkhouser and Ms. Poe. This leaves unexplained the remaining one -half interest in the parcel, as well as the entire interest in Parcel 53 -A -81 (the one acre parcel). Until all owners of all relevant parcels have executed the Rezoning Application, the matter is not properly before the Commission or the Board. Furthermore, the Revised Proffer Statement would not be binding as to owners of relevant parcels that do not execute it. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Mike Ruddy From: Chris Mohn [cmohn ©bowmanconsulting.com] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 5:34 PM To: Mike Ruddy Cc: Chris Oldham; Michael Pointer Subject: Emailing: Weave Analysis Technical Memo 09.05.08.pdf Attachments: Weave Analysis Technical Memo 09.05.08.pdf «Weave Analysis Technical Memo 09.05.08.pdf» Hello Mr. Ruddy! Attached is the weave analysis prepared for the right in /right out entrance proposed with the HHHunt rezoning. It was inadvertently left unattached to your copy of Michael Pointer's response letter to Matt Smith /VDOT's comments. Our humble apologies for the oversight. Note that VDOT has been provided with the weave analysis as well as the revised proffer statement and GDP (both dated September 5, 2008). Please advise should you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached information. Best, Chris Christopher Mohn, AICP I Bowman Consulting The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Weave Analysis Technical Memo 09.05.08.pdf Note: To protect against computer viruses, e -mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e -mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 1 GOROVE /SLADE ASSOCIATES, INC. 3914 Centreville Road Suite 330 Chantilly, VA 20151 MEMORANDUM TO: Bo Cook HH Hunt Michael Pointer, ASLA Bowman Consulting FROM: Tushar Awar, P.E. Chad Baird DATE: September 5, 2008 SU BJECT: HH Hunt Assisted Living Facility— Weaving Analysis INTRODUCTION Phone: 703 7879595 Fax: 703-787-9905 The proposed HH Hunt assisted living facility is located just outside the city of Winchester along the south side of Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) bounded by Echo Lane to the west and Ward Avenue /Botanical Boulevard to the east. The proposed HH Hunt development plan consists of an assisted living facility with approximately 87 beds. The development will have primary access from Ward Avenue and a secondary access (RIRO) from Route 50 (Northwestern Pike). A revised traffic impact study dated August 15, 2008 prepared for the proposed development was submitted to VDOT for review. One of the comments received from VDOT on the traffic study pertaining to the right -in right -out access along Route 50 was: In regards to the right in /right out entrance on Route 50 as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP); we have concerns that the right out turn movement may create potential weaving problems at the intersection for drivers exiting the entrance and then entering the left turn lane. We question the need for the right out at this secondary entrance and would prefer it be limited to a right in only entrance as was done for the adjacent hank parcel. WEAVING ANALYSIS Per VDOT's request, a weaving analysis was conducted for the PM and Saturday peak period to evaluate any potential weaving problems at the intersection for the drivers turning right out and then entering the left turn lane at the downstream intersection. To be conservative, all traffic turning right out of the limited access entrance was assumed to use the left turn lane at the downstream intersection. The distance between the right -in right -out entrance and the downstream intersection is approximately 500 feet. HCS+ software was used to conduct the analysis. Type C (b) weaving shown in Exhibit 13 -10 (shown on the next page) in the HCM manual was used. TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC and PARKING www.goroveslade.com HH Hunt Assisted Living September 5, 2008 Page 2 Exhibit 13 -10: Two -Sided Weave 8 EMiBII 13 -10. TYPE C IWEAVEG SEGMENTS a. HaforV ve4.'it4outLane Balance or Verging Table 1: Weaving Analysis Results Weaving Analysis PM Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour LOS Weaving Segment Density LOS Weaving Segment Density A 9.19 pc /mi /In A 10.6 pc /mi /In CONCLUSIONS Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.5. The volume ratio* for the PM peak hour is 0.04 and for the Saturday peak hour is 0.03. The weaving analysis results show that the weaving movement will operate at acceptable levels of service conditions. The HCM output sheets are attached at the back of the memorandum. *Note: The volume ratio is the proportion of weaving vehicles 172 the total fow computed as the weaving volume divided by the total volume in the weaving area. TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC and PARKING www.goroveslade.com Phone: E -mail: HCS Freeway Weaving Rele110 e 5.21 Fax: Operational Analysis Analyst: TA Agency /Co.: Gorove /Slade Associates Date Performed: 8/20/2008 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Period Freeway /Dir of Travel: Eastbound Route 50 Weaving Location: Between RIRO and Ward Avenue Jurisdiction: Frederick County Analysis Year: 2010 Description: HH Hunt Assisted Living Facility Inputs Freeway free -flow speed, SFF 55 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 3 Weaving segment length, L 500 ft Terrain type Level Grade Length mi Weaving type C Multilane or C -D Volume ratio, VR 0.04 Weaving ratio, R 0.14 a (Exhibit 24 -6) b (Exhibit 24 -6) c (Exhibit 24 -6) d (Exhibit 24 -6) Weaving intensity factor, Wi Weaving and non weaving speeds, Si Number of lanes required for Conversion to pc /h Under Base Conditions Non Weaving Weaving V V V V A -C B -D A -D B -C Volume, V 1278 1 41 7 veh /h Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak 15 -min volume, v15 355 1 11 2 v Trucks and buses 10 10 10 10 Recreational vehicles 10 10 10 10 Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.935 0.935 0.935 0.935 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 1519 1 48 8 pc /h Weaving and Non Weaving Speeds Weaving 0.08 2.30 0.80 0.60 0.31 49.28 Non Weaving 0.0020 6.00 1.10 0.60 0.06 57.52 unconstrained operation, (Exhibit 24 -7) 2. Maximum number of lanes, w (max) (Exhibit 24 -7) 3.0 Type of operation is Unconstrained Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity Weaving segment speed, S 57.18 mph Weaving segment density, D 9.19 pc /mi /ln Level of service, LOS A Capacity of base condition, cb 6010 pc /h Capacity as a 15- minute flow rate, c 5617 pc /h Capacity as a full -hour volume, ch 5055 pc /h Limitations on Weaving Segments If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 56 3500 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 525 2250 b Volume ratio, VR 0.04 0.50 c Weaving ratio, R 0.14 0.40 d Weaving length (ft) 500 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc /h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. Phone: E -mail: a (Exhibit 24 -6) b (Exhibit 24 -6) c (Exhibit 24 -6) d (Exhibit 24 -6) Weaving intensity factor, Wi Weaving and non weaving speeds, Si Number of lanes required for HCS Freeway Weaving Relee 5.21 Operational Analysis Analyst: TA Agency /Co.: Gorove /Slade Associates Date Performed: 8/20/2008 Analysis Time Period: SAT Peak Period Freeway /Dir of Travel: Eastbound Route 50 Weaving Location: Between RIRO and Ward Avenue Jurisdiction: Frederick County Analysis Year: 2010 Description: HH Hunt Assisted Living Facility Inputs Fax: Freeway free -flow speed, SFF 55 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 3 Weaving segment length, L 500 ft Terrain type Level Grade e Length mi Weaving type C Multilane or C -D Volume ratio, VR 0.03 Weaving ratio, R 0.18 Conversion to pc /h Under Base Conditions Non Weaving Weaving V V V V A -C B -D A -D B -C Volume, V 1470 1 42 10 veh /h Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak 15 -min volume, v15 408 1 12 3 v Trucks and buses 10 10 10 10 Recreational vehicles 10 10 10 10 Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.935 0.935 0.935 0.935 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 1747 1 49 11 pc /h Weaving and Non Weaving Speeds Weaving Non Weaving 0.08 0.0020 2.30 6.00 0.80 1.10 0.60 0.60 0.35 0.07 48.41 57.18 unconstrained operation, v (Exhibit 24 -7) 1. Maximum number of lanes, iw (max) (Exhibit 24 -7) 3. Type of operation is Unconstrained Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity Weaving segment speed, S 56.84 mph Weaving segment density, D 10.60 pc /mi /ln Level of service, LOS A Capacity of base condition, cb 6010 pc /h Capacity as a 15- minute flow rate, c 5617 pc /h Capacity as a full -hour volume, ch 5055 pc /h Limitations on Weaving Segments If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 60 3500 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 602 2250 b Volume ratio, VR 0.03 0.50 c Weaving ratio, R 0.18 0.40 d Weaving length (ft) 500 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc /h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five -lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [mailto:Rhonda.Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] On Behalf Of Smith, Matthew, P.E: Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:42 AM To: Michael Pointer; Eric Meske Cc: John Bishop; Candice Perkins; mruddy @co.frederick.va.us; Copp, Jerry; Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Baluch, Stephen Subject: Route 50 Assisted Living Facility Revised Entrance VDOT Comments to Rezoning A VDOT review has been conducted on the revised rezoning application with the latest proffers dated September 5, 2008 for the Route 50 Assisted Living Facility. This rezoning appears to have a measurable impact on Route 50 and Route 1317, Ward Avenue. These routes are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the revised transportation proffers and the revised entrance (as shown on the attached pdf) addresses transportation concerns associated with this rezoning request. The Route 50 entrance design shown on the attached pdf needs to be incorporated in the Generalized Development Plan. «5132 -D -CP- 001 -00 -RTE 50 ENTRANCE RIGHT 1N2 11x17 (1).pdf» Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Matthew B. Smith, P.E. Residency Staff Engineer VDOT Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone (540) 984 -5615 Fax (540) 984 -5607 Mike Rudd From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Funkhouser, Rhonda Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Smith, Matthew, P.E. Matthew .Smith @vdot.virginia.gov] Wednesday, August 20, 2008 9109 AM Michael Pointer tlawson @Isplc.com; mruddy @co.frederick.va.us; John Bishop; Copp, Jerry; Short, Terry; Hoffman, Gregory; Smith, Matthew, P.E. Route 50 Assisted Living Facility VDOT Comments to Rezoning A VDOT review has been conducted on the revised rezoning application with the latest proffers dated August 18, 2008 for the Route 50 Assisted Living Facility. We have the following comments: In regards to the right in /right out entrance on Route 50 as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP); we have concerns that the right out turn movement may create potential weaving problems at the intersection for drivers exiting the entrance and then entering the left turn lane. We question the need for the right out at this secondary entrance and would prefer it be limited to a right in only entrance as was done for the adjacent bank parcel. Proffer 3.3 Whatever monetary transportation contribution that is agreed upon should not be limited to a specific improvement, but rather be able to be used for transportation improvements in the general area of the development at the County's discretion. VDOT also has concerns with limiting the funding to only 5 years from the date of the zoning approval. The primary entrance off Ward Avenue needs to continue the existing 3 lane curb and gutter section established in front of the United Bank to the southern property line of the Assisted Living Facility. Additional right -of -way dedication needs to be provided to accommodate all roadway improvements. The 50.50' lot frontage width forces the commercial entrance off the right -of -way and onto parcel 53B -3 -24. Additional right -of -way, agreements, and easement will need to be obtained from parcel 53B -3 -24 to allow proposed improvements as shown on the GDP. Traffic signals along this stretch of Route 50 are coordinated to work together. The TIA's recommendation of adjusting the signal timings and cycle length at the Route 50 /Ward Avenue Intersection may have negative impacts on the overall function of the signals along this corridor. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs and drainage features for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work pemed on the State's right -of -way rr be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Matthew B. Smith, P.E. Residency Staff Engineer VDOT Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone (540) 984 -5615 Fax (540) 984 -5607 2 Mike Ruddy From: Rod Williams Irwillia @co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 1:25 PM To: 'Mike Ruddy' Subject: RE: new proffers Mike, I have now reviewed this latest version of the proffer statement and believe that it addresses the remaining legal and ambiguity issues that I had raised. Rod Roderick B. Williams County Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, 3rd Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone: (540) 722 -8383 Facsimile: (540) 667 -0370 E- mail: rwillia a(�co.frederick.va.us From: Mike Ruddy mailto :mruddy @co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:13 PM To: rwillia @co.frederick.va.us Subject: new proffers Attached fyi. Mike. 1 TO: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director FROM: Roderick B. Williams County Attorney Rhiti DATE: September 23, 2008 MEMORANDUM 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us RE: HHHunt Route 50 Assisted Living Facility Revised Proffer Statement dated September 5, 2008 I have reviewed the above referenced Revised Proffer Statement, dated September 5, 2008, and the correspondence from Bowman Consulting, dated September 22, 2008. It is my opinion that the Revised Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following: Third paragraph Proffer 3.2 The Revised Proffer Statement should provide a specific identification, other than what is shown on the GDP, of the precise portion of the Marathon Bank/United Bank property (Parcel 53B -3 -24) that is subject to the rezoning and the Revised Proffer Statement. Also, throughout the Revised Proffer Statement, it may be best simply to refer to the bank as "Marathon Bank/United Bank Proffer 3.2 The Revised Proffer Statement does not explain that the referenced items in Proffer 3.2 are on Ward Avenue. Likewise, the reference to "the southern boundary line of the Property" should clarify that it is to the southern boundary line of the Marathon Bank/United Bank property, as that is what appears to be intended. Seeing as how Marathon Bank/United Bank has now joined as a party to the Revised Proffer Statement (which Marathon Bank/United Bank has signed), the Revised Proffer Statement should state that Marathon Bank /United Bank will grant or dedicate the referenced right -of -way, easements, and the like. Finally, the Revised Michael T. Ruddy, AICP September 23, 2008 Page 2 Proffer Statement should identify a specific time or event which triggers Marathon Bank/United Bank's obligation to make the undertakings. Proffer 3.3 The Revised Proffer Statement currently contains two items numbered as 3.3. The second 3.3 should be changed to 3.4. In the first 3.3, the word "potential used to describe inter parcel access, creates ambiguity as to whether the Applicant will in fact allow any inter parcel access. The Application will need to be signed by all owners of all affected parcels and the application materials need to include copies of any powers of attorney that have been used for the Application and/or the Revised Proffer Statement. In this regard, I note that Mr. Cook has now signed the Revised Proffer Statement for all persons other than Marathon Bank/United Bank. Also, the jurat for Ms. Sharon Poe's signature still indicates that Mr. Lawson was signing for her, but the signature appears to be that of Mr. Cook. Finally, the power of attorney for Parcel 53B -3 -25 will need to indicate the capacity (office /title) in which the person granting the power for PHTH Properties, LLC is acting. Along related lines, the Applicant will need to resolve the questions regarding the ownership of Parcels 53 -A -81 and 53 -A -82. The only documentation that the Applicant has produced so far are two deeds for Parcel 53 -A -82 (the eight acre parcel), each conveying one quarter interests jointly to Ms. Funkhouser and Ms. Poe. This leaves unexplained the remaining one -half interest in the parcel, as well as the entire interest in Parcel 53 -A -81 (the one acre parcel). Until all owners of all relevant parcels have executed the Rezoning Application, the matter is not properly before the Commission or the Board. Furthermore, the Revised Proffer Statement would not be binding as to owners of relevant parcels that do not execute it. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Mike Ruddy From: Rod Williams [rwillia @co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 1:07 PM To: 'Mike Ruddy' Subject: HHHunt rezoning Attachments: HHHunt proffer statement of 2008 08 18.doc Mike, Attached is my memo with comments on the revised proffer statement dated 8/18/08. I will send a hard copy to you in the interoffice. You will note that, in the second to last paragraph of my memo, I have noted the concern about the titling of the parcels (specifically the Poe /Funkhouser parcels; title to the Ward Avenue parcel looks OK). I had the opportunity to take a look at the land records, including the old ones that are only available at the Courthouse, and not remotely, and I found no other conveyances from Ralph Poe to Darla and Sharon, other than the two one quarter interests. If Darla and Sharon have previously acquired the remaining one -half interest, they did not do so directly from Ralph Poe. Mr. Lawson and company absolutely need to get this straightened out before we can proceed further, because right now we do not have (all of) the necessary parties /interests before the County with the rezoning application. Rod Roderick B. Williams County Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, 3rd Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone: (540) 722 -8383 Facsimile: (540) 667 -0370 E- mail: rwillia(ct7co.frederick.va.us TO: Michael T. Ruddy, MCP Deputy Planning Director FROM: Roderick B. Williams County Attorney DATE: September 2, 2008 MEMORANDUM 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us RE: HHHunt Route 50 Assisted Living Facility Revised Proffer Statement 1 have reviewed the above referenced Revised Proffer Statement, dated August 18, 2008. It is my opinion that the Revised Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following: Second paragraph To avoid any potential ambiguities, the language at the beginning would better read, "Any improvements or other requirements proffered herein and the word "proffered" should appear before "improvement" in the second line. Also, the term "at the time of development" is unclear as to precisely what constitutes "development" for purposes of commencing proffered obligations. Finally, it would be helpful if the reference to the GDP stated that the GDP is comprised of one page. Proffer 2.2 The Revised Proffer Statement does not include the referenced Exhibit A. In the absence of such an exhibit, the Revised Proffer Statement should at least state any minimum percentages of each surface (brick and siding) that would be required in the elevations. Proffer 3.1 The ultimate dedication of the 25 feet of right -of -way for the Round Hill Road extension is contingent on a factor out of the County's control, namely that "others" would "install" the facility. In this regard, the Revised Proffer Statement does not account for what happens if the "others" inform the County that "construction of said road will commence within a reasonable period of time as the Revised Proffer Statement suggests, and the County in turn Michael T. Ruddy, AICP September 2, 2008 Page 2 informs the Applicant, per the Revised Proffer Statement, but for some reason the construction does not occur or is not completed. Proffer 3.3 Again, consistent with my comment above regarding the second paragraph of the Revised Proffer Statement, which paragraph provides that the proffered improvements "shall be provided at the time of development the proffer may be unclear as to when the obligation would commence. Also, the reference to "Botanical Drive" should be changed to "Botanical Boulevard which is the correct name of the road. My previous comments remain that the Rezoning Application and the Revised Proffer Statement will need to be signed by both of the individual owners (Darla Poe Funkhouser and Sharon S. Poe, or their attorney(s) -in -fact) of Parcels 53 -A -81 and Parcels 53 -A -82. In addition, the application materials need to include copies of any powers of attorney that have been used, with the power of attorney for Parcel 53B -3 -25 indicating the capacity (office /title) in which the signatory for PHTH Properties, LLC is acting. Along similar lines, the Applicant will need to resolve the questions regarding the ownership of Parcels 53 -A -81 and 53 -A -82. The only documentation that the Applicant has produced so far are two deeds for Parcel 53 -A -82 (the eight acre parcel), each conveying a one quarter interest jointly to Ms. Funkhouser and Ms. Poe. This leaves unexplained the remaining one -half interest in the parcel, as well as the entire interest in Parcel 53 -A -81 (the one acre parcel). Until all owners of all relevant parcels have executed the Rezoning Application, the matter is not properly before the Commission or the Board. Furthermore, the Revised Proffer Statement would not be binding as to owners of relevant parcels that do not execute it. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. TO: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director FROM: Roderick B. Williams County Attorney DATE: August 14, 2008 MEMORANDUM RE: I- IHHunt Route 50 Assisted Living Facility Proffer Statement 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia @co.frederick.va.us I have reviewed the above referenced Proffer Statement, dated June 24, 2008, and received by me on August 7, 2008. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement. subject to the following: Second paragraph To avoid any potential ambiguities, the language at the beginning would better read, "Any improvements or other requirements proffered herein and the word "proffered" should appear before "improvement" in the second line. Also, the reference to the GDP is unclear. I have only the single sheet entitled "Generalized Development Plan HHHunt Corporation Route 50 Assisted Living Facility," dated January 2008, and prepared by Bowman Consulting, and it does not include any other documents or bear any indicia of being "revised through June 24, 2008." Proffer 1.1 The provision regarding the conditions under which other B2 uses would be allowed may be of limited effect in restricting other B2 uses, as the provision does not indicate who makes the determination of what constitute "reasonable recommendations" nor does it indicate any standards for making that determination. In addition, the recommendations would be made solely by a consultant of the Applicant's choosing. Proffer 1.2 The reference to the earlier of one year from zoning approval or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, concerning construction of the specified improvements, is likely Michael T. Ruddy, AICP August 14, 2008 Page 2 meaningless, seeing as how it appears that no structure contemplated by the rezoning application could lawfully be occupied in compliance with County zoning until the rezoning is approved. The period should be based only from zoning approval. Also, for clarity in the last sentence, regarding other road connections, "adjacent (or future) roads" would better read "future adjacent roads." Finally, the word "potential" makes it unclear whether the Applicant is actually committing to construct the connections to future adjacent roads. Proffer 2.2 The proffer does not state any minimum percentages of each surface (brick and siding) that would be required in the elevations. The proffer also indicates that the appearance of the facility will be "as depicted in exhibits provided." No exhibits have been provided to me, nor have any exhibits been stated to be incorporated as part of the proffer statement, as they would need to be in order to have any binding effect as a proffer. Proffer 3.1— The qualifier "possible" before "right -of -way dedication" makes it unclear whether the Applicant is actually committing to make the dedication, even if the Round 1 -fill Road extension is "installed" within the five -year period. The term `installed" is also in need of further definition, so that the proffer is clear as to what constitutes occurrence of the condition precedent within the stated five -year period. Generally, as well, the County may wish to consider the limitations to it of the five -year period. Proffer 3.3 The proffer is unclear as to what future development of the site the referenced revised TIA would be submitted for. The proffer is also unclear as to how concerns raised in that revised TIA would be addressed. Proffer 3.4 The proffer for a contribution to road improvements, within 500 feet of the property, to Route 50, Ward Avenue, or the Round Hill Road extension, says that it is conditioned upon such improvements being completed within five years of the zoning approval, but then says that payment "shall be made" upon Applicant's receipt of a notice of commencement of the improvements. The proffer needs to clarify which time frame determines the obligation. Generally, as well, the County may wish to consider the limitations to it of the five -year period. The Proffer Statement will require a signature by the Applicant that indicates the capacity in which the signatory for the Applicant is acting (e.g., title) and, as well, the Proffer Statement will need to be signed by both of the individual owners (Darla Poe Funkhouser and Sharon S. Poe) of Parcels 53 -A -81 and Parcels 53 -A -81. In addition, the application materials need to include copies of any powers of attorney that have been used and the power of attorney for PHTH Properties, LLC will need to indicate the capacity in which the signatory executing same for that entity is acting. Finally, staff will want to make sure the signatures on the Rezoning Michael T. Ruddy, A1CP August 14, 2008 Page 3 Application form satisfy the same requirements as indicated here for the signatures on the Proffer Statement. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. aTILA X11 r 1 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 9 ACRE PARCEL, ROUTE 50 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA FOR MR. C. ALLAN LOGAN. SR. [1HIIUNT OCTOBER 26, 2007 vl ID -a 1 nrr IL: Reference: ECS MID- ATLANTIC, LLC 1 r;eotechnical Construction Materials Environmental Facilities ■-lr. C. Allan Logan- Sr. 111-11-1unt 117 Edinburgh South Suite 100 C'aly, North Carolina 27511 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation 9 Acre Parcel, Route 50 Winchester, Virginia October 26. 2007 ECS Job No. 9194 Dear Mr. Logan: As authorized by acceptance of our proposal No. 172+9 -GP, EC'S Mid- Atlantic, LLC (ECS) has completed the preliminary gcotechnical evaluation for the referenced site. This report provides geotechnical information and preliminary recommendations addressing the suitability of soil, rock and groundwater conditions for installation and support of proposed development. The site appears suitable for the proposed assisted living development. There are, however, some geotechnical issues that must be considered for planning and budgeting. Of primary concern are the characteristics of the underlying limestone bedrock. The depth to bedrock is highly variable throughout the site due to the pinnacled \veathering \which occurs in this geologic terrane. Additionally, large detached boulders may also be encountered in the soil profile. Refusal depths in limestone generally represent the practical limits of conventional excavation. A total of six (61 test pits were excavated with some encountering bucket refusal on hard rock and others to the limits of the equipment. The depths of the test pits excavated ranged from bucket refusal at approximately three (3)' feet to equipment limits at I 1 feet below existing grades. Therefore, dependent of final grading plans and maximum cuts and fills, deep utility installations and confined excavations may encounter shallow limestone bedrock which could require more costly rock excavation methods (e.g., chilling and blasting or hoe: ramming) to reach the proposed utility inverts and road and building pad grades. The site is located in a geologic terrane that is identified to have karst development potential. For construction recommendations regarding karst development, please see the "Special Considerations Karst Terrane" section of this report. The residual soil profile \veathered from limestone presents additional challenges to site grading. Specifically, these materials, described as low plasticity silts and clays, are unstable when exposed and saturated, especially in roadways and heavily traveled areas. Excavated material reused as fill can be difficult to wort: with under wet conditions, and extended crying periods 166 Windy 1-fill Lane. Winchester. VA 22602 .(5-1(0667-3750 •FAX 1545)1 667 -3731) •\v\\'w.eislinlited.cum Ahcrnlcen. 11I) Baltimore. MI) Chantilly. VA charbntc+villc. VA PltJrricl.. \II) Predcri l..bul c. \'A 1I;uia 't., VA t (.cant City. :\tI t• Richmmil• V:\ R:rtnd.IK. V:\ \'itpini;t Iteach. V:\ \\';aaorl: 111) William"""(. winch,. iep \'A Ynth. IS\ (elan, CI Viet tads 9 Acre Parcel Rout 50 ECS Job No. 9194 Ociobei 20. 2(107 Page 2 may he required to reduce moisture content to levels suitable for till. Therefore, earthwork costs higher Than usual can be anticipated cluring the wetter months. Additionally, for this reason, earthwork operations should be performed under the guidance of a qualified geolechnic:l engineer. We will be pleased to provide these services during construction. The soil samples analyzed were classified as low plasticity clays. High plasticity soils are encountered in this geographic region and may be encountered during earth work 011 this site; therefore, we have enclosed the section on "Special Considerations High Plasticity Soils 11' high plasticity suspect sails are encountered, These materials should be tested for their swell potential betlre being utilized as till material. It has been a pleasure working with you oft this project. If you have questions regarding this report, or il'we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Rcspcctfidly, ECS Mid-Atlantic, I.,LC Lv C,rti Ishua \V. Holloman. C.P.G. Senior Engineering Geologist I:iQcM.chniciaMeponSVl 4 tie 50 9 Acr 91 191_12ic50 9_Acrt lc Aoc Stuart B. Ivlayb Senior Project Engineer REPORT PROJECT Prel1minaq Geolechnica1 Evaluaticu 9 Acre Parcel- Route 50 Winchester, Virginia CLIENT Mr. C. Allan Logan- Sr. Fl I I1-1unl 117 Edinburgh south Suite 100 Cary, North Carolina 27511 PROJECT 9194 DATE October 26, 2007 OVERVIEW Project Description 1 Scope of Work EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Subsurlitec Exploration Procedures Laboratory Testing Program 1 EXPLORATION RESULTS Regional Geology 2 Soil Conditions and lest Pit Observations 2 Groundwater Conditions 3 Seismic Considerations 4 APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Suhgrade Preparation and Earthwork Operations 4 Rock Fill 6 Blasting Operations 6 Foundations 7 Slab -On -Grade Building Below Grade Drainage 9 Exterior Pavement 9 Special Considerations High Plasticity Soil 1 I Special Considerations Karst Tenpin 12 Closing 14 PAGE Project Description Scope of \'ork Subsurface Exploration Procedures Laboratory Tcstimo Prooram OVERVIEW The project parcel, approximately nine (9) acres, is situated along US Route 50 in Frederick County, west of Winchester, Virginia. The property is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. The site is characterized as slightly rolling terrain, predominantly grass pastures with isolated stands of brush and tress. Numerous limestone outcrops, commonly referred to locally as rock "breaks were encountered, lvpically within the tree lines of the pastures. The conclusions recommendations contained herein are based on a site reconnaissance, review of soil surveys and geological references, t d excavation and observation of six (6) test pits, with visual and laboraion' classification of soil materials. Select samples were tested for engineering properties including Alterberg Limits, Grain Size Analysis. Natural Moisture Content nncl California Bearing Ratio (C13R). A rubber tired backhoe was utilized to excavate the soil Zest pits. The pits were generally excavated to either bucket refusal on hard bedrock or to the maximum equipment reach of approximately 11 feet. The lest pits were excavated under sub contract with Tire Distributes of Virginia. Field activities were supervised and directed by ECS personnel. Test pit locations were selected and marked in the field based on information from the provided properly plat, topographic plan and aerial photograph. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES A total of six (6) test pits were excavated using a Case Model 580 with a maximum reach of about I 1 feet. Dense rock was encountered in lour (4) of the excavated pits, at depths ranuiug from about approximately Three (3) to 8.6 feet below existing grades. Observations of soil and rock characteristics are summarized on the test pit logs in the appendix. All test pits were immediately back filled and then bucket tamped to consolidate the back fill. Please he advised, however, that loose back011 in structural locations may require some re- compaction, undercutting and replacement or other improvement prior to placement of subbase stone for pavement, or construction of footings or building slabs. An experienced geologist classified soil and rock materials in the field on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. All data obtained from the visual classifications are included on the respective logs in the Appendix. The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses Ibllowing the soil descriptions. A brief explanation of 9 Acre Parcel Route 50 ECS Joh No. 9194 Ociebcr 26, 2007 P ate 1 Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit (LL) and Plasticity Index (P1) Natural Moisture Content (NMC) e Grain Size Analysis (GSA) a California Bearing Ratio (CI3R) Regional Geolog!' the Unified System is included tt'ith this report. The geologist grouped the various soil IVpes Into the major zones or strata noted on the logs. Variations in the depth and type of soil and ruck conditions between test pits should be expected. Select samples were also laboratory classified lin• engineering properties to verify the accuracy of the field classifications. The laboratory testing included the following parameters: The soil samples will be retained for a period of 61) days unless other instructions are provided for their disposition. Soil Conditions and Test Pit Observations EXPLORATION RESULTS According to the Geologic Map of the Virginia Portion of the Winchester 30 .v 60 Minute Qiuidrnngle (2001), the site is underlain by the Conoeocheague Formation. The Conocoeheaguc Formation is composed of algal limestone with interbedded aphanitie limestone and dolomite wish siliceous and dolomitic laminations common and lower portions containing oolites, intrafonnalional conglomerates and Slromatolite structures. There are minor sandstone beds throughout the formation. Depth to rock can be extremely variable due to the pinnacled, solutioncd nature of'weathering that occurs over carbonate bedrock materials. Ledges or vertical sills (pinnacles) of resistant rock may be encountered at or near the surface separated by deep zones of residual soil (cutters). The test pits were excavated to depths ranging from about three (3) to 11 feet below existing grades. Dense limestone bedrock was encountered in four (4) of the excavated pits at depths ranging up to approximately S.6 feet. Most of the refusals represent boulders or ledges of dense limestone exposed in only a portion of the pit. In some instances, deeper zones of soil were observed directly adjacent to Ilse outcropping bedrock. Topsoil thickness observed on the site ranged from approximately 12 to 15 inches throughout the site. Residual soils in the uppermost strata classified as low plasticity clays. The soil was generally compact and slily with moderale excavation resistance. No loose zones or sidewall collapses were observed in any (tithe excavations. The plasticity index (PI) values of samples submitted for testing ranged from 18 27 with liquid limit values ranging from 37 to 49 and plastic limits ranging from 19 to 22. These soils are 9 Acre Parcel R0tne 50 ECS Joh No. 9194 Oclohcr 20. 2007 Page 3 Groundwater Conditions classified by the USCS as low plasticity clays (CL). Typically, soils with a PI value of 25 may be moderately expansive while soils with a PI value greater than 30 may be highly expansive, depending on the mineralogy. Given the variable liquid limits, some of these materials may be expansive. The stability of these soils is highly sensitive to moisture changes or construction disturbance. Heavy rainfall and saturation frequently can cause destabilized subgrades that are prone to pumping and rutting under construction traffic. Conversely, extended periods of drought will lead to severe desiccation. Consequently, moisture control of these materials, both in cuts and where the soil is remolded in engineered fills, is critical during earthwork operations. Standard Proctor testing of a collected bulk sample indicates a maximum dry density of 105 pounds per cubic foot (pet) at an optimum moisture content of 18.9 percent. The soil was generally moist at depths greater than one ibot. Moisture contents were determined to be in the range of 14.1 to 34.9 percent. Optimum moisture content for these types of soil can be expected to be in the range of about 14 to 21 percent. In this geologic termite, a shallow water level typically develops near the soil /bedrock interface at depths of approximately 20 to 30 feel below existing grades. Groundwater lends to Ilow laterally along the soil /rock interlace, generally mimicking topography. Impervious beds highly permeable fracture zones and utility trenches may distort seepage patterns. Observations for perched groundwater (i.e., resting on top of rock) or shallow water level conditions were made during drilling operations. Visual observations of soil samples may also be used to evaluate seasonal groundwater conditions. Soils that are periodically saturated will exhibit gray muted colors (greyed) or mottling due to changes in the oxidation state of iron, manganese and other trace minerals. Usually, rainfall will infiltrate the overburden soils until it reaches competent bedrock, or other impervious strata, whereupon it begins to flow down gradient. occasionally surfacing as wet springs and intermittent streams. A persistent water level generally occurs only in low -tying areas and adjacent to creeks; otherwise, it is related to rainfall and thus only transient in occurrence. No groundwater was observed in any of the test pits. However. excavations performed doing or shortly following precipitation could encounter water flowing on top of the rock. The highest groundwater levels are normally encountered in late winter and early spring. Variations in depth to the perched water table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation, evaporation, runoff and other factors not immediately apparent at the time of this exploration. Therefore we strongly urge that grading be undertaken to coincide with better weather periods. Otherwise, fill operations may be slowed by moisture control measures (i.e., wetting or drying). 9 Acre Parcel Rorie 50 ECS Job No. 919-1 October 26, 2007 Page a Seismic Considerations The 200 Edition ol'the International Building Code (IBC') requires that a Seismic Site Class be assigned for new stt'uulu The seismic Site Class may be determined by a N value for subsurface materials to a depth of 100 feet. For this determination, N Values of six (6) w ere assigned lo the material encountered in the test pits and are used for the overburden soil. All materials below the depth of bucket relinsal on hard rock is (lo a depth ol'.100 feet) assigned an N -value of 100. For this report, the Site Class was delermincd usimt the A' value method. Hard rock was encountered at depths ranging from approximately three (3) to over 11 feel. With Ibis information, an T value of 50 bpi' or less is calculated for this site, indicating the site has a Seismic Site Class of D. Seismic site classification may be relined donne the detailed geotechnical investigation by either evaluating the soil test borings or by conducting geophysical testing to determine the actual subsurface seismic velocity profile for the site, as warranted, dependent on foundation design and expense considerations. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based on visual and laboratory analysis of soil and rock materials exposed in the test pits al the project. To summarize, most of the site is underlain by dense limestone at variable depths. The overburden soils are characterized as low plasticity clays. These materials are generally a marginal source of till and may be suitable for loundauion support provided they are properly moisture conditioned. These soils are sensitive to moisture changes; therefoe, special precautions should be taken when placing these materials in controlled struct}nal fill intended to support pavement or foundation systems. The following sections provide a more detailed discussion of issues related to rock excavation, fill placement, suburade preparation and other construction considerations. At a mininumt, we recommend that additional samples of proposed fill material from ensile or offsite borrow sources be collected prior to construction so that moisture- density relationship (i.e.. 'Proctor tests can be perforated. This data can then be used to assist inspectors in quality control monitoring of compaction requirements during subsequent fill placement and subwrade preparation activities. Subgrade Preparation and Earthwork Operations Subgrade preparation should consist of stripping all vegetation, root gnat, topsoil, and any other soft or unsuitable material from building and pavement areas. Based on our obsen'aiions, an average stripping thickness of 12 to 15 inches should be assumed across the site. Deeper areas of 9 Aviv Parcel Route 50 ECS Job No. 9194 October 26_. 2('07 Pave 5 soft, compressible topsoil and root -mat material were noted onsite that may require selective undercutting, depending on final grades. However, we ;nnicipate that I hese materials may be blended with controlled fill or respread in non structural green areas as long as the blended organic content of engineered fills is less Then i percent and the fill is free of root material greater then 1/2-inch diameter. We recommend the earthwork clearing be extended a minimum of 10 feet beyond the building and pavement limits and an additional one (1) fool laterally fix each vertical foot of fill required. After shipping to the desired grade, and prior to till Placement, the stripped surface should he observed by an experienced Gcolechnical Engineer or his authorized representative. Proof rolling using a loaded dump truck, having an axle weight of at least len (10) tons should be usecl to identify localized soft or unsuitable material. Any soft or unsuitable materials encountered during proof rolling should be removed and replaced with an approved backlill compacted to the criteria provided below. No groundwater was observed in any of the test pits. However, excavations performed during or shortly after precipitation could encounter water flowing on top of the rock. Groundwater flow can usually be controlled through trenching operations. Trenching should be aggressively undertaken to actively intercept water flowing upgradient of the work area. The flow can usually be channeled down an existing drainage swale or around the excavation to minimize groundwater problems. Any soil placed as engineered fill should be an approved material, flee of organic matter or debris, not -frost susceptible, and non -swell prone. Unacceptable fill materials include topsoil, organic materials (OH, OL), construction debris, large rock and high plasticity swell prone silt and clay. The shrink swell potential of soil shall be assessed through a combination of Atterberg Limits, Gradation Analysis and /or swell tests in the laboratory. All such materials removed during grading operations should be either stockpiled for later use in landscaped areas or placed in approved disposal areas either on site or off site. Fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness before compaction with heavy vibratory compaction equipment, and moisture conditioned to within =2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content, 1V recommend that each lift be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance with ASTM D -698, Standard Proctor h'lethod. Fill materials shall not be placed on frozen soils. All frozen soils should be removed prior to continuation of fill operations. Likewise, bonvw shall net cocain frozen materials al the lime of placement. All frost- heaved soils should be removed prior to placement of fill, stone, concrete, or asphalt. All till operations and subgrade preparation should be observed on a lull -time basis by an authorized representative of the Geotechnical Engineer to determine that compaction requirements are being met. The limits of proposed building and pavement areas should be field staked prior to till placement. Grade control should be maintained throughout earthwork 9 Acre Parcel Route 50 I?C'S Job No. 9194 Oe1ober 26. 2007 Page 6 operations. A minimum of one compaction test per 2.500 square feet should he pertbrmed fi each lift placed ro verily field observations. Compaction tests shall be conducted utilizing a properly calibrated nuclear moisture density gauge or sand cone apparatus. The elevation and location of field Tests should be clearly recorded. Theoretically, any equipment type can be used Ihr compaction as long as the required density is achieved. However, granular soils achieve hest compaction with a smooth chum vibratory roller or rubber -tired compactor. Cohesive soils should be compacted \\Pith a Nvedgefoot roller. fill containing an abundance of rock and line-grained soil matrix should be compacted utilizing a v ibratory roller. All areas receiving till should be graded to facilitate positive drainage and prevent pooling OI \\Pater. Rock rill Depending upon the extent of grading, large volumes of shot rock and boulders may be generated in deeper cut areas and utility excavations. Larger fagmients should be sufficiently crushed for use in engineered fill and the use of this material should be carefully controlled to prevent settlement or consolidation of fill below roadways and structures. Selection of proper equipment and aggressive working of these materials will be necessary to reduce the rock to sufficient size ancl generate adequate lines to fill voids. in this regard, loose 1111 thickness in controlled fills should be maintained al eight (8) inches or Tess to ensure adequate crushing and blending of the rock with soil and rock fines. Maximum rock particle size should be Tess then six (6) inches within the upper five (5) feet of fill beneath structures and the upper two (2) feet of fill below pavement. The fill material should have a minimum of 20 percent passing the '1200 sieve and 50 percent passing the 40 sieve. The maximum rock particle size in deeper fill should be maintained al 10 inches or Icss. Normally, a vibratory sheepsl'oot roller with a minimum dynamic force of 15 to 25 tons is required to accomplish this size reduction. In some cases lame boulders may be reduced to acceptable particle sizes utilizing a hoe -ram. Blasting patterns in more competent rock can also be set to sufficiently break the rock so that it can he directly incorporated into the till mass. We anticipate Mal periodic moisture conditioning ol'the fill.matcrials \\Pill also be necessary to achieve an acceptable moisture level to obtain maximum density. Careful monitoring of this process of crushing, moisture conditioning and blending is necessary to ensure a uniformly compacted till mass. Therefore, full time observation and testing by a qualified representative of the geotechnical engineer is recommended dining all controlled fill operations. The Gcolcchnical Engineer should select the most appropriate "Proctor curve" for earthwork compaction. Blasting Operations Grading and utility installation may involve rock excavation. It is unlikely that the limestone can be efficiently excavated below our refusal depths. Blasting for installation of utilities or mass excavation is a common practice in this geographic area. Ofporamouni concern, and a problem 9 Acre Parcel Route 50 L•CS ich No. 919-1 fcichcr 26.. 2007 Page 7 of significant potential cost, is that of "overshooting" the rock. Overshooting is more problematic in laminated materials where seismic ti rtes generated by blasting are transmitted downward and outward beyond the shot point. Massive formations, such as limestone, typically absorb most of the shot force resulting in only localized breakage. However, soil loss into the voids created by blasting can lead to future settlement, especially when earthen 1i11 is placed over shot rock. Therefore, charge patterns and depths should be carefully selected. if overblasting occurs, the disturbed materials may require removal and replacement, depending on the location relative to structures. The Geotechnical Engineer should meet with the grading contractor and blasting crews to review shot patterns and blasting procedures to minimize difficulties associated with ovcrblasting, if necessary. Foundations Subsurface conditions al the site arc judged suitable for supporting the proposed structures and other similar loaded structures on shallow foundation systems consisting of isolated and /or continuous footings. Footings will likely bear on residual soil or dense limestone. For preliminary planning, a net allowable soil barring pressure of 2,000 psf should be used for the foundation design. The net allowable soil bearing pressure refers to that pressure which may be transmitted 10 the foundation bearinu soils in excess or the final minimum surrounding overburden pressure. Shallow rock was encountered during our investigation that will potentially require removal during foundation excavation. If foundations are to bear on multiple surfaces such as rock and surrounding soils, we recommend performing a one (I) foot undercut into the rock and placing a "cushion" of engineered fill to reduce the potential for differential settlement. Engineered till material criteria are outlined in the "Subgrade Prepurution and Eurt /:work Operations" section of this report. If the majority of the footing excavations encounter rock, we recommend that soil filled zones between the exposed rock be excavated to rock and backfrlled with VDOT No. 21 -3 stone. Footings resting in engineered fill may also be designed for a soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. provided that the material is placed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the section entitled "Suhgrade Preparation and Earthwork Operations The bearing capacity at the footing elevation should be verified and documented by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that it is adequate for the design loads. Settlement of individual footings, designed in accordance with These recommendations, are expected to be small and within tcilerable limits for the proposed structure. Total settlement of Icss than one 11) inch with differential settlements of less than inch are anticipated. Differential settlements along continuous wall footings are not expected to exceed an angular distortion of 0.002 inch /inch. These settlement estimates are based on our engineering experience and are provided to guide the structural engineer in the design. 9 Acre Parcel Route 50 1= CSJobNo 9194 October 26, 2 201)7 I' 8 In order to prevent disproportionately small footing sizes, WC recommend that continuous footings have a minimum width of L5 feet and that isolated column footings have a minimum lateral dimension 2.5 feet. The minimum dimensions recommended above help reduce the possibility of foundation bearing failure and excessive settlement due lo local shear or "punching" action. In addition, footings should be placed at a depth to provide adequate frost cover protection. Therefore, we recommend that footings in healed areas be placed al a minimum depth of two (2) feel below the finished grade, and perimeter footings, subject to climatic variation. he located at a minimum depth 01'2 .5 feet below finished grade. Exposure In the environment may weaken the soil at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a lime. Therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are performed. I1' bearing soils are softened by rainfall, the softened soils muss be removed from the foundation excavation immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation muss remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, we recommend that a one (1) to three (3) -inch thick "maid oral" of "lean" concrete be placed on the bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel. An authorized representative oldie Geotecltnical Engineer should observe footing installation. Upon completion of footing and foundation wall construction the excavation should be hackfilled with clean suitable material in accordance with current building cedes. Further; any water accumulated in foundation excavations prior to hacicfilling should be pumped out immediately. Care should be exercised to preserve the hearing capacity of foundation soils in this manner and should not be considered as an insignificant detail. Slab-On -Grade Slab subgrades should be prepared in accordance with the Subgrade freparurian and Earthwork Operations section of this report. Floor slabs should be designed assuming a Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K of 100 pci. Subgrade soils should be observed prior lo placement cd'stone lbr the subslab. Any soft soils identified should be removed and replaced with suitable granular materials. We recommend that the floor slab be isolated from the foundation footings so that differential settlement of the structure will not induce stresses on the floor. Also, in order lo minimize the crack width of any shrinkage cracks that may develop near the surface of the slab, we recommend That mesh reinforcement (6x6x6 W\VF) be included in the design. The mesh should be placed in the top half of the slab to be effective. Special attention should he given to the surface curing of the slab in order to minimize uneven drying and associated cracking or curling. During cold weather concrete placement, when temperatures fall below freezing, the slab should be protected with insulating blankets or other devices to maintain an acceptable curing tenmperattire. 9 Acre Parcel Rowe ii) GCS lob No. 9194 Ocioher26, 2007 Page 9 We also recommend that the slab -on -grade be underlain by a minimum of' four (4) inches of No. 57 stone. This granular layer evil) facilitate fine grading and minimize intrusion of water. Prior to placing the stone, the subgrade should be properly compacted, proolrolled and free of standing water, mud, and frozen soil. Before placement of concrete a six (6) -mil vapor barrier of polyethylene sheeting should be placed on top of the stone to provide additional moisture protection. If floor loads in excess of 500 psi are expected, we recommend Thal the granular material beneath the floor be increased to a minimum thickness of six (6) inches, with addilional reinforcing placed, aS determined by the structural engineer. The structural engineer should also review and modify the concrete slab thickness in these areas if appropriate. Final site grading should provide for a minimum of a Five (5) percent positive slope in order to chain water away from the building and off paved areas. If positive surface slope cannot be maintained around the building, then a four 141 -inch diameter sloped PVC perimeter drain should be installed on lop of the footings outside the huilclin■. The chain should slope to a suitable outlet or sump. Building Below Grade Drainage As required by the Building Code, all below grade walls should, at a minimum, be dampproofed. and the building should have an exterior perimeter drainage system. The dantpprooting shan extend from the top of the footing to above the finished exterior grade, and should consist of sealing holes, recesses, joints and penetrations with an approved bituminous material, followed by puffing the masonry walls with a 3 /8 -ineh minimwn thickness coat of Portland Cement, and applying at feast one coat of approved bituminous material at the recommended rate. High plasticity soils are generally unacceptable for use as below grade wall backlit'. The perinteler drainage system should consist of slotted corrugated drainpipe located around the perimeter of the below grade outside walls and slightly below the basement floor level. These drain lines should be surrounded by a minimum of six (6) inches of free draining granular material VDOT 57 stone. The granurlar drainage material should be wrapped with geole_xtile fabric. As previously mentioned, we recommend that any basement floor slab be underlain by a minimum of four (4) inches of free draining granular material. The underslab drainage blanket and drain Ides should he designed Ibr discharge by gravity where possible, or to 011 interior sump pit or daylight drain. Exterior Pavement For the design and Construction of flexible pavements, we recommend that topsoil and any other soli or unsuitable materials be removed litho the paved area. The slipped surface should he proof- rolled and c observed during construction to identify localized soli or unsuitable material to be removed. 9 Acrc• Parcel Route 50 ECS Job No. 9194 pciobcr 26. 2007 face 10 An important consideration in the clesiun and construction of pavements is surface and subsurface drainage. \\-here standing water develops, either on die pavement surface or within the base course layer. softening of the subgradc and other problems related to deterioration ol'the pavement should be expected. b'Iaintaining positive surface drainage will minimize saturation and deterioration of the pavement subgrade. An additional measure, consisting elinstallation of under drains underlying the pavement section should be installed in order Id prevent saturation of subgrade soils and resultant premature pavement degradation. The under drains should be routed to appropriate storm drains or day lighted to appropriate outlets. CBR resting of a collected bulk sample is bang conducted. CBR test results will be submitted under separate cover at a later date. for preliminary pavement design. a CBR value of six (6), as recommended by VDOT for this geographic region, was utilized. The on -site soils are generally considered poor to marginal subgrade materials. Based on the preliminary CBR design value of six (6), in conjunction with the guidelines from the Asphalt Institute, the recommended pavement sections for this project are as follows: Reconnnended Pavement heavy Traffic Light Duty Section Areas (in.) Traffic (in.) Bituminous concrete surface course 1.5 1.0 Bituminous base course 5.0 ?.5 Untreated aggregate Subbase (21 B) •6.0 6.0 (Asphalt Pavement Thickness Design; A Simplified and Abridged Version of the 1981 Edition of The Asphalt Institute's Thickness Design Manual (NIS -1), Second Edition January 19831 It should be noted that these pavement design recommendations may not satisfy the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) I'or deceleration lanes or intersections. Any roadways constructed for public. use or to be dedicated to the Slate for repair and maintenance must be designed in accordance with VDOT specifications. This will require that final CBR tests be perfbnned on the actual subgradc soils prior to paving. Final pavement design will be based on those 013R results and traffic frequency information. Large, front loading trash duirytstcrs frequently impose coneen(rated front -wheel loads on pavements during loading. This type of loading typically results in rutting of the pavement and ultimately pavement and subgrade failure. Therelin•e, we recommend that the pavement in clumpster collection areas consist of a six (6) -inch thick, mesh reinforced concrete slab will, a minimum uncanfined compressive strength of 4,000 psi. 9 Acre Parcel Route 50 t_CS fob No. 9194 October 24. 2(117 Page 11 Special Considerations High Plasticity Soil As noted, the samples that were analyzed consisted of kw plasticity clays although high plasticity soils may be encountered on the site. When encountered, the high plasticity soils will become weak and unstable when saturated, especially in a disturbed condition (i.e., in fills or traffic areas). If a high plasticity soil is excavated and reused as (ill, these materials can often be difficult to work with when moisture contents are high. Extended drying periods are required to reduce the moisture to a level suitable for placement as fill. Therelore, higher earthwork costs should be anticipated when dealing with these materials during wetter months. Within building areas we recommend that high plasticity soils not be utilized as engineered 1111. Furthermore, if soils which appear to have high swell potential are encountered during foundation excavation, the swell potential of the soils shall be verified either Through performing swell tests in a CBR mold or performing a swell pressure analysis utilizing another suitable method. Soil exhibiting swell greater Than Three (3) percent by volume or swell pressures greater than 500 psi shall he undercut so that the footings extend to a minimum of at least 'bur (4) feel below lop of slab or finished exterior grade. II' the bottom of the swell prone soil is shallower Than four (4) feet, then the lbundations need only be extended to the depth required to completely step Through the material. The purpose of embedment is to ensure That the footings are placed below the seasonal moisture change elevation. Where seasonal moisture change can be reduced, volumetric changes (e.g., shrinkage and swelling) in the soil will be impeded. At the embedment depth, the litolings may be designed with the necessary width and utilizing the recommended bearing pressure. Swell prone soil with plasticity indices greater than 25 at the slab subgradc should be undercut a minimum of two (2) feet and rcpiaced with non expansive structural fill. Again, the pupose of the undercut is to reduce moisture variations and the resulting potential for volumetric change. Further, the non expansive till replaced in the undercut provides additional confining pressure to resist swell of the underlying soil. Beneath pavements, high plasticity swell prone soil should not used within two (2) feet of the finished subgrade elevation. The final two (2) feet of fill should be select material, meeting the criteria previously defined for engineered till. The major limitation to the use of these materials is that they are extremely moisture and disturbance sensitive. Even xvhen compacted, these soil materials may rapidly destabilize when saturated and subject to construction traffic. Special Considerations karst'ferrane As noted previously, this site is located within a geologic termite where sinkholes and other karst features are common. Development_ growth and the ultimate subsidence or collapse of sinkholes is primarily influenced by surface water. Infiltrating acidic Surface water dissolves the rock over geologic timcsc:les, opening subsurface channels and conduits, and may lead 10 erosional loss of overburden soils into slots in the rock, leaving soil voids above. Changes in the surface or subsurface hych.aulic characteristics of a site can lead to the formation of these features or enhance the potential for sink holes li open either gradually or catastrophically. If karst risk 9 Acre Parcel Route 50 ECS Job No. 9194 October 26. 2007 Page 12 reduction is d&Sired, 111 x(1(1111011 to geotechnical services for the detailed investiealiun, we recommend a geophysical stud be completed once Ole design and footprints Ibr structures and roadways are completed. We will be pleased to provide these services once the final building locations are determined. Except under II1e moll obvious Of circumstances, it is difficult to determine the exact location of sinkholes. Our review of geotechnical investigations in the area as well as ugeolouic and soil maps, indicate That there arc clusters and structurally controlled bands of sinkholes in the geographic vicinity of the site. There are certain customary precautions which arc recommended for planning and construction that will reduce the risk of a sinkhole, collapse feature or other karst impact from developing and damaging constructed roads, buildings and subsurface infrastructure. As previously noted this site potentially has sinkholes or soil domes yet to be encountered. If suspect features are encountered, we recommend exploratory rock drilling prior to construction of the foundation elements. We also recommend that the following preventative measures be implemented in order to minimize and /or eliminate the potential inducement of a ktrst feature in proposed building and paved areas: I. All earthwork operations should be graded to drain away from the building area at all times. Upon completion of daily earthwork operations, the ground surface should be sealed by thorough rolling to minimize infiltration of precipitation and facilitate runoff'. 2. All sediment control management facilities should be located outside of planned construction areas. Where practical, inlets associated with storm drain systems should not be utilized as temporary sediment control devices during construction. 3. During construction care should be taken to minimize and /or eliminate the ponding crf surface tvater in an(I /or adjacent to the building or pavement areas. The foundations should be excavated and poured the salve clay, il' possible, or the foundation soils must be provided with a mud mat. 4. Visual observations during all earthwork operations should be carried out in order to detect any previous unexposed or recently created collapse features. Any such feat UN should he called to the geotechnical engineer's attention Ibr repair. 5. Consideration should be given to lining storm water ponds, if incorporated in the development, tvitlt the more impervious clays excavated from the site to reduce bottom seepage. 6. Positive grading around buildings with a relatively impervious capping Fill or tying of downspouts into storm sewer lines should also be provided to minimize infiltration of water below foundation systems. All foundation construction should he carefully 9 Acre Parcel Route 50 I.CS Job No. 919 October 3S, 2007 Page 13 monitored to verify the integrity of the exposed soil and rock. Where large voids or soil pipes are discovered, these areas should be excavated and restored with at inverted filter. Typically, the inverted filter consists of coarser aggregate at the bottom of the void. Subsequent lifts of stone become progressively finer towards the surface or subgrade. The filter is then choked off with a suitable filter fabric to prevent loss of soil fines from the remaining fill placed over it. More specific guidance for construction of the inverted lilier can be provided during site work when the geotechniea) engineer can closely examine the area and make the appropriate recommendations for stone sizing. For smaller voids, it may be more effective to simply seal these off with low strength concrete or grout. 7. Rock blasting should also be minimized to avoid opening deep fractures in the rock that Might ;1cl as conduits for soil loss and enhanced) corrosion. Blasting operations should be carefully monitored to assess the impacts orbluslinu on nearby undisturbed rock after the shot has been made. Areas of exposed rock that are cracked or fissured by blasting should be covered \vith sufficient soil and graded to prevent !minding. If additional evaluation of potential karst risk is desired, we recommend conducting additional geophysical surveys of the planned structural locations and identified features. In particular, an electrical resistivity survey of the planned footprint of the structures and immediate areas would assist in the evaluation of potential karst feature development within the underlying carbonate bed Subsurface characteristics, such as sinkholes, soil pockets, sub -rock voids, solution channels, bed fractures, pinnacled bed surfaces, differentially weathered lineaments and planes, and groundwater conditions, can potentially be imaged with electrical resistivity surveys. Evaluation of the collected data would assist in the delineation of subsurface karst features and risk associated with potential karst and sinkhole development. Substantial cost savings may be realized by determining, the location of potential karst features prior to final design and the initiation of earthwork activities and project' development. 9 Acre Parcel Route 50 GCS Jolt No. 9194 October 26, 2007 Page 14 Closing This report has been prepared for the civil engineer and developer to guide final design of referenced property. Once final plans are available, ECS should be retained to review the plans to determine whin further investigation or analysis of soil or rock conditions may be tvarranlccl. We strongly recommend that earthwork and foundation construction activities be monitored by a qualified geotechnical engineering firm to provide necessary overview and to determine the suitability of the suh!!rade soil and rock for supporting foundations and slabs. "[his will require full time observation and testing during earthwork act ivities. APPENDIX Site Vicinity Map Site Topographic Map Test Pit Location Diagram Test Pit Loss, TP -1 through TP -24 Unified Soil Classification System Soils Laboratory Test Data Route 50 9 Acre Parcel Winchester, Virginia 166 Windy Hill Lane Winchester. \'A 22602 �Sile Vicinity Map ECS Project 9194 0 I. 'i 1 1,... f 4....,,-- ...s 7 0. .1 7 4 s: i 1 i 6 ,I 7 Radlc i oroft•r -i. P ,:s1 APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION I 1 s 0 V r S., 2.) i e....- 1 -5 t. I PN s 4 .•9(' 1.1 I ,f, w AI(' I -itl /;/t( 3 4 i' \J ii t 1,_ 1 18 I, 1 1 J5:2 i 1 fsk, Route 50 9 Acre Parcel Winchester, Virginia ••-"Xtur-, i 1... L/ \J v "';/k.c 4 4 i ;f )9 t? ic e 4 :‘firo 9 1 1 1 i t.,..• C.V,.. I 7 1 h r 1 .s e I/ i 1 i 1, ...:::•-(i• ic 4 -4 I I (-•••/j s \••••,•:,17 ii j i i e4 1 C....., r :S tg) fk; '1 A C 71 i 1 t I I 1 4 rt 11' f f ggY 11 •/P 166 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Site Topographic Map ECS Project 9194 r tr t sir �r. f de r CI 6 9 i ,I I r r ei iii. y` 81 86. Route 50 9 Acre Parcel Winchester. Virginia TP-5 166 Windy hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 t Te it Pit Location Plan CS Project 9194 LL.0 MID ATLANTIC DEPTH ELEV. {FT.) (FT) PROJECT ROUTE SO PROPERTY CLIENT: LOCATION: FREDERICK COUNTY, VA JOE 9194 ARCHJENG: DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL TOPSOIL DEPTH 12" Silly CLAY, Reddish Brown, Ivioisf, (CL /CH) k BUCKET REFUSAL 0 8.6' REMARKS: EXCAVATION EFFORT: E EASY A7 MEDIUM D DIFFICULT VD VERY DIFFICUL OPERATOR: MODEL: CRPAC /Tr`. UNITS: English TEST PIT it SURFACE ELEVATION: EPPC T E M TP -1 LCY ECS ENs3'R: SBM DATE: 10/16/07 8 1 0 14 18 22 MAKE: 2 4 6 REACH: 0 T H E STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT T H E APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN S O I L T Y P E S IN -SITU T H E T R A N S I T I O N F SAY BE GRADUAL CONTRACTOR: PROJECT IJAL :E: ROUTE 50 PROPERTY TEST PIT;: TP -2 !c'ih LLC CLIEA'T: JOB Ft: 9194 SURFACE ELEVATION: MID- ATLANTIC DEPTH (FT.' ELEV. (FT.) LOCA TION: FREDERICK COUNTY, VA ARCH.iE /-0G: EFFORT DSP OP 110, wsi 0 2 4— G- 6- 10— 14 18 22— DESCRIPTION OF L IATERIAL TOPSOIL DEPTH 12" Clayey SILT, With Rock Fragments, Tan, Moist, (ML /MH) :C E SW OM •iii WM Clayey SILT, Red, Tan, Moist, (CL) END OF TEST PIT 0 11.0' REHARKS: THE 3 LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE' BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY EE GRADUAL EXCAVATION EFFORT: E EASY. 14- MEDIUM D DIFFICULT VD VERY DIFFICULT CONTRACTOR: OPERATOR: ECS ENG'R: SBM MAKE: MODEL: DATE: 10/16/07 REACH: CAPACITY' UNITS: English 0 N 0 PROJECT 7:4tL;E: ROUTE 50 PROPERTY TEST PIT .r.: TP -3 SSLLC CLIENT: JOE 9194 1 94 SURF ICE ELEVATION: MID ATLANTIC DEPTH (F T.) ELEV. (FT.! LOCATION: FREDERICK COUNTY, VA ARCH. /E7: "G: poR EFFORT JCF CF' n ';0. C 0: ST co n e 0 2 4— 6 8 10 14 18 22— DESCRIPTION OF I. TEPIAL TOPSOIL DEPTH 13" E Clayey SILT, With thin bedded Limestone, Tan, Moist, (ML /MH) at wilt um �mi C siiiii Ns Or OM um ;K. A 1\ Silty CLAY, Red, Brown, Moist, (CL /CH) BUCKET REFUSAL C© 9.0' REMARKS: THE STRATIFICATION LIMES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES EET1 VEEN SOIL TYPES, IN -SITU THE TRANSITION L M YSE GRADUAL EXCAVATION EFFORT: E EASY Lt- MEDIUM D DIFFICULT VD- VERY DIFFICULT CONTRACTOR: OPERATOR: ECS ENGR: SBM LIAKE: MODEL: DATE 10/16/07 PEACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: English 0 N 0 RRI T E NAME: 7E: ROUTE 50 PROPERTY i EST PIT 'I:: TP -4 L LC CLIENT: JOB: 91 94 SURFACE ELEVATION: MO ATLANTIC DEPTH (FT.) ELEV. (FT.) LOCATION" F REDERICK COUNTY, VA ARCH;ENG: EFF0.4i FFORT' DCF CF S41.' 1:0 6'O:Sl Com 0 u 2— 4- 6- 8- 10 14 18 22 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL TOPSOIL DEPTH 12" E Silty CLAY, With Rock Fragments, Reddish Ton, Moist, (CL /CH) M BUCKET REFUSAL 3.0' REMARKS: THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES, IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAYBE GRADUAL EXCAVATION EFFORT: E• EASY Lt MEDIUM( D DIFFICULT VO- VERY DIFFICULT CONTRACTOR: OPERATOR: ECS EJJG'R: SBM MAKE: MODEL: DATE: 10/16/07 REACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: English PROJECT NAME: ROUTE 50 PROPERTY TEST PIT::: TP -5 !,74;!; LLC CLIENT: JOB 9194 SURFACE ELEVATION: MID ATLANTIC DEPTH FT) ELEV. (FE) LOCATION: FREDERICK COUNTY, VA I ARCH,ENG: E`R`° E C 1, UCP uP Iri•. CONT COIR. 2 4— 6- 8— 10 14 18 22 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL TOPSOIL DEPTH 12" E Clayey SILT, With Rock Fragments, Reddish Tan, Moist, (CO M BUCKET REFUSAL 4.0' REA;ARKS: THE S` RA TIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETI4EEN SOIL T YPES, IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL EX'CAVA TJONEFFORT E EASY 1.1 LIEDIUM DIFFICULT YD- VERYDIFFICULT CONTRACTOR: OPERATOR; ECS ENG'R: SBM LAME: MODEL: DATE: 10/16/07 REACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: English W PROJECT C NAME: TEST PIT U: ROUTE 50 PROPERTY TP -6 CLIENT: JOB It SURFACE 9194 ELEVATION: MID ATLANTIC DEPTH (FT.) ELEV. (PT) LOCATION: FREDERICK COUNTY, VA ARCH.iENC: Es CRT DCP CF s =uoi8 1:0 C COM. 0 2— 4 6— 8 10 DESCRIPTION OF;.!ATEFJAL TOPSOIL DEPTH 14" TM E f Silty CLAY, Red Ton Brown, Moist, (CL /CH) k` 4o∎ M in o ik` silty CLAY, Reddish Brown, Moist, (CL /CH) tsit Lii N END OF TEST PIT 11.0' 14 18 22 REMARKS: THE S RA TIFICA TION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES, 114 -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY 8E GRADUAL EXCAK4TiON EFFORT: E EASY 14 MEDIUM 0 DIFFICULT VD VERY DIFFICULT CONTRACTOR: OPERA TOR: EC5 ENG'R: SBM MAKE: MODEL: DATE: 10/16/07 REACH: CAPACITY: UNITS: English O i 0 a 0 O Group Melor Divitiont mewl: Silty sands, send-silt mixtures Poorly graded prevail, gratin- and mix. turn, littlt or no finer Silty gravels, grevol- send•silt mixtures Clayey grav els, Wavel•und¢loy mix- tures We II•gredcd sands, gravelly sands, little or no fine; Poorly graded sands, gravelly sandt, little or no lines C o MI. Unified Soil Classification System (,4STM D•2487) TYpkel Name. Wail- predod gravels, pravel•und mix. tures, Milt or no tint' Clayey sands, send•clay mixtures tnorgsrtic tins end very tine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey tina.unds, or clayey tilts with slight plasticity inorganic clan: of low to stadium CL PluticitY, gravelly slew:, sandy clays, Oily clays, lean stew' OL Organic silo and organic silty clays of 50 low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatoms. H clout fine sandy Or silty soils, elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fit clays 0H Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic tilts Pt Peat and other highly organic soils K 40 9 c ;6 30 S 20 10 060 graeter than 4; C 033012 between 1 and Dig Dip X Dap Not meeting all @redetion requirements for GW Atterberg limits below •'A" Ile or P,I. less than 4 Atterberg limits below "A" line with P.I. grainer than 7 Obb greater then 6; 4, fD3o1 between 1 and :1 Dip Dig D6o Not meeting an predation requiraments foe SW Attirbarg limits above "A" line or Pi. lest than 4 Atterberg limits above "A" line with P.I. greater than 7 Leborerory Ciauilicetion heck Plasticity Chart Above "A" line with P.1 be 4 and 7 art border. lint taut requiring usa o' dual symbols Limits snorting in hatched zone with P.I. between 4 and 7 au borderline cross recanting use of dual sym- bols 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid limit 'Division of GM and SM groups into subdivision' of d end u arc for roads and airfields only. Subdivision k based on Attortwrg (knits: suffix 4 used whet' L.L. Is 28 or les and the P.I. Is 6 or leit: the suffix u usad when L.L. is greater then 28. b Borderline classifications, used -tor soils Posaenine charactarlatkt of two group', arc designated by eombinations of group symbols. For axampta; G•GC, wall.orsdstf graval-sana mixture with clay binder, site?. coartt-grain i I�' r k C 4 ON and MN ^—CLML CL ,r ML OL and V 0 O Group Melor Divitiont mewl: Silty sands, send-silt mixtures Poorly graded prevail, gratin- and mix. turn, littlt or no finer Silty gravels, grevol- send•silt mixtures Clayey grav els, Wavel•und¢loy mix- tures We II•gredcd sands, gravelly sands, little or no fine; Poorly graded sands, gravelly sandt, little or no lines C o MI. Unified Soil Classification System (,4STM D•2487) TYpkel Name. Wail- predod gravels, pravel•und mix. tures, Milt or no tint' Clayey sands, send•clay mixtures tnorgsrtic tins end very tine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey tina.unds, or clayey tilts with slight plasticity inorganic clan: of low to stadium CL PluticitY, gravelly slew:, sandy clays, Oily clays, lean stew' OL Organic silo and organic silty clays of 50 low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatoms. H clout fine sandy Or silty soils, elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fit clays 0H Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic tilts Pt Peat and other highly organic soils K 40 9 c ;6 30 S 20 10 060 graeter than 4; C 033012 between 1 and Dig Dip X Dap Not meeting all @redetion requirements for GW Atterberg limits below •'A" Ile or P,I. less than 4 Atterberg limits below "A" line with P.I. grainer than 7 Obb greater then 6; 4, fD3o1 between 1 and :1 Dip Dig D6o Not meeting an predation requiraments foe SW Attirbarg limits above "A" line or Pi. lest than 4 Atterberg limits above "A" line with P.I. greater than 7 Leborerory Ciauilicetion heck Plasticity Chart Above "A" line with P.1 be 4 and 7 art border. lint taut requiring usa o' dual symbols Limits snorting in hatched zone with P.I. between 4 and 7 au borderline cross recanting use of dual sym- bols 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid limit 'Division of GM and SM groups into subdivision' of d end u arc for roads and airfields only. Subdivision k based on Attortwrg (knits: suffix 4 used whet' L.L. Is 28 or les and the P.I. Is 6 or leit: the suffix u usad when L.L. is greater then 28. b Borderline classifications, used -tor soils Posaenine charactarlatkt of two group', arc designated by eombinations of group symbols. For axampta; G•GC, wall.orsdstf graval-sana mixture with clay binder, site?. coartt-grain W T E E 7 0 to fr O O In 77 a a C E E o U C) o m M N N N tc m 1n C C N O 0 co C C C N DD E II II :5 V f Cr 11 11 D J D 0 C O L N 1l) O O O O U D G Q (6 Q) .m m 2` C] D E C C) c 0 C D E to 2 O O E Il u) cs II D Q u n u U co en to O Project Name: RT.50 (9-ACRES) Principal Engineer: SEM Project Engineer: JH Project Number: Date: 10/25/07 Optimum Moisture Cg T N 0) 01 N h N N N V J J M U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^ 0 N c v 2 U to N N C) r r r N N r co N r r r t? r N C) co N 0 V' Cl -in i 0) w 0 1 N co N N N M co N N Q 0) Z CO r W N r f !1 o !n r N V) C m z N NM •d't.7t 0 W T E E 7 0 to fr O O In 77 a a C E E o U C) o m M N N N tc m 1n C C N O 0 co C C C N DD E II II :5 V f Cr 11 11 D J D 0 C O L N 1l) O O O O U D G Q (6 Q) .m m 2` C] D E C C) c 0 C D E to 2 O O E Il u) cs II D Q u n u U co en to O Project Name: RT.50 (9-ACRES) Principal Engineer: SEM Project Engineer: JH Project Number: Date: 10/25/07 Zero Air Voids Curve Gs 2.65 �i. Sample No. Street Station Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (P Liquidity Index (LI) Description Classification Specific Gravity Test Standard TP -5 49 22 27 Red Clay 2.65 0-698 Natural Moisture Content Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve Percent Retained on No. 4 Sieve Percent Retained on 3/4" Sieve (vtaximum Dry Density (pct) Optimum Moisture Content Corr. Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Corr. Optimum Ivloisture Content Percent Gravel as Tested Percent Gravel Total Test Method 21.6 72.2 13.7 0.0 99.2 21.6 105.0 18.9 13.7 A Project: Rt.50 9- acres) Project No.: 9194 Date: 10/23/2007 ECS Mid Atlantic, LLC Winchester, Virginia Moisture Density Relationship Curve PROCTOR.xis e 80 70 d. 30 20 10 0 PLASTICITY INDEX. PI 7 o o o 0 0 0 0 "A" LINE) IMH or OHj I CL or OLI a Et 0 I MLo OL 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT, LL BORING/ SAMPLE No. DEPTH (feet) TEST SYMBOL DESCRIPTION WATER CONTENT LL PL PI TP -1 5 -8' 0 TAN CLAY 40 22 18 /TP -2 2 -5' a TAN CLAY 37 19 18 TP -5 2 -4' Q RED CLAY 49 22 27 A X 0 0 0 4 X I I Project: RT.50 (9- ACRES) Project No.: 9194 Date: 10/25/2007 ECS Mid- Atlantic, LLC Winchester, Virginia Plasticity Chart MLIM.rls Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached email from VDOT to Bowman Consulting Group dated May 12, 2008. i r VDOT Signature Date: a 05/12/08 Notice to VDOT Please Return Form to Applicant CO Rezoning Comments Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984 -5600 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with their review. Attach three copies of your application form, location neap, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: HHHUnt Corporation Mailing Address: 117 Edinburgh South, Suite 100 Cary, NC 27511 Location of property: The property is located between the intersections of Ward Ave and Rte 50 (to the aatt) and Round Hill Rd and Rte 50 (to the west) on the south si of Rte 50. Zoning requested: 02 Current zoning: RA Virginia Department of Transportation 18 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 Teleph (919 14 F.1 0 5 8 7 Acreage: 10.2 319 CO 1tVLLL4 ✓V 2 Ll.lt L1 V111 1 4Vi11LJ 11111 AU11l 1iV11JV1 GL1Vlt V 1._i t V1 L Chris Oldham From: Cody Francis Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:48 AM To: Chris Oldham; Michael Pointer; Eric Meske Subject: FW: Route 50 Assisted Living Facility HHHunt Corporation VDOT Comments to Rezoning Attachments: SCN_20080512122928_001.pdf 1.w. Cody Francis, P.E. Bowman Consulting Group 571- 436 -1002 cell. From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [mailto: Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] On Behalf Of Ingram, Lloyd Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 12:30 PM To: Cody Francis Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; Eric Lawrence Subject: Route 50 Assisted Living Facility HHHunt Corporation VDOT Comments to Rezoning The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 50. This route is the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation offered; no proffers were offered addressing transportation. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from theLT.E. Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. «SCN_20080512122928_001. pdf» Lloyd A. Ingrain, Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency Land Developinent 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Phone #(540) 984 -5611 Fax #(540) 984 -5607 5/20/2008 May 14. 2008 Dear Mr. Cook: ALP /bad Mr. W.R. Cook Jr. H1-1 Hunt Corporation 117 E. Edinburgh South- Ste. 100 Cara, North Carolina 2751 it Sincerely, Amber Powers Planning Technician RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (1114413) Comments Route 50 Assisted Living Facility Rezoning PINS 53 -4-81, 53 -A -82, 53B -3 -25 107 North Kent Street, Ale 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -501)0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the I -IRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify a core battlefield within this area. 'Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Q/ E 10 From:LIFESAFE Control number Z08 -1)003 Project Name Route 50 Assisted Living Facility Address 117 Edinburgh South, Suite 100 Type Application Tax ID Number Rezoning 53 -A -81, etc. Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System Yes Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Plan Approval Recommended Date received 2/19/2008 City State Zip Cary NC 27511 Recommendations Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Automatic Fire Alarm System Residential Sprinkler System Yes No Reviewed By J. Neal Date reviewed 2/20/2008 Applicant HHHunt Corporation Fire District Rescue District 15 15 Signature Title 02/20/2008 16:09 Fire Lane Required Yes Siamese Location Roadway /Aisfeway Width Special Hazards Not Identified Not Identified No Date Revised Applicant Phone 91:- 451 -0587 Election District Back Creek #807 P.002/002 Dear Mr. Oldham: Mr. Christopher Oldham Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 124 East Cork Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 April 10, 2008 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 B „rIr RE: Rezoning Application and Master Development (MDP) Plan for Route 50 Assisted Living Facility Frederick County, Virginia We have completed our review of the rezoning application and MDP for the proposed Assisted Living Facility located off of Route 50 in Frederick County, Virginia and offer the following comments: sr3a --o o 0 3 APR t ti 2NI RECEIVED 1. Refer to the Impact Analysis under suitability of the site: The discussion of the bedrock should be expanded to address the potential for sinkhole development within the limestone which underlies the entire site. 2. Refer to the Irnpact Analysis under drainage: Indicate if there are sufficient off -site drainage channels and /or culverts to accommodate the storm flows derived from the proposed stormwater management facility. Also, indicate if the proposed stormwater pond will be designed as a BMP facility to attenuate storm flows and maximize nutrient removal. 3. Refer to Impact Analysis under Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Expand the narrative to include an estimate of the yearly solid waste in tons produced by the proposed development. 4. Refer to Impact Analysis under Impact on Community Facilities: Explain the reference to the impact on the City of Winchester when Frederick County provides all the services required by the proposed development. Route 50 Rezoning p.__ ition and Master Development Plan` Page 2 April 10, 2008 HES /rls 5. Refer to the Wetland Assessment prepared by ECS: This assessment indicates a topographic high of 825 MSL with approximately 20 feet of total relief. This observation is in conflict with the plan of the existing natural conditions prepared by Bowman Consulting which indicates a topographic high of 843.6 with approximately 35 feet of relief. This conflict needs to be corrected. 6. Refer to the MDP, sheet 2 of 3: Delineate any karst features which could impact the site development. 7. Refer to the MDP, sheet 2 of 3: Indicate the locations of any existing wells and /or drainfields which will need to be properly abandoned to accommodate development. These features currently exist on the property identified as Map I.D: 53B -3 -25. 8. Refer to the MDP, sheet 3 of 3: Any site development should be designed to insure that storm runoff is diverted to the proposed stormwater management/BMP facility and away from the single family residences fronting on Ward Avenue. I can be reached at 722 -8214 if you have any questions concerning the above comments. Cc: Mike Ruddy, Planning and Development file Sincerely, U: \rsargcnt\ Rhonda \'FEMPCOMMENTS\ RTSOWASSISTEDLIVINGREZ &MDPCOM.doc L/ n& Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works •d Rezoning Comments Mail to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 722 -3579 Fred -Wine Service Authority's Comments: Ae CaNteMo b Fred-Wine Service At Signature Date: Notice to Fred -Wine Service Authorit Frederick- Winchester Service Authority Hand deliver to: _Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Fred Winc Service Authority with their review. Attach a copy ofyonr application form, locatioi map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: HHHunt Corporation Telephone: 919) 461 -0587 Mailing Address: 117 Edinburgh South Suite 100 Caky. NC 27511 Location of property: The property is located between the intersections of Ward Ave and Rte 50 (to the east.) and Round Hill Rd and Rte 50 (to the west) on the south side of Rte 50. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: 132 Acreage: 10.2319 :31 Please Return Form to Applicant COIT flt 01r5 AIIHOHlr1EJ Ab3S ONIM a3?l3 e14:0T BB 0E adtJ Sanitation Authority Comments: TheeeF_ 5 BF YOGA c,s, S€'W,ER 'MO (///�T c' To SE,p Td✓s kot_r_T Sanitation Authority Signature Date: itA i9A,Fd08 Notice to Sanitation Authority Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868 -1061 Applicant's Name: HHHunt Corporation Current zoning: RA 23 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Mailing Address: 117 Edinburgh South, Suite 100 Cary, NC 27511 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Telephone: 919)461 -0587 Location of property: The property is located between the intersections of Ward Ave and Rte 50 (to the east) and Round Hill Rd and Rte 50 (to the wast) on the south side of Rte 50. Zoning requested: B Acreage: 10.2319 Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick- Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 722 -3480 Applicant's Name: HHHunt Corporation Current zoning: RA ealth Dept. Signature Date: Cary, NC 27511 Frederick Winchester Health Department's Comments: 24 Frederick- Winchester Health Department Mailing Address: 117 Edinburgh South, Suite 100 (to the west) on the south side of Rte 50. Zoning requested: B2 5 0 Hand deliver to: Frederick- Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Suite 201 Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick Winchester Health Department with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Telephone: (919) 461 -0587 Location of property: The property is located between the intersectiora;s of Ward Ave and Rte 50 (to the east) and Round Hill Rd and 3_A--col Rte 50 Acreage: 10. 319 Unless the proposal has changed since the attached health department comments Notice to Health Department Please Return This Form to the Applicant Frederick CourOVirginia Mail to: Frederick- Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Mast evelopment PIan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County- Winchester Health Department Hand deliver to: 2nd Floor, Suite 200 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia (540) 722 -3480 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with the sheet. Applicant's Name: Address: Phone Number: HHHunt Corporation 117 Edinburgh South, Suite 100 Cary, NC 27511 (919)461 -0587 Name of development and/or description of the request: Route 50 Assisted Living Facility Location of property: The property is located between the intersections of Ward Ave and Rte 50 (to the east) and Round Hill Rd and Rte 50 (to the west) on theseouth•side of Rte 50. A? i.i Fre. erick County Winchester Health Department's Comments: RECEIVED FEB 19 1 7j Page 29 Rezonin Comments Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665 -5678 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order td assist the Department of Parks Recreation with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information Applicant's Name: HHHunt Corporation Mailing Address: 117 Edinburgh South, Suite 100 Cary, NC 27511 Location of property: The property is located between the intersections of Ward Ave and Rte 50 (to the past) and Round Hi11_Rd and Rte 50 (to the west) on the south side of Rte 50. Current zoning: RA Department of Parks Recreation Comments: Pks. Rec. Signature Date: Zoning requested: B2 Acreage: 10 2919 Notice to Department o arks Recreation Please Return This Form to the Applicant 21 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation County Administration BIdg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Telephone: (91 961 -0597 9kFrer!erick County Pu is Schools ...to ensure ail students an excellent education tii Ivviipm FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET MAR 1 3 2 To: Cod Fronds From: Wayne Lee EW Coordinator of Pluming and Development FAX NUMBER: (540) 722 -5080 Date: Match 13, 2008 COMPANY: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 3 URGENT Q BOR. REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT PLEAS kRPI.Y I'i ASI3 RIxCYCIS Notes and Comments: FCPS comments re: Route 50 Assisted Living Facility rezoning application and master development plan application. 1415 Ar hersl,Slreet mnv.frederick,k12.va.us 540 -662 -3889 Ext 83249 P.O, Box 3508 540 4237 fax Winchester, Vfr inia 22604.2546 feev, Irederick.k12.va.us ci 0 1-0 0 9 UL171Uc 008 E (to the west) on the south side of Rte 50. Client zoning: RA zoning requested: 132 Acreage: 10.2319 Superintendent of Public Schools' Comments: to co YYL AP1 c W24 4'" Superintendent's Signature Date: 3-12-03 d1 Pc ritita.111vr Notice to School Superintendent- Please Return This Fonn to the Applicant Rezonin Comments Superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools Mail to: Frederick County Public Schools Attn: Superintendent P.O. l3ox 3508 Winchester, 'Virginia 22604 (540) 662 -3888 Applicants Name: HHHunt Corporation Mailing Address: 117 Edinburgh South, Cary IQC 27511 22 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Public Schools Attn: Superintendent School Administration Building 1415 Amherst Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Su )efintendent of Public Schools With his review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, px'offer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Telephone:( 919) 4gtt 0587 Suite 100 Location of property: The property is located 'between the intersections of Ward Ave and Rte 50 (to the Ga st) and Round i} i11,Rd and_Bta L. Preston Bryant, Jr. Secretary gfNanmal Resources Administrative Service. 10 Courthouse Ave. Petersburg, VA 23803 Tel: (804)863- [624 Fax: (804) 862 -6196 January 25, 2008 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGIN Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 Chris Oldham Bowman Consulting Group 124 East Creek Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Detailed Archives Search Route 50 Assisted Living, Health Care Facility Dear Mr. Oldham: Thank you for your recent request for information from our archives on previo archaeological and architectural resources within the area of potential effect, map, for the above referenced project. Please note that your request for infor Department of Historic Resources (DHR) Archives concerning the location of not relieve you or your client from possible obligations under state or federal regulations. I strongly recommend that you contact Dr. Ethel Eaton of the DH and Review Division at (804) 367 -2323, extension 112, if you have any questi and federal regulatory requirements. Enclosed are the maps showing the locations of any archaeological or archit your project area Copies of files on resources found within your project area These copies include survey and site forms, photographs, and other pertinen Also included is a spreadsheet printout from our architectural database with i formation on properties within your project area. The printout contains the DHR file numb r, resource name, register status (the "VIN" column), eligibility status "Y" for potentially eligible, 'N" for not potentially eligible and blank if not previously evaluated by DHR), and date of eligibility determination. We have also examined our records for information concerning eligibility det archaeological sites within your project area. If any such determinations hay dsheet printout from our archaeological database with information on si are ca area has been included. The printout contains the DHR site number, resour e eligibility status "Y" for eligible, "N" for not eligible, "potentially" if found potentially eligible and blank if not previously evaluated by DHR), and date of eligibility determination. Finally, an invoice is enclosed for the charges incurred through your use of o service. Capital Region Mae 2801 Kensington Office Richmond, VA 23221 Tel: (804)367 -2323 Fax: (804) 367 -2391 Tidewater Region Office 14415 Old Courthouse Way 9 Floor Newport News, VA 23608 Tel: (757) 886 -2807 Fax: (757) 886-2808 Roanoke Region Office 1030 Penmar Avenue, 5 Roanoke, VA 24013 Tel: (540) 857 -7585 Fax: (540) 857 -7588 13 ONG 0 Kathleen S. Kilpatrick Director Tel: (804) 367 -2323 Fax: (804) 367 -2391 TDD: (804) 367 -2386 www.dhr.virginia.gev sly recorded s delineated on your ation from the istoric resources does istoric preservation 's Resource Services ns concerning state ctural resources within are also enclosed. material, rminations for been made, a es within your project name, register status, Jr archives search Winchester Region Office. 107 N. Kent Street. Suite 203 Winchester_ VA 22 Tel: 540) 722 -3427 Fax: (540) 722 -7535 Administrative Services 10 Courthouse Ave. Petersburg, VA 23803 Tel: (804) 863 -1624 Fax: (804) 862 -6196 DHR serves as the official state repository on historic resources. This informat on has been compiled primarily by independent cultural resource consultants. DHR makes o warranty as to the fitness of the data for any purpose. The absence of historic resources in DHR ecords does not necessarily mean that no historic properties are present. It is advisable to the k with focal government planning offices for information on any properties that may meet th age and significance tests of the National Register criteria and have not yet been recordd in the DHR archives. Also, the area in question may not have been systematically surveye for resources, possibly necessitating a survey and submittal of that data with your Project Re iew application. Please contact me at (804) 367 -2323, extension 125, if I may be of further assiftance. Sincerely, Ann Dryr_y- vvellford' Archives DHR Capital Region Office 2801 Kensington Office Richmond. VA 23221 Tel: (804) 367 -2323 Fax: (804) 367 -2391 Tidewater Region Office 14415 Old Courthouse Way 2 Floor Newport News, VA 23608 Tel: (757) 886 -2807 Fax: (757) 886 -2808 Roanoke Region Office 1030 Penmar Avenue, SE Roanoke, VA 24(113 Tel: (540) 857 -7585 Fax: (540)857 -7588 Winchester Region Office 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 203 Winchester, VA 22601 Tel: (540) 722 -3427 Fax: (540) 722 -7535 Project Site o 1 4, c. 4. c- R ad crit01 r- •h4 i z )i C7 Route 50 Assisted Living, Health Care Facility 0 Bowman Consulting Group Winchester Quad /Frederick County 01/25/2008 Drury WellfordNDHR S 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles Archaeological Sites Com Architectural Resource Architectural Resource. DHR# 1 Resource Name City /County 1 Regi /Ease 034 -0346 Linden (Lupton -Woods House. 301 Round Hill Rd) 034 -0354 Singhas House 034 -0466 Renner, Charles, House 034 -0467 Old Hoover Place 034 -0469 Folk Victorian Farmhouse, Rt. 034 -0470 Farmhouse, Rt. 50 034 -1153 House, 100 Stonewall Dr. 034 -1154 House, 101 Stonewall Dr. Frederick Frederick Frederick Frederick Frederick Frederick Frederick Frederick Architectural Resources Comment 1 Eligi? Eligi Date 1 destroyed, July 2006 (fire) Y 22- Sep -94 23- Aug -94 23- Aug -94 23- Aug -94 23- Aug -94 City/Town /Village /Hamlet rural county County Frederick Street address or route number Route 803 U S.G.S. Quad Winchester Historic name The Lupton —Woods House Common name Linden Present use residential Building Style vernacular Original use residential Building Date(s) c 1840- -1860 1. Construction Materials lJwood frame 3. Stories (number) 21 basement C✓�lowbasement split —level 1 raised brick bond: English Flemish course American 4. Bpys (number): front 3 side (church) symmetrical asymmetrical 5. Roof Type shed 1 hipped parapet? pyramidal? gable mansard pediment? false mansard parapet? gambrel clipped end? flat cross gable? parapet? central front gablee' roof not visible other stretcher other stone random rubble coursed rubble ashlar dressed rock -faced log: squared unsquared notching. V -notch half dovetail saddle full dovetail square diamond concrete block terra cotta steel frame other 6. Roofing Material shingle composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) wood 10 m tal El standing seam corrugated pressed tin (simulated shingles) tile pantile flat glazed slate not visible 2. Cladding Material weatherboard composition siding vertical siding stucco board batten aluminum or vinyl siding shingle: cast iron wood sheet metal asbestos enameled metal asphalt glass bricktex other 7. Dormers (number): 0 front side gable pediment? shed hipped 8. Primary Portr style Colonial Revival b 4r h p a e ra yi stories 1 levels full height bays 3 materials wood description and decorative details Tuscan columns: plain balusters and handrails 9. General supplementary description and decoration: paired 1/1 windows; 2 interior end brick chimneys; paired frieze windows; cellar vent windows w/ wooden bars; traneom cidc lights w/ wood molding detail; 6/6 10. Major additions and alterations: windows on side; L— side screened —in porch; shaped plan w/ int. end enclosed rear ell's porches chimney; rear 1 —story l,l IQ r I lea". will 11 l 11. Outbuildings: g' Llu6ed —i 2 —story porches; side concrete block shed; screened in porch frame shed; modern ply u. as shs r v;:'1:, 12. Landscape Feat mature trees apple orchard old cistern to side of orchard 13. Significance: Only board and batten sided dwelling that surveyor has found in this area of the county. Surveyed by: Maral Kalbian Date: 6/89 VIRGINIA DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS 34 -346 HISTORIC DISTRICT /BRIEF DE1onO [Fileno. Nve no(s). 9621 i::➢ SURVEY FORM Primary Sources Published Sources Quarles, Garland R. Some Old Homes in Frederick County, Virginia, 1971, p. 199--201, #98. Plan and Massing (Note original features, additions, and alterations) Drawing of Plan Sketch of Site Plan ThS l y 17 i Interviews Name Address Phone Date Name Address Phone Date Name Address Phone Date Historical Information Quarles, 199--201, #98. M VIRGINIA DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS HISTORIC DISTRICT /BRIEF SURVEY FORM City /Town /Village /Harriet Rural County County Street address or route number Route 50 at Route 37 U.S.G.S. Quad Historic name Common name Present use residential O use residential 1. Construction Materials wood frame brick bond: English Flemish course American stretcher other stone random rubble coursed rubble ashlar dressed rock -faced log: squared unsquared notching. V -notch half dovetail saddle full dovetail square diamond concrete block terra cotta steel frame other 2. Cladding Material weatherboard vertical siding board batten shingle: wood asbestos asphalt bricktex other composition siding 11/ aluminum or vinyl siding cast iron sheet metal enameled metal glass 4. Bay (number): front t 'symmetrical vernacular Building Style Building Date(s) late 18th early 3. Stories (number) 2 low basement L� 5. Roof Type shed hipped p/parapet? pyramidal? Ea gable mansard pediment? false mansard parapet? gambrel clipped end? flat cross gable? parapet? central front gable? roof not visible other 6. Roofing Material f 1! standing seam corrugated pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑tile pantile flat slate not visible shingle composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) zi wood me 7. Dormers (number): front gable pediment? shed O hipped 8. Primary Porch style Tern a cn tl a r stories 1 levels fii1 height materials Trron(R description and decorative details plain_Y+alnstPrs and ��nrtr closed -in with p1 ast i r• s1 eeting 7 sgii re si1ppnrt.R; 9. General supplementary description and decoration: 6/6 windows; 1 central chimney; square attic windows in gable end; 2 —story rear ell with interior end flue 10. Major additions and alterations: new stucco; 1 story rear wir new paired 6/2 windows on s ide elevatior..;1 -story rear porch enclosed 11. Outbuildings: stone spring /we roof and narrow "gun- slit" frame garage alongside 12. Landscape Features: very overgrown yard; Route 37 runs Surveyed by: Leslie Giles Frederick Winchester Singhas House raised basement 4 side (church) asymmetrical side lr File no. 34 Negative nods). 9690 bays 3 19th century glazed l lhouse with split -shz windows eighteenth centui 13. Significance: Interesting stone outbuilding in front of house; property is threatened by proximity to Route 37 and. new construction nearby. Date: 06/89 Primary Sources 6 bo ao v4 De [c.t '1 Published Sources Plan and Massing (Note original features, additions, and alterations) Drawing of Plan Sketch of Site Plan 1:11 ,51nw. nA.4 r Eirrviews Name Address Phone Date Name Address Phone Date Name Address Phone Date Historical Information •5 City /Town /Village rural county County Frederick Street address or route number Route 50 U.S.G.S. Quad Winchester Historic name Common name Charles Renner House Present use residential Building Style Colonial Revival, Amer. 4— SquarE Original use residential Building Date(s) c. 1932, 1940s I Construction Materials Q wood frame brick bond: English Flemish course American 3. St pries (number) 2 Lid low basement raised basement 4. Bays (number): front 2 side (church) symmetrical Lid asymmetrical 5. Roof Type shed dhi ped parapet? 2 pyramidal? gable mansard pediment? false mansard parapet? gambrel clipped end? flat cross gable? parapet? central front gable? roof not visible other stretcher other stone random rubble coursed rubble ashlar dressed rock -faced log: squared unsquared notching: V -notch half dovetail saddle full dovetail square diamond concrete block terra cotta steel frame other p 6. Roofing Material 1 N1 sh gle Ld composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) wood metal standing seam corrugated pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑tile pantile flat glazed slate not visible 2. Cladding Material weatherboard composition siding vertical siding stucco board batten aluminum or vinyl siding shingle: cast iron wood sheet metal asbestos enameled metal asphalt glass O bricktex other bri rk fari ncd 7. Dormers (number): front sidek,, gable pediment? 1, ■,�sshed Gd'hipped 8. Primary Porch style Craftsmanr° d h ..;:.,.1:4. Y qr, r f, a II1 III ss ►1 I A. i IIIII C P stories 1 levels full height bays 2 materials wand hri rk description and decorative details Square battered columns on brick piers; plain balusters and handrail. 9. General supplementary description and decoration: Paired 3/1 wind( multi —pane door w/ multi —pane sidelights; ext. end c. chimney; 2 —pane cellar windows; flat arches over wind.oz 10. Major additions and alterations: House was moved approximateli 100 yards from its previous site; 2 —story rear porch enclosed. 11. Outbuildings: Smokehouse w/ quarters /storage upstairs; pyramidally hipped roof garage; board and batten barn; frame shed; ruins of summer kitchen. 12. Landscape Features: Mature trees and shrubs. 13. Significance: House, smokehouse, garage moved back w/ t widening of Route 50. (barn was originally behind and to the side of the house) Surveyed by: Date: Leslie Giles 7/89 11 VIRGINIA DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS HISTORIC DISTRICT /BRIEF SURVEY FORM File no. 34 466 Negative no(s). 9790 Primary Sources Published Sources Interviews Name Mrs, Charles Renner Address Route 50 Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Date 7/89 Name Address Phone Date Name Address Phone Date Plan and Massing (Note original features, additions, and alterations) t r i Drawing of Plan Sketch of Site Plan lofacf Llcxec E: rs✓ck Historical Information City/Town/ Village/ Hamlet rural county County Frederick Street address or route number Off Route 50 U.S.G.S. Quad Winchester Historic name Common name The Old Hoover Place Present use residential Building Style vernacular Original use residential Building Date(s) c. 1840 -1860 1. Construction Materials Cl wood frame brick bond: English Flemish course American 3. Stpries (number) 2 basement AO low basement raised 4. B9ys (number): front 3 side (church) OM symmetrical asymmetrical 5. Roof Type shed hipped parapet? pyramidal? gable mansard pediment? false mansard parapet? gambrel clipped end? tA( flat cross gable? parapet? central front gable? roof not visible other k' stretcher other stone random rubble coursed rubble O ashlar dressed rock -faced log: squared unsquared notching: V -notch half dovetail saddle full dovetail square diamond concrete block ❑terra cotta steel frame other 6. Roofing Material shingle composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) al wood DI rqtal 2 standing seam corrugated pressed tin (simulated shingles) tile pantile flat glazed slate not visible 2. Cladding Material DI weatherboard composition siding vertical siding stucco board batten aluminum or vinyl siding shingle: cast iron O wood sheet metal O asbestos enameled metal asphalt glass bricktex other 7. Dormers (number): front sie a� gable pediment? shed hipped 8. Primary Porch style vernacular .i. stories 1 levels full height b ays 3 materials wood description and decorative details Turned columns. IL fir 9. General supplementary description and decoration: 6/6 windows; German lap weatherboard on sides; 1 —story kitchen ell paired 6/6 sash and 6 —pane casement windows; original le (cellar Pri- i 'I l i i i 10. Major additions and alterations: New ext. end concrete block flue; new shutters;rear el side porch enclosed c. 1900 -1920 w/ German lap sidin• 2/2 p'' 9 A 1 i g 5 and window 11. Outbuildings: Board and batten chicken house; frame garage t:d i 12. Landscape Features: Mature trees and shrubs; located along an apple orchard. 13. Significance: One of the oldest houses in the immediat area; threatened by commercialgrowth around the new hospital complex. Surveyed by: Leslie Giles Date: 7/89 VIRGINIA DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS HISTORIC DISTRICT /BRIEF SURVEY FORM File no. 34 -467 Negative no(s). 9796 •F unary Sources Published Sources Plan and Massing (Note original features, additions, and alterations) Drawing of Plan Sketch of Site Plan 1 crea.cf..e- 1 T%1.11 \hi Interviews Name Address Phone Date Name Address Phone Date Name Address Phone Date Historical Information VIRGINIA DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS HISTORIC DISTRICT /BRIEF SURVEY FORM City/ Town/ Village/ Hamlet rural county Street address or route number Route 50 Historic name Present use residential Original use residential 1. Construction Materials C�'wood frame brick bond: English Flemish course American stretcher other stone random rubble coursed nibble ashlar dressed rock -faced log: squared notching: V -notch saddle square concrete block terra cotta steel frame other unsquared half dovetail full dovetail diamond 2. Cladding Material V/weath lap vertical siding board batten shingle: wood asbestos asphalt bricktex other composition siding stucco aluminum or vinyl siding cast iron sheet metal enameled metal glass 3. Stories (number) 2 low basement 4. By s (number): front symmetrical 3 5. Roof Type shed 1p parapet? V gable pediment? parapet? clipped end? ross gable? central front gable? other r 6. Roofing Material shingle composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) wood Ern tal E standing seam corrugated pressed tin (simulated shingles) the pantile slate not visible County Frederick U S.G.S. Quad Winchester Common name Building Style Folk Victorian Building Date(s)c 1880- -1900 flat 12. Landscape Features: Surrounde 13. Significance: A large late 1S fine Folk Victorian detailir Surveyed by: Leslie Giles File no. 34 46q Negative no(s).9796 raised basement side (church) asymmetrical hipped pyramidal? mansard false mansard gambrel flat parapet? roof not visible 7. Dormers (number): front ide s gable pediment? shed hipped glazed 8. Primary Porch style Folk Victorian stories 1 levels full height materials wood description and decorative details `turned columns; decorative brackets. bays 5 9. General supplementary description and decoration: 2/2 pointed Got' windows in central front gable; paired square f -light attic windows in gable ends; 2 -pane cellar windows; 1d: Mayor additions and alterations: Concrete block foundation (moved from across the road the i4id ning Route 50); rear 1 -story side porch en closed; missing int. cad flue 11. Outbuildings: Modern misc. sheds. d by orchards. th century farmhouse w/ g. Date: 7/8 Frimary Sources Published Sources Interviews Name Address Phone Date Name Address Phone Date Name Address Phone Date Plan and Massing (Note original features, additions, and alterations) f< Drawing of Plan Sketch of Site Plan a Historical Information Owned by C. L. Robinson Co. Orchards. City /Town /Village Hamlet rural county County Frederick Street address or route number Route 50 U.S.G.S. Quad Winchester Historic name Common name Present use residential Building Style vernacular Original use residential Bu.ildingDate(s)c.. 1890 -1910, c. 1898 I. Construction Materials wood frame brick bond: English Flemish course American 3. St ries (number) 2 C� low basement split level "raised basement 4. Bays (number): front 3 side (church) gsymmetrical asymmetrical 5. Roof Type shed hipped parapet? pyramidal? gable mansard pediment? false mansard parapet? gambrel clipped end? ;4 flat cross gable? parapet? central front gable? roof not visible other .i. stretcher other stone random rubble coursed rubble ashlar dressed rock -faced log: squared unsquared notching: V -notch half dovetail saddle full dovetail square diamond concrete block terra cotta steel frame other 6. Roofing Material shingle composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) (U wood metal 2 standing seam corrugated pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑tile pantile flat glazed slate not visible 2. Cladding Material German 1at� 0 vertical siding 0 stucco 0 board batten aluminum or vinyl siding 0 shingle: cast iron 0 wood 0 sheet metal 0 asbestos 0 enameled metal 0 asphalt D glass E other 7. Dormers (number): front side gable pediment? shed hipped 8. Primary Porch style vernacular -'1g �I A. t.1,-. si t,... r „,,...,...--,=-7,-, .A...V p••it l ti rte° i �I 4 ai` Y stories 1 levels full height bays 5 materials wnnci description and decorative details Square columnsL plain balusters and handrail. 9. General supplementary description and decoration: 2/2 windows; int and flue stone foundation covered w/ concrete; paired 4 light attic windows in gable.ends; 2 -story rear ell ti int. titre;; =t t 10. Major additions and alterations: None on exterior 11. Outbuildings: Frame shed. 12. Landscape Features: Mature trees; sits on hill; pond/ spring nearby. 13. Significance: One of the older houses remaining on thi, area of Route 50. Surveyed by: Leslie Giles Date: 7/89 r VIRGINIA DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS HISTORIC DISTRICT /BRIEF SURVEY FORM File no. 34 -470 Negative no(s). 9796 Assemblage Description: Partial listing over 100 69 calibre round balls (dropped and woiined) 3 gun wrenches 5 eagle V buttons 1 Virginia button 6 flat buttons 1 sword scabbard 2 bullet worms 1 Georgia button 1 infantry hat insignia 1 bayonet scabbard tip 1 spoon (engraved R. Y. Carmichael, Listed as a 1st Georgia soldier) 1 1853 quarter 1 Sheet brass buckle 1 base of inkwell iron kettle fragments other artifacts recovered reported by other individuals indicate that approximatley 40 Virginia buttons, 15 Georgia buttons and 12 eagle V buttons have been recovered from this site total Additional Comments: 1. Late discovery Letter dated 1 -24 -95 from Mike Kehoe to Jackie Hernigle describing location of site and artifacts recovered never responded to. Cara Metz and David Dutton of DHR were provided with a copy of M. Kehoe's letter on 1- 29 -96. Project was written off without any additional identification efforts on 7 -1 -96. 2. See attached project maps indicating types of artifacts found and artifact concentrations drawn by Mike Kehoe and George Semples. 3. Site will be destroyed by construction of the VDOT Winchester Regional Headquarters. Site has already been disturbed by the excavation of backhoe trenches for perk tests. Additional work at this site is needed. Work should consist of informant interviews, metal detector survey and testing of areas identified as artifact concentrations. See recommendations for work on Civil War sites outlined in "The Best Ever Occupied" by James B. Legg and Steven D. Smith. 4. Historical research conducted to date indicates that the camp was used for several weeks in 1862 by General Loring. Five regiments, including two Georgia (1st and 2nd) and three Virginia units were camped here. 5. Site has excellent research potential. This is an early CSA camp using militia units. Troops were mustered out at this camp accounting for the prolific discard of equipment that would otherwise has been held on to. uoT;Enaasgo 4Twaad o4 h4TTTo'3 y O Q att; 1o3 sutbaq buTpuab uagM Gaup aT44TT e az{E4 o4 aTgTssod aq ;ttbtul 4T sdEttaad 4uamdoTanap hq pahoa4sap 4ah ;ou aa4sattouTM .luau puE uT squauzdux'oua a4Eaapa;uo0 aoCPW buTUTEUIaa aq4 30 aUo ST a4Ts sTtty s4oaCgo TE4aUI ao3 Tanotts u tta.TM buTbbTp uattt puno3 aaaM o4a sTTaMZ{uT 'sseTb 'pauanq aaaM Tug; suo44ng -paTEnEOxa hTTET ;XEd aaaM 4' paaaqunooua a.zaM sq_Td gsua4 TEaanas ;Eq; mu j uEtt; aqTs aq4 114TM 4'TTTWE3 aaow suosaad hq GUI 04 pa1ETaa uaaq suit 4I a4Ts aq4 3o uoT;aod pa ;EnT4Tno hTsnoTnaad uT saoDoa;ap Tu4aui 3o h4TntvTsuas sa.oTa ;saa osTu adh4 TTos g4dap umuttxuui E buTaq sagouT OT ATTEtuaou 'spuT3 aou3ans MoTTEtts o; pagTWTT osTE axe sa Te4aW 986L uz aPEU1 s'M Lt3TLIM a4Ts E gar's 3o daanoosTp att4 buTMOTTo3 hTTEUiaou oqm saa4untt oTTaa 3o spaoq aq; o; pagru1TT uaaq sEq a4Ts at43 o4 ssaoou 'aanat0H saa ;ung oTTaa oa. a4Ts 3T;TToad P sTg3 apELu sug suo4;nq ha'4TTT1u Pus TEas a4E4s snoaamnu pup saTlionq ;Taq e TutbaTA puE Etb.zoa0 TEaanas 3o tlaanooaa arty ubr'duze3 hauUtou aq4 .za43e 'n81 3o aaquTM 9114 uT uoTsTATQ sbuTaoq Teaaua0 o4 buTbuoTaq squaUITba.g ETuTbaT/ puE 4uauxTbag ETbaoaJ 4sT ago Kg punoabduteo E sE pawl uTEb' sum 41 aagsag ?uTM paTdn000 AUtae s uo4suttor gdasor TEaauao uauM Tgsi 3o zauluIns hTa'a at14 UT pasn aaab spunoab aqy •poTaad Z98T -I981 a -fl- usoa3 quauzdmuoua GEM TTATO equaapaguo0 hTaea UP ST a4Ts 4sab 0s aq.nog 3T uo aAET4 am qETdM. S66T 'bZ haunuef -ztaud pTaT3aT44Eg s'SSeuuft_ at 4.. J.0 paz{aot buTnett secTs GEM TTAT3 oa. eAT;Tsuas puE aETTTUne3 eie noh J'L[[ PT's UIETTTTM PTat3 TEOTboT0eT10a' at14 uT aouEa.uTEnbos anoKL 3o sT ogm --If 'ttbaTZ W'TTTTM 114T az{ods hTa.Uaoaa. I aT43PP -aEaa 8080- fi7OTZZ ETUTbaTA 'bangsz{aTxapa.z3 808 xog 93T330 4SOa uoT4Eaodsuuay 3o q.uaul4audaa uTuTbaTh aTbTuaaH aTZto'r SL,t of pits and hut sites and professional excavation of anything worthwhile. Any artifacts found could be displayed at a loca], museum. At least an opportunity should be given to salvage' what ever artifacts can be gleaned from the site, as an important part of the local history. Please contact me at (703) 869 -3087 should you have any questions. attachments: Sincerely, 24riad Michael Kehoe u u MEMO To: Cara Metz From: Bob Jolley Date: 1 -26 -96 Re: VDOT Winchester Area Headquarters Two .individuals have expressed concern over VDOT impacts to Camp Mason, a Civil War military encampment. They indicate that the site will be impacted by proposed VDOT construction of the new Winchester Area Headquarters Office located near Hill Crest at the juncture of Route 50 and Route 803. One of the individuals indicated that he had collected Civil War military artifacts from this location. The site files indicate that VDOT performed a cultural resource survey at this location in 1994 resulting in the recordation of one prehistoric site (44FK514) and one late 19th century domestic site (44FK515). 2 2 �y W 0 7 0 0 CC of vi go e 1 f. o. ay o s o Po P i P= P d >F j6 a O U O G O o O a N a N g N 2 N U 2 O 5 2 O W F- W W I- w O W W m S E O N u z w v a I I+ 2° de 0 0.. i iJ o I BS 2 p U o a U 1 m18 r22kf _OW Jim ow EEL INI• ge MU ON OE ME VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM City/County: Frederick Site Name: Temporary Designation: MII,tnr cv1C�vy� Cultural /Temporal Affiliation: Historic, 3rd quarter 19th century Site Class: X Terrestrial, Open -Air Terrestrial, Cave /Rockshelter Underwater Thematic Contexts: Defense /Military Site Function: Military encampment Specialized Contexts: USGS Quadrangle: Winchester Loran: UTM Zone:17 (Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute series topographical map showing site boundaries.) Physiographic Province: Ridge and Valley Drainige: Shenandoah Landform: Uplands Aspect Elevation: 850-870 Slope: Site Soils: Adjacent Soils: Nearest Water Source: Abrams Creek Distance: 700 ft. south Ownership Status: Private Public /Local: X Public /State: VDOT Public /Federal: Owner Name (if private): Owner Address: Informant Name: Informant Address: Surveyed By: M. Kehoe and G. Semples Address: 117 Dower Lane, Strasburg, Va, 22655 Site Dimensions: 700' N -S X 1000' E -W Survey Strategy: Survey Description: Easting: 740690 „'Northing: 4341420 Historic Map Projection Informant Observation Surface Testing X Subsurface Testing Metal detector survey Site Condition: 4) Surface deposits present and with subsurface integrity a. intact cultural level (trash pits and hearths) Site disturbed by VDOT backhoe trenches for perk tests Current Land Use: Agricultural field: pasture Specimens Obtained: X Yes No Assemblage Description: see attached VDHR Site Number: Vie/ FK 53.3 Other VDHR Number: Owner Telephone: Informant Telephone: Affiliation: 5 V Depository: Personal collections Date: 9 -1987 pry '/C:7--- j 949 0 0 .7••_! 8 iv Th. "7 i i (r 1 .1/ z ‘Priiz g -7 1 2/ ....CREEK N su7 '1 N 1 I t-, N.\---- s ',C7 :2 /3 .1 t ..A° 0 ,i ,ik.:-,e--P A 4 =7" 5*••• rT 11 1 11) 82 if ;It Of LAO J gh MTH C l'• 1 A Ni t....4„.._ 4/4, i 4 A ----2 7 Archaeological Resources. DHR# County Resource Name 1 Other DHR# Eligi? Eligi Date Reg i VLR Date 44FK0514 Frederick 44FK0515 Frederick 44FK0533 Frederick null null null 30- Apr -01 30- Apr -01 NRHP Date Comments Archaeological Resources City /County: Frederick, VA Site Name: Temporary Designation: Cultural/Temporal Affilition: PrehistaricAlikrunn Site Class: X Terrestrial, Open -Air Terrestrial, Cave /Rockshelter Thematic Contexts: nxestic Site Function: Ca 1 P Specialized Contexts: USGS Quadrangle: Informant Name: Informant Address: Survey Strategy: Site 1 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF IIIS'TORIC RESOURCES ARCIIAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM VA 7.5' UTM Zone: 17 Easting: 740650 (Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 Physiographic Province: Valley Rite Landfortn: Valley Elevation: 850' Site Soils: 1's clay kern Nearest Water Source. Abrams Creek Ownership Status: X Private Public /Local: Public /Slate: Public /Federal: Owner Name (if private): C.L. Rbinscrt Owner Address: Winchester, VA Surveyed By: Kathy Et b s-Jaaicy Address: 100 Halsted Street, Bldg. 120 Fast Orange, N3 07019 Site Dimensions: 30(rx300' Historic Map Projection Informant _Observation Surface Testing X Subsurface Testing :urrent Land Use: Peria: Fi-P1d: Pasture fallaa lancl VDHR Site Number: Other VDHR Number: Underwater Loran: Northing: 4341500 minute series topographical map showing site boundaries.) Drainage: Rtarac %1 Aspect: Scuthst Slope: 2-6 Adjacent Soils: firer plus ilaig stcnY grand Distance: Ataant tD site Owner Telephone: informant Telephone: Affiliation: Lcuis Bager Lc- Pssxii tee Date: 7/6/94 Survey Description: Sunwed ly placing shcvel test pits 100' intervals in high site pcstetial areas. Stomp, rocky slcpes ware nz t sue. SIP's were dug into the 13 hcrizcn Intl" culturally sterile deposits weie reached. &skyey is cxnfir l to the project area, so site beurrbriess cutsich of that are not yet defined. rite Condition: No surface artifacts, hat with subsurface integrity. SIP C -1,N has a high density ty e E ct artifacts +30) vvhidl nay be stratified. specimens Obtained: Yes X No Depository: VEFIR lssemblage Description: Abatt 100 lithic flakes, prinerily cert d e10 iy w /sere quartz. Q e scraper \Nes identified. 'The dhert does rut appear to be the sate as the local dirt ford as black firms cn the site. It may, Tyr, cure frcrn Flint Tic*, sate 2.5 miles to the north. Specimens Reported: Yes No Owner Name: Assemblage Description: Form Completed By: Ttm Chad:hea1 Address: 1001 E. 13rred Ste, Suite 220 Rid in d, VA 23219 Owner Address: Field Notes: x_ Yes No Depository: y Photographic Documentation: j Yes No Depository: Report(s): _x Yes No Depository: i]R Reference(s): Chadds:Li:in, tbn J. Ertl Tracy A. arming 1994 1:13a._ I CLilt ural Rescurce Suri,ey, Prcpcsed r Winchester Area lieacluarters. Report si t} raft ed to the Virginia Department crE Transportaticn, Richmond, ty Tn i s Berger Associates, Inc., Rid'marl. Additional Comments: Wetland pc ticn cE site is not test to avoid irtpacting the ate. tion of U.S. FT 50 (1960's tray have »reacted a najar porticn cE the site. Scale: 1 2000' Affiliationi Berger Assowiate Dale: 7/14/94 Virginia Register Statue: National Register Statue: Easement Status: VDNR Library Reference Number(s): VDNR Number Assigned By Data Entered By: Revisions /Updates By: For VDNR Staff Only Date: i f 7% Date: Date: City /County: Fredrick, VA Site Name: Inptcn Ficu Temporary Designation: Site 2 Thematic Contexts: Durestic Site Function: Single (letting Specialized Contexts: Survey Strategy: urrent Land Use: Cultural/Temporal Affilition: 19th ClEatury /4th Qua/ter Site Class: Tenestrial, Open -Air Terrestrial, Cave /Rockshelter USGS Quadrangle: Winch2stia-, VA 7.5" UTM Zone: 17 Easting: 741050 (Attach photocopy of appropriate section of USGS 7.5 minute Physiographic Province: Landfortn: Valley Elevation: 850' Site Soils: Fagerstohn clay loan Nearest Water Source: rnPl l Ownership Status: x_ Private Public /Local: Public /State: Public /Federal: Owner Name (if private): C.L. Fdo td.nson Owner Address: yn VA Informant Name: Informant Address: Valley Ridge Surveyed By: Kathy FLbes -Jacclw Address: 100 FIs].zted Suet, ELM 120 East Gam, NJ 07019 iite Dimensions: 150'x75' Historic Map Projection Surface Testing survey Description: Comte fctmc}sti.cris are discernable }fir cbeervatim. A series ctE shovel test pits ware dug to irrigate sthairface deposits. ite Condition: 'Ike site is hi Y disb_rrbed. It is the ariginal ]acaticn ctf tI hiptcri H tise, vilich was my viai Rt 50 vas =started 1960 arrl is presently located directly rrrth cf de site, acmes the high y. 91 is m evidence ELL ad✓iitic al ait .t 1thr js. ,ecimens Obtained: X Yes No Depository: VTR ssemblage Description: Various hi.stcric arc, glass neetal fragmats. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM VDHR Site Number: tic //=jc I Other VDHR Number: Underwater Loran: Northing 4341480 series topographical map showing site boundaries.) Drainage: >c /nctah Aspect: Flat Slope: 0 Adjacent Soils: sate, plus rcug7 strny gra. d .Distance: cn site Owner Telephone: Informant Telephone: Affiliation: Buis Begs,' Associates Date: 7 8 /9 4 Informant X Observation X Subsurface Testing Specimens Reported: Yes No Owner Name: Assemblage Description: Additional Comments: Field Notes: X Yes No Depository: VCiR Photographic Documentation: X._ Yes No Depository: m Idiz Report(s): X Yes No Depository: NEHR Reference(s): Qx i-nth, Ztbn J. and 'Lacy A. Qxning 1994 Flaw_ 1 CUl t Tral Pesaxce arvey, Proposed \DJr Winchester Area Fisacloparbars. .Repart sulcmitted to t i Virginia i ni a Department C f Transportaticn, Ridirorx 1, ty bus Barger Aerates, Inc., Ridntn3. g rnd Hill 1654 Form Completed By: 'Dm Chadjeubta Address: 1001 E. acad Street, Suite 220 Rid ni, VA 23219 Owner Address: !r Scale: Radi Towe.47, 1 L l�- I?: 1 1" 2(00' h h.. locA�•. t r,G. irk4 /f'bu,s 1 Affiliation :Lams )3?t� pr A i nc. Date: 7/14/94 Virginia Register Statue: National Register Status: Easement Status: VDHR Library Reference Number(s): VDHR Number Assigned By: kt:_k Data Entered By: Revisions /Updates By: For VDHR Staff Only Date://g; Date: Date: J rs- 'e V P r oirn:ikfl BOW ry r 7;1 •rli N. (-,T) L I L, k t" i .17 1 1 :1 J