Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12 CommentsI GREYWOLFE, INC. 1073 REDBUD ROAD o WINCHESTER, VA 22603 (540) 667 -2001 o (540) 545 -4001 FAX �y II GREYWOLFEINCQAOL.COM Michael Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director January 5, 2012 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Subject: Snowden Bridge Station Mr. Ruddy, Please accept this rezoning on behalf of Keven and John Omps for public hearing. After waiting several months in vain for one particular review agency, I am moving this project is moving forward. I have sent this rezoning and accompanying traffic impact analysis provided by Stowe Engineering to the review agencies and received the following: • Winchester Regional Airport - No impact. • Frederick County Fire Marshal - Recommend approval • Clear Brook Fire Chief - hand delivered on July 27, 2011, no response. • Historic Resources Advisory Board - No significant impact • Frederick County Health Department - No objections • Frederick County Parks and Recreation - No comment • Frederick County Public Schools - No comment Frederick - Winchester Service Authority - No comment Frederick County Sanitation Authority - Water and Sewer issues to be further worked out at Master Development and Site Plan stages for connections and possible pressure pumps. Frederick County Public Works - No comments on rezoning. Would like a statement regarding the closure of any drain fields or wells on the Master Plan. • Frederick County Attorney - See attached comments and reply. • Frederick County Transportation Planner - See attached comments and reply' Virginia Department of Transportation - Comments were offered on TIA and Proffers. Reply was sent on September 14, 2011. Per VDOT's Chapter 527 requirements, any application not acted on after 90 days is deemed approved. It has been 114 days without reply. Thank you, x Gary /Oates, LS -B, PE GreyWolfe, Inc -A 0 Mike Ruddy From: John Bishop Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:02 AM To: Mike Ruddy Subject: FW: Snowden Bridge Station - VDOT Comments to Rezoning/TIA John John A. Bishop, AICP Deputy Director - Transportation Frederick County Planning & Development 107 North Kent St, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 Ph: 540- 665 -5651 F: 540- 665 -6395 ibishopgco.frederick.va.us From: Funkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT) [ i Ito: Rhonda. Fun khouser(&VDOT.Virginia.gov On Behalf Of Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT) Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:27 AM To: John Bishop Cc: Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT); Short, Terry (VDOT) Subject: Snowden Bridge Station - VDOT Comments to Rezoning/TIA VDOT staff has reviewed the revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) received September 22, 2011. This submittal has still not yet adequately addressed our initial TIA comments dated September 6, 2011. As such, we considered this an insufficient resubmittal. Our previous concerns with this rezoning still stand as shown below. We will be glad to discuss any further comments or concerns you may have. Matthew B. Smith, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer VDOT - Land Development Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 r Phone # (540) 984 -5615 Fax # (540) 984 -5607 From: Funkhouser, Rhonda On Behalf Of Smith, Matthew, P.E. Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 10:11 AM To: 'GreyWolfeInc @aol.com' Cc: Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Ingram, Lloyd; 'timstowe @stowecompanies.com'; John.Bishop; 'mruddy @co.frederick.va.us' Subject: Snowden Bridge Station - VDOT Comments to Rezoning The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 11 and proposed Snowden Bridge Boulevard. These are the roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Snowden Bridge Station Rezoning Application dated July 18, 2011 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Specifically, we have the following comments: 1. The proffers should include construction of pedestrian and bike accommodations. The extension of Snowden Bridge Boulevard from its current stub end should include sidewalks and bike accommodations on both sides of the road, which would match up with what was built on the existing stub and what was recently built on Merchant Street. 2. Transportation Proffer #l.c We have concerns with the close proximity of the traffic signal to the Route 11 intersection and do not see this proffer as a transportation enhancement in its current form. The proffer is also very vague as to what is included under " signalization improvements ". If a signal is not justified, will value of such be used in other transportation improvements in the corridor. Current proffers do not provide mitigation for forecasted failing level of services at I -81 ramps as noted in the TIA or funds to achieve the Redbud Relocation as assumed in the TIA. 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. Area Land Use Engineer VDOT - Land Development Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties F] 0 Page I of 3 Subj: Snowden Bridge Station - VDOT Comments to TIA Date: 9/6/2011 9:27:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Matthew .Smith(a)vdot.virginia.gov To: timstowe(cstowecomoanies.com cc : Matthew .Smith(a)vdot.virginia.gov Lloyd. Ingram(a7VDOT.virginia goy Ibishoppa co.frederick.va.us Grey Wolfel nc(a),aol.com We have completed our review of Snowden Bridge Station's TIA dated June 29, 2011. Our comments are as follows: 1. Existing traffic counts (which we understand were previously collected for the Graystone TIS) should be included as an Appendix to the TIA. 2. On page 4, Martinsburg Pike is misidentified as a rural arterial roadway. It is actually an urban minor arterial. 3. The TIA needs to include a site plan of the proposed site, including the access point as well as the proposed parking lot and building location(s). The supporting documentation submitted in addition to the TIA included a zoning map, however, there was no information on entrances, buildings or parking lot layout. We may have additional comments on this TIA after reviewing the site plan. 4. Depending on the site plan, we may recommend a different land use other than LU 710 (for example, LU 750). It is difficult to tell at this point whether the intention is for a single building or a few smaller buildings. Note that, as per the ITE Manual, if this development is going to be comprised of multiple office buildings unrelated to each other (i.e. occupied by multiple tenants instead of a single tenant spread across multiple buildings) then the trip generation calculations should be done separately for each building and then summed. 5. It appears that the trip generation calculations were based on an independent variable of 225,000 SF of gross floor area, however no information is provided to back up that assumption. The TIA does note that there is 9.1 acres of usable acreage available, but more information is needed on how the usable acreage was converted into gross floor area. The site plan requested in comment 3 should show the office buildings and their square footage. Also, note that Table 413 of the TIA never actually spells out that the value "225" refers to 1000 SF GFA. 6. Using the ITE LU equation and 225,000 SF of office building, we calculate 331 total trips for the PM peak hour, not 359. Because this discrepancy is minor the TIA does not need to be revised unless the other comments on this TIA end up affecting the trip generation calculations. 7. There are several locations where we measured storage lengths as less that what was encoded into Synchro. For example, at the 1 -81 SB off -ramps intersection we measure the WB left turn lane as being 150', not 250', and the SB right turn lane as being 90', not 300'. Note that the taper lengths should not be included in these measurements. In addition, for channelized "porkchop" right -turn lanes, the critical distance is measured in the adjacent thru lane (in other words, if the thru lane queues up beyond a certain point then vehicles will be prevented from entering the channelized right turn lane). 8. The existing PHF's per intersection should be used when analyzing the existing conditions. The assumption used for future year conditions (0.92 PHF at all intersections) is correct. 9. Some intersections appear to be coded with incorrect signal phasing: a. At the 1 -81 SB Ramps intersection and the 1 -81 NB On- Ramp /Red Bud Road intersection, all left turn Thursday, January 05, 2012 AOL: GreyWolfefnc 0 0 Page 2 of 3 movements are coded in as protected /permitted phasing. However, it appears that those signals actually operate with protected /prohibited phasing. b. At the 1 -81 NB Off -Ramp intersection, the EB and WB Martinsburg Pike thru movements are coded as split phase (i.e. EB and WB movements do not move simultaneously). This is incorrect. This has a significant effect on the capacity calculations at this intersection. c. At the future 1 -81 NB Ramps signal (after the existing off -ramp is relocated), the capacity analysis should assume protected /prohibited phasing for all left turn movements. 10. Some green times are incorrectly coded as per existing signal timings. For example, at the 1 -81 SB Ramps intersection, the total cycle length is 90 seconds (19 seconds for Phase 1 +6, 32 seconds for Phase 2 =6, and 39 seconds for Phase 4) not 109 seconds. 11. The TIA should include a turn lane warrant analysis, particularly to determine if a right turn lane is warranted on Snowden Bridge Road for turning onto the new site entrance (Ezra Lane). 12. The site plan should include sidewalks for pedestrian connectivity from the site to Snowden Bridge Boulevard. In addition, the proposed traffic signal at Snowden Bridge Blvd & realigned Red Bud Road /Ezra Lane should include crosswalks and pedestrian indications. The extension of Snowden Bridge Blvd from its current stub end should include sidewalks on both sides of the road, which would match up with what was built on the existing stub and what was recently built on Merchant Street. 13. It appears that the new traffic signal will be approximately 650 feet from the existing traffic signal at Martinsville Pike & Merchant St /Snowden Bridge Blvd. Our understanding is that this new road is being designed with a 45 mph design speed (35 mph posted speed limit) and is being considered a primary road (i.e. urban minor arterial) since it will eventually connect to the future Route 37 Winchester Bypass. VDOT Access Management Standards (in the Road Design Manual, Appendix F) requires 1050' spacing between signalized intersections on urban minor arterials. The new signal will be well shy of that. 14. Existing ADT volumes shown on Figure 4 don't match VDOT published traffic data. Example: Rte 11 Martinsburg Pike West of 81 is shown at 34,170, VDOT data shows 13,000. 15. The site distribution percentages in Figure 8 do not exactly match the site - generated traffic in Figure 9. It appears this is because the consultant incorrectly assigned a small amount of traffic to /from the site from Merchant Street and from Red Bud Road. Because this only causes minor errors in traffic volumes, the TIA does not need to be revised unless the other comments on this TIA end up affecting these calculations. 16. The proposed mitigations do not address the forecasted failing Levels of Service at the 1 -81 SB Ramps intersection and the realigned Martinsburg Pike & 1 -81 NB Ramps intersection. 17. The TIA is based on the assumption that Snowden Bridge Blvd, the Red Bud Road realignment, and the I- 81 NB off -ramp relocation /widening will all be constructed prior to the opening of Snowden Bridge Station. Our understanding is that Snowden Bridge Blvd is due to begin construction this year, but there are no projects on the current VDOT Six -Year Plan to construct any of the improvements at the 1 -81 interchange. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to give me a call. Thursday, January 05, 2012 AOL: GreyWolfelnc . . Page') of') Matthew B. Smith, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer VDOT - Land Development Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone # (540) 984 -5615 Fax # (540) 984 -5607 Thursday, January 05, 2012 AOL: GreyWolfcInc Snowden Bridge Station - *T Comments to Rezoning 0 Page 1 of I Suby Snowden Bridge Station - VDOT Comments to Rezoning Date: 9/6/2011 10:10:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Matthew. SmithCcDvdot.virg inia. gov To: Grey WolfelncCcDaol.com CC: Matthew .Smith(LDvdot.virginia.gov Lloyd. IngramCccbVDOT.virginia.gov timstoweflstowecomoanies.com ibishop(ilco.fredarick.va.us mruddv(d)co.frederick.va.us The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 11 and proposed Snowden Bridge Boulevard. These are the roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Snowden Bridge Station Rezoning Application dated July 18, 2011 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Specifically, we have the following comments: 1. The proffers should include construction of pedestrian and bike accommodations. The extension of Snowden Bridge Boulevard from its current stub end should include sidewalks and bike accommodations on both sides of the road, which would match up with what was built on the existing stub and what was recently built on Merchant Street. 2. Transportation Proffer #1.c We have concerns with the close proximity of the traffic signal to the Route 11 intersection and do not see this proffer as a transportation enhancement in its current form. The proffer is also very vague as to what is included under "signalization improvements ". If a signal is not justified, will value of such be used in other transportation improvements in the corridor. Current proffers do not provide mitigation for forecasted failing level of services at I -81 ramps as noted in the TIA or funds to achieve the Redbud Relocation as assumed in the TIA. 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. Area Land Use Engineer VDOT - Land Development Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone # (540) 984 -5615 Fax # (540) 984 -5607 Thursday, January 05, 2012 AOL: GreyWolfeInc 0 • Page 1 of 6 Subj: RE: Snowden Bridge Station - VDOT Comments to TIA Date: 9/14/2011 9:54:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: TimStowe(o)StoweCompanies.com To: Matthew .Smith((Dvdot.virginia.gov CC: Lloyd. Ingram(a)vdot.virginia.gov ibishoo(d),co.frederick.va.us Grey WolfelncQaol.com We have reviewed your comments and offer the following responses 1. Existing traffic counts (which we understand were previously collected for the Graystone TIS) should be included as an Appendix to the TIA. Existing traffic counts were requested from Greenway Engineering but have not been provided. It is understood that these are in the Department's possession with the Graystone rezoning TIA. 2. On page 4, Martinsburg Pike is misidentified as a rural arterial roadway. It is actually an urban minor arterial. Agreed The TIA needs to include a site plan of the proposed site, including the access point as well as the proposed parking lot and building location(s). The supporting documentation submitted in addition to the TIA included a zoning map, however, there was no information on entrances, buildings or parking lot layout. We may have additional comments on this TIA after reviewing the site plan. Site plan is not a required part of submittal. 4. Depending on the site plan, we may recommend a different land use other than LU 710 (for example, LU 750). It is difficult to tell at this point whether the intention is for a single building or a few smaller buildings. Note that, as per the ITE Manual, if this development is going to be comprised of multiple office buildings unrelated to each other (i.e. occupied by multiple tenants instead of a single tenant spread across multiple buildings) then the trip generation calculations should be done separately for each building and then summed. Land use and trip generation is as prescribed by Frederick County. 5. It appears that the trip generation calculations were based on an independent variable of 225,000 SF of gross floor area, however no information is provided to back up that assumption. The TIA does note that there is 9.1 acres of usable acreage available, but more information is needed on how the usable acreage was converted into gross floor area. The site plan requested in comment 3 should show the office buildings and their square footage. Also, note that Table 4B of the TIA never actually spells out that the value "225" refers to 1000 SF GFA. Land use and trip generation is as prescribed by Frederick County 6. Using the ITE LU equation and 225,000 SF of office building, we calculate 331 total trips for the PM peak hour, not 359. Because this discrepancy is minor the TIA does not need to be revised unless the other comments on this TIA end up affecting the trip generation calculations. Land use and trip generation is as prescribed by Frederick County. 7. There are several locations where we measured storage lengths as less that what was encoded into Synchro. For example, at the 1 -81 SB off -ramps intersection we measure the WB left turn lane as being 150', not 250', and the SB right turn lane as being 90', not 300'. Note that the taper lengths should not be I hursday, January 05, 2012 AOL: GreyWolfelnc 0 • Page 2 of 6 included in these measurements. In addition, for channelized "porkchop" right -turn lanes, the critical distance is measured in the adjacent thru lane (in other words, if the thru lane queues up beyond a certain point then vehicles will be prevented from entering the channelized right turn lane). Queue lengths based on measurements from aerial photos and actual traffic operations. 8. The existing PHF's per intersection should be used when analyzing the existing conditions. The assumption used for future year conditions (0.92 PHF at all intersections) is correct. Existing Peak Hour Factors from Graystone TIA were used as requested by VDOT This has no impact on the design year outcome and recommendations. 9. Some intersections appear to be coded with incorrect signal phasing: At the 1 -81 SB Ramps intersection and the 1 -81 NB On- Ramp /Red Bud Road intersection, all left turn movements are coded in as protected /permitted phasing. However, it appears that those signals actually operate with protected /prohibited phasing. Existing signals on Route 11 allow left turn on green arrow and green ball to 1 -81 b. At the 1 -81 NB Off -Ramp intersection, the EB and WB Martinsburg Pike thru movements are coded as split phase (i.e. EB and WB movements do not move simultaneously). This is incorrect. This has a significant effect on the capacity calculations at this intersection. Signals coded based on timing plans provided by VDOT Future signals optimized in model. c. At the future 1 -81 NB Ramps signal (after the existing off -ramp is relocated), the capacity analysis should assume protected /prohibited phasing for all left turn movements. Information has not been provided indicating a proposed change in the left turn from Route 11 to 1 -81. 10. Some green times are incorrectly coded as per existing signal timings. For example, at the 1 -81 SB Ramps intersection, the total cycle length is 90 seconds (19 seconds for Phase 1 +6, 32 seconds for Phase 2 -6, and 39 seconds for Phase 4) not 109 seconds. This has no effect on the findings and /or recommendations of this report as the existing year is 2010. 11. The TIA should include a turn lane warrant analysis, particularly to determine if a right turn lane is warranted on Snowden Bridge Road for turning onto the new site entrance (Ezra Lane). Turn lane warrant analysis will be completed with site plan. 12. The site plan should include sidewalks for pedestrian connectivity from the site to Snowden Bridge Boulevard. In addition, the proposed traffic signal at Snowden Bridge Blvd & realigned Red Bud Road /Ezra Lane should include crosswalks and pedestrian indications. The extension of Snowden Bridge Blvd from its current stub end should include sidewalks on both sides of the road, which would match up with what was built on the existing stub and what was recently built on Merchant Street. These items will be addressed in the site plan and coordinated with Frederick County. Thursday, January 05, 2012 AOL: GreyWolfelnc 0 • Page 3 of 6 13. It appears that the new traffic signal will be approximately 650 feet from the existing traffic signal at Martinsville Pike & Merchant St /Snowden Bridge Blvd. Our understanding is that this new road is being designed with a 45 mph design speed (35 mph posted speed limit) and is being considered a primary road (i.e. urban minor arterial) since it will eventually connect to the future Route 37 Winchester Bypass. VDOT Access Management Standards (in the Road Design Manual, Appendix F) requires 1050' spacing between signalized intersections on urban minor arterials. The new signal will be well shy of that. I assume Martinsville Pike is actually referring to Martinsburg Pike. Regardless, this property will be land locked without this access. Access from Route 11 is neither practical nor desirable. This access point is the only viable location and has been planned by Frederick County as can be seen on the Comprehensive Plan map. It appears on exception is needed for this connection. 14. Existing ADT volumes shown on Figure 4 don't match VDOT published traffic data. Example: Rte 11 Martinsburg Pike West of 81 is shown at 34,170, VDOT data shows 13,000. It appears the referenced VDOT data may precede the opening of the Rutherford Crossing commercial area. The existing ADT volumes from the Groystone rezoning were used in this study as prescribed by VDOT. 15. The site distribution percentages in Figure 8 do not exactly match the site - generated traffic in Figure 9. It appears this is because the consultant incorrectly assigned a small amount of traffic to /from the site from Merchant Street and from Red Bud Road. Because this only causes minor errors in traffic volumes, the TIA does not need to be revised unless the other comments on this TIA end up affecting these calculations. Agreed. It appears the concern is focused on 10 vehicles, which will not change the outcome or recommendations of this report. 16. The proposed mitigations do not address the forecasted failing Levels of Service at the 1 -81 SB Ramps intersection and the realigned Martinsburg Pike & 1 -81 NB Ramps intersection. As presented in the report, the regional solutions being advanced by VDOT and Frederick County (1 -81 improvements and Route 37) will address the 1 -81 ramp intersections. 17. The TIA is based on the assumption that Snowden Bridge Blvd, the Red Bud Road realignment, and the 1 -81 NB off -ramp relocation /widening will all be constructed prior to the opening of Snowden Bridge Station. Our understanding is that Snowden Bridge Blvd is due to begin construction this year, but there are no projects on the current VDOT Six -Year Plan to construct any of the improvements at the 1 -81 interchange. The timing of all projects is dependent upon the economy. Snowden Bridge Blvd has been approved for construction, and must be completed before Red Bud Road can be realigned. This is a priority for Frederick County and these projects are moving forward based on information provided by Frederick County. We respectfully request your concurrence and acceptance of the Traffic Impact Study. Tim Stowe Stowe Engineering, PLC 540.336.0656 Thursday, January 05, 2012 AOL,: GreyWolfefnc Page 4 of 6 From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [mailto: Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] On Behalf Of Smith, Matthew, P.E. Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 20119:27 AM To: timstowe @stowecompanies.com Cc: Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Ingram, Lloyd; John.Bishop; GreyWolfeInc @aol.com Subject: Snowden Bridge Station - VDOT Comments to TIA We have completed our review of Snowden Bridge Station's TIA dated June 29, 2011. Our comments are as follows: 18. Existing traffic counts (which we understand were previously collected for the Graystone TIS) should be included as an Appendix to the TIA. 19. On page 4, Martinsburg Pike is misidentified as a rural arterial roadway. It is actually an urban minor arterial. 20. The TIA needs to include a site plan of the proposed site, including the access point as well as the proposed parking lot and building location(s). The supporting documentation submitted in addition to the TIA included a zoning map, however, there was no information on entrances, buildings or parking lot layout. We may have additional comments on this TIA after reviewing the site plan. 21. Depending on the site plan, we may recommend a different land use other than LU 710 (for example, LU 750). It is difficult to tell at this point whether the intention is for a single building or a few smaller buildings. Note that, as per the ITE Manual, if this development is going to be comprised of multiple office buildings unrelated to each other (i.e. occupied by multiple tenants instead of a single tenant spread across multiple buildings) then the trip generation calculations should be done separately for each building and then summed. 22. It appears that the trip generation calculations were based on an independent variable of 225,000 SF of gross floor area, however no information is provided to back up that assumption. The TIA does note that there is 9.1 acres of usable acreage available, but more information is needed on how the usable acreage was converted into gross floor area. The site plan requested in comment 3 should show the office buildings and their square footage. Also, note that Table 4B of the TIA never actually spells out that the value "225" refers to 1000 SF GFA. 23. Using the ITE LU equation and 225,000 SF of office building, we calculate 331 total trips for the PM peak hour, not 359. Because this discrepancy is minor the TIA does not need to be revised unless the other comments on this TIA end up affecting the trip generation calculations. 24. There are several locations where we measured storage lengths as less that what was encoded into Synchro. For example, at the 1 -81 SB off -ramps intersection we measure the WB left turn lane as being 150', not 250', and the SB right turn lane as being 90', not 300'. Note that the taper lengths should not be included in these measurements. In addition, for channelized "porkchop" right -turn lanes, the critical distance is measured in the adjacent thru lane (in other words, if the thru lane queues up beyond a certain point then vehicles will be prevented from entering the channelized right turn lane). 25. The existing PHF's per intersection should be used when analyzing the existing conditions. The assumption used for future year conditions (0.92 PHF at all intersections) is correct. 26. Some intersections appear to be coded with incorrect signal phasing: Thursday, January 05, 2012 AOL: GreyWolfeInc 0 0 Page 5 of 6 a. At the 1 -81 SB Ramps intersection and the 1 -81 NB On- Ramp /Red Bud Road intersection, all left turn movements are coded in as protected /permitted phasing. However, it appears that those signals actually operate with protected /prohibited phasing. b. At the 1 -81 NB Off -Ramp intersection, the EB and WB Martinsburg Pike thru movements are coded as split phase (i.e. EB and WB movements do not move simultaneously). This is incorrect. This has a significant effect on the capacity calculations at this intersection. c. At the future 1 -81 NB Ramps signal (after the existing off -ramp is relocated), the capacity analysis should assume protected /prohibited phasing for all left turn movements. 27. Some green times are incorrectly coded as per existing signal timings. For example, at the 1 -81 SB Ramps intersection, the total cycle length is 90 seconds (19 seconds for Phase 1 +6, 32 seconds for Phase 2 =6, and 39 seconds for Phase 4) not 109 seconds. 28. The TIA should include a turn lane warrant analysis, particularly to determine if a right turn lane is warranted on Snowden Bridge Road for turning onto the new site entrance (Ezra Lane). 29. The site plan should include sidewalks for pedestrian connectivity from the site to Snowden Bridge Boulevard. In addition, the proposed traffic signal at Snowden Bridge Blvd & realigned Red Bud Road /Ezra Lane should include crosswalks and pedestrian indications. The extension of Snowden Bridge Blvd from its current stub end should include sidewalks on both sides of the road, which would match up with what was built on the existing stub and what was recently built on Merchant Street. 30. It appears that the new traffic signal will be approximately 650 feet from the existing traffic signal at Martinsville Pike & Merchant St /Snowden Bridge Blvd. Our understanding is that this new road is being designed with a 45 mph design speed (35 mph posted speed limit) and is being considered a primary road (i.e. urban minor arterial) since it will eventually connect to the future Route 37 Winchester Bypass. VDOT Access Management Standards (in the Road Design Manual, Appendix F) requires 1050' spacing between signalized intersections on urban minor arterials. The new signal will be well shy of that. 31. Existing ADT volumes shown on Figure 4 don't match VDOT published traffic data. Example: Rte 11 Martinsburg Pike West of 81 is shown at 34,170, VDOT data shows 13,000. 32. The site distribution percentages in Figure 8 do not exactly match the site - generated traffic in Figure 9. It appears this is because the consultant incorrectly assigned a small amount of traffic to /from the site from Merchant Street and from Red Bud Road. Because this only causes minor errors in traffic volumes, the TIA does not need to be revised unless the other comments on this TIA end up affecting these calculations. 33. The proposed mitigations do not address the forecasted failing Levels of Service at the 1 -81 SB Ramps intersection and the realigned Martinsburg Pike & 1 -81 NB Ramps intersection. 34. The TIA is based on the assumption that Snowden Bridge Blvd, the Red Bud Road realignment, and the 1 -81 NB off -ramp relocation /widening will all be constructed prior to the opening of Snowden Bridge Station. Our understanding is that Snowden Bridge Blvd is due to begin Thursday, January 05, 2012 AOL: GreyWolfeInc 0 0 Pagc 6 of 6 construction this year, but there are no projects on the current VDOT Six -Year Plan to construct any of the improvements at the 1 -81 interchange. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to give me a call. Matthew B. Smith, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer VDOT - Land Development Clarke Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone # ( 540) 984 -5615 Fax # (540) 984 -5607 Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.26, Virus / Spyware Database: 6.18320) http://www.r)ctools.com Thursday, January 05, 2012 AOL: GreyWolfehic COUNTY of FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney { 4 } 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us August 15, 2011 VIA FACSIMILE - (540) 545 -4001 — AND REGULAR MAIL Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE GreyW olfe; "Inc. __.... 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 Re: Rezoning Application, Parcel Numbers 43 -A -143, 43 -A -144, 43 -A -145, 43 -A- 146, and 43 -A -147 (collectively, the "Properties "), K & J Investments, LLC and North Stephenson, Inc. (collectively, the "Applicants ") — Proffer Statement dated July 18, 2011 Dear Gary: You have submitted to Frederick County for review a proposed proffer statement.dated July 18, 2011 (the "Proffer Statement ") for the proposed rezoning of 5.973 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District and 5.832 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the M 1 (Light Industrial) District, constituting properties of K & J Investments, LLC, Parcel Identification Numbers 43 -A -144 and 43 -A -146, K & J, LLC, Parcel Identification Number 43- A -145, and North Stephenson, Inc., Parcel Identification Numbers 44 -A -143 and 44 -A -147, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and it is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would. be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick �"nty Zor ng Ordinance acid the Code of Virginia and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following comments: 1. As an initial matter, the identities of the owners of Parcel Numbers 43 -A -144, 43 -A- 145, and 43 -A -146 need to be clarified and their respective entity statuses updated. a. Specifically, with respect to Numbers 43 -A -144 and 43 -A -146, while "K & J Investments, LLC" is the record owner of those parcels (though the deed also incorrectly identifies it as "K & J Investements, LLC "), no entity under such name has ever been organized under Virginia law, according to the records of the State Corporation Commission. An entity under the name "K & J Investments, LC" does currently exist in Virginia and appears that it may consist of the same principals. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE August15,2011 Page 2 r b.. Likewise, with respect to Number 43 -A -145, while "K & J, LLC" is the ownerof that parcel, the'State Corporation Commission purged its records of that entity s existence effective December 31, 2007. c. Also, the description of the title origins in the second paragraph on page 1 of the Proffer St ate iri vii t is incorrect. Instrument Number 070013928 conveyed Parcel. Number 43 -A -142, which is not proposed to be part of the rezoning, to K & J Investments,rLLC. The description does not show the title origin of the two North Stephenson, Inc. parcels, Numbers 43 -A -143 and 43 -A -147. 2. The signature block for the Proffer Statement and the signatures on any power of:, 1 attorney (or the application) need to reflect the correct corporate owners of the parcels and;.then, the capacities in which the individuals are acting on behalf of those entities. ._.._ _. 3. The diagram attached to the Proffer Statement does not "state that it is the Generalized Development Plan.( "GDP "). If it is the GDP, it should so state. 4. The requested rezoning area appears to split Parcel Numbers 43 -A -143 and 43 -A -147 and possibly 43 =A -144. In light of this, the GDP needs to show the metes and bounds of the requested rezoning area. 5. Proffer La. The Proffer does not indicate whether Ezra Lane will be a public or private road. If'it:is to be a public road, the Proffer does not state any timing for its dedication. Also, the Proffer should state the specific width of the right -of -way. 6. Proffer 1.b. - The Proffer does not indicate the timing of the dedication of the easement. Depending upon the final engineering of Snowden Bridge Boulevard, the Proffer may need to make clear, through the GDP, the exact placement of the easement. Also, staff will likely need to examine whether the Applicants' suggested placement of Snowden Bridge Boulevard is correct and whether the Proffer should address dedication of any right -of -way for Snowden Bridge Boulevard. 7. Proffer Lc — The Proffer should clearly state that the Applicants will install the warranted signalization improvements, as specified by VDOT, within a specific time after VDOT determining the signalization improvements to be warranted. I have not reviewed the substance of the protfers as to whetner the proffers, are suiiauic . and 'appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by staff, and the -Planning Commission. Sincere s, oderick B. Williams County Attorney cc: Michael Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning and Development From:fred co fire • To:95454001 r JUL 1 6 2A1� 017/2011 14:18 Rezonin ents ti Frederick County Fire Marshal Mail to: Frederick County Fire Marshal 1800 Coverstone Drive Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 665 -6350 Winchester, Virginia Hand deliver to: Frederick County Fire & Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal Public Safety Building 1800 Coverstone Drive #910 P.0021002 Applicant: Please fill out the informatipp as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Fire Marshal with his review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: GreyWolfe, Inc - Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE Mailing Address: 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 Winchester, Virginia 22603 Location of property: North side of Snowden Brid Blvd next to CSX Railroad Project Name: Snowden Bridge Station Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: M- Acreage: 11.605 Fire Marshal's Comments: Fire Marshal's Signature & Notice to Fire Marshal - Please Return This Form to the Applicant Telephone: 540 -667 -2001 22 Fron:fred co fire • To:95454001 Control number RZI1 -0003 Project Name Snowden Bridge Station Address 1073 Redbud Rd. Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA-Ml Automatic Sprinkler System Yes Other recommendation 07 /2011 14:17 #910 P.001 1002 Date received Date reviewed Date Revised 7/18/2011 8/172011 Applicant Greywolfe INC. City State Zip Applicant Phone Winchester VA 22603 540567 -2001 Tax ID Number Fire District Rescue District 43- A- 143 -147 13 13 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System Yes Election District Stonewall Residential Sprinkler System No Requirements Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway /Aisleway Width Not Identified Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards No Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Approved Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature Yes S. Mark Showers Title /!__fst.__'l- �,a- !��3✓�_ Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Public Works Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Public Works Attn: Director of Engineering 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665 -5643 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Dept. of Public Works Attn: Director of Engineering County Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester. Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Public Works, with 'thei ,review. Attach a copy, _of your ' application form, location map, proffer statement, imoact'analysts=,and'any „other pertinent rnformahon ” Applicant's Name: Grey Wolfe, Inc. -Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE Telephone: 540- 667 -2001 Mailing Address: 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 Project Name Snowden Bridge Station Location of property: North side of Snowden Bridge Blvd next to CSX R ailroad Protect Name. Snowden Bridge Station Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: M -1 YU� 9 A� /c JB � O � s C A Acreage: 11.80 Department of Public Work's Comments: W e c� n �n DV? n to Co ° Y p so 40 rc c P va cC� ex t 6L tA V t A l c Public Works Signa & Da ' J l re Notice to Dept. of Public Works / - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 21 0 0 Rezoning Comments Frederick - Winchester Service Authority Mail to: Fred -Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 722 -3579 Hand deliver to: Fred -Winc 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 of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impa anal and any other pertinent information. Applicants Name: GreyWolfe, Inc. - Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE Telephone: 540 - 667 -2001 Mailing Address: 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 Winchester, Virginia 22603 Location of property: North side of Snowden B ridge Blvd next to CSX Railroad Project Name: Snowden Bridge Station Current zoning: RA 8 RP Zoning requested: M Acreage: 11.805 Fred-Win c Service Authority's Comments: no Con M Wil5 Fred -Winc Service Authority' w� -7119'1 (' Signature & Date: Notice to Fred -Winc Service Authority - Please Return Form to Applicant 33 yt Rezoning Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868 -1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Grey Wolfe, Inc. - Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE Telephone: 540- 667 -2001 Mailing Address: 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 Winchester, Virginia 22603 Location of property: North side of Snowden Bridge Blvd ne to CS Railroad Project Name: Snowden Bridge Station Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: M-1 Acreage: 11.905 Sanitation Authority Comments: Sewer: There is sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this site. The Authority no longer allows a force main to connect to another force main. Forced sew - t=e be `ret e-a nianhele Gr- I3timp of al ( arra(-hpc7 are Water: There is sufficient water pressure in this area But,due to current and presently allocated de man t ere is a p i nf not having suffici water volume to serve this site when it deve,oped. Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: Notice to Sanitatio ority - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 25 map) is 0 Rezoning Comments Frederick - Winchester Health Department Mail to: Frederick- Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 722 -3480 r� 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 Applicant Name: GreyWolfe, Inc. - Gary R. Oates, LS - B, PE Telephone: 540 -667 -2001 Mailing Address: 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 Winchester, Virginia 22603 Location of property: North side of Snowden Bridge Blvd next to CSX Railroad Project Name: Snowden Bridge Station Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: M- Acreage: Frederick-Winchester Health Department's Comments:) tkY 144 apf. i� F':.t frLi c t es .Mfrcl� So t I ona l ns no prrop2 or exi, Ki i wPl�o' w � C�/oln�k�1 nre nto .l -.7y .� •fi c� Health Dept. Signature & Date: Notice to Health Department - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 26 t , r� 101p11 a COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 July 28, 2011 Mr. Gary Oates, LS -B, PE GreyWolfe, Inc. 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Snowden Bridge Station Property Rezoning; PINS: 43-A-143,144, 145, 146, and 147 Zoning District: Current Zoning RA & RP, Proposed Zoning M -1 Dear Mr. Oates: 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 HRAB. 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 is noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does identify this property as being located within the study area of the Second and Third (Opequon) Battles of Winchester. However, the general vicinity of this site is identified by the Study as having lost its integrity. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, J 0 A� Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner CEP /bad cc: Rhoda Kriz, HRAB Chairman 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 • • Rezoning Comments Winchester Regional Airport Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 662 -2422 Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road (Rt. 645, off of Rt. 522 South) Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Winchester Regional Airport with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant Name: Grey Wolfe, Inc. - Gary R. Oates, I-S -B, PE Telephone: 540 -667 -2001 Mailing Address: 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 Winchester, Virginia 22603 Location of property: North side of Snowden Bridge Blvd next to CSX Railroad Project Name: Snowden Bridge Station Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: M -1 Acreage: 11.805 Winchester Regional Airport's Comments: 11 e h e � `motes' Winchester Regional Airport's — Signature & Date: N \a, Notice to Winchester Regional Airport - Please Return Form to Applicant 30 0 0 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD 79" WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662 -5786 August 26, 2011 GreyWolfe, Incorporated Gary R. Oates, LS, PE 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 Re: Rezoning Comment - RA & RP to M -1 Snowden Bridge Station Stonewall Magisterial District Dear Mr. Oates: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Thank you for the opportunity to review this request. Sincerely, S. R. Manuel Executive Director 0 Rezoning 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 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to 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. Applicants Name: GreyWolfe, Inc. - Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE Mailing Address: 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 Winchester, Virginia 22603 Location of property: North side of Snowden Blvd next to CSX Railroad Project Name: Snowden Bridge Station Current zoning: RA 8 RP Zoning requested: M -1 Acreage: 11.805 Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: Notice to Department of Parks & Recreation - Please Return This Form to the Applicant Telephone: 540 -667 -200 23 U Rezoning Comments Aw Ifs d � t ✓l � Superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools Mail to: Frederick County Public Schools Attn: Superintendent P.O. Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 662 -3888 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 Superintendent of Public Schools with his review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant Name: Grey Wolfe, I nc. - Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE Mailing Address: 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 Winchester, Virginia 22603 Location of property: North side of Snowden Bridg Blvd next to CSX Railroad Project Name: Snowden Bridge Station Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: M-1 Acreage: 11.805 Superintendent of Public Schools' Comments: A L 64� no �nm► 6 0 Y s I t Superintendent's Signature & Date: yjtc{vp. z_ Notice to School Superintendent - lease Return This Form to the Applicant Telephone: 540 -667 -20 01 24 GREYWOLFE, INC. 1073 REDBUD ROAD 0 WINCHESTER, VA 22603 ®- ®= o� (540) 667 -2001 0 (540) 545 -4001 FAX I/ GREYWOLFEINC @AOL.COM , ''•l John Bishop, Transportation Planner January 5, 2012 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Subject: Snowden Bridge Station Mr. Bishop, I have given up on VDOT reply to this application. It has been over 90 days, in fact now it has been 114 days. I am proceeding with the rezoning. In regards to your comments dated August 24, 2011. 1. In regards to completed streets, the property that will contain Snowden Bridge Blvd was rezoned in application #03 -05. The properties contained in this rezoning do not touch Snowden Bridge Blvd can only access it via Ezra Lane. The road design is being handled now by Graystone, as you know, and my clients will dedicate whatever right of way is necessary. As far as sidewalks and trails, I will consult with you during the Master Plan and they will be constructed at Site Plan stage. Our ordinance requires this, so I am not proposing a proffer to construct something we are required to do anyway. 2. I understand your concern about the traffic light location. A round -about was explored and deemed unbuildable due to the bridge crossing with its approach grade. Whether this rezoning occurs or not, the inevitability of this light placement has been created by the Graystone, Stephenson Village, and previous Omps rezoning. Also, the Northeast Road Plan indicates this location for a collector running parallel with Route 11 North in order to improve access management in the future. We have to access the public roads somewhere; at least this rezoning is covering the cost of the light and we are not proposing direct access to Route 11. Thank you, �� Cl Gary . Oates, LS -B, PE GreyWolfe, Inc Ru 0 From: John Bishop Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:36 AM To: Mike Ruddy Cc: Iloyd.ingram @vdot.virginia.gov; matthew.smith @vdot.virginia.gov Subject: omps comment County transportation staff has reviewed the TIA and proffers for the proposed rezoning and has the following comments to offer. 1. The County's adopted comprehensive plan calls for complete streets throughout the county. Complete streets consider all potential users of the transportation system. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements should be included along the frontage consistent with what has been put in place at Rutherford Crossing and is planned to be put in on the Graystone development. 2. Staff is very concerned that the levels of traffic from this proposed development would require a signal at the intersection with Snowden Bridge blvd. Spacing for this proposed signal from the intersection of Snowden Bridge and Route 11 would be well below VDCT spacing standards. Considering the importance of Snowden Bridge Blvd in the County's transportation plan, situations that degrade overall capacity and do not meet standards should be avoided. Development should be limited to a level that would not require a signal or else a future right in /right out condition should be considered as alternatives to signalizing this entrance. In addition, other access points should be considered as properties to the north develop in order to ease traffic pressures at this point. Thanks pro 7T1 John A. Bishop, AICP Deputy Director - Transportation Frederick County Planning & Development 107 North Kent St. Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 Ph: 540- 665 -5651 F: 540- 665 -6395 Jbt ishop(a)co.frederick va.us 0 0 r GREYWOLFE, INC. C Q'bi - -_ 1073 REDBUD ROAD a WINCHESTER, VA 22603 - — ®(� (540) 667 -2001 • (540) 545 -4001 FAX ®® ` Ili GREYWOLFEINCCUTAOL.COM III Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney January 5, 2012 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Subject: Snowden Bridge Station Mr. Williams, After waiting several months for one particular review agency, this project is moving forward once again. This letter is response to your comments dated August 15, 2001, to the proposed proffer statement dated July 18, 2011. I have revised the proffers based on all review comments and discussions with my client, and have sent them with this letter. 1. Your first comment was in regards to the identities and the various parcels submitted for rezoning. There were parcels that were deeded to my clients with errors in the grantees identity. My clients consulted an attorney and have recorded the corrected instruments at the courthouse. I have attached copies of these instruments for your review. I have also presented the parcels with their legal references in an easier to follow format. 2. The signature block has been updated to reflect the title of Keven and John Omps. 3. The exhibit (diagram) is not a Generalized Development Plan. 4. A rezoning plat (survey) has been submitted to clarify the portion of properties to be rezoned. S. Proffer I.a. has been revised to clarify that it will be a public road and dedicated to the County of Frederick when it meets VDOT acceptance criteria. 6. Proffer 1.1b. has been revised to clarify the proposed easement will be available to the County of Frederick upon request. The location of Snowden Bridge Blvd is on property owned my clients; however, the parcel is not part of this rezoning. The right of way dedication was part of the proffer package of rezoning #03 -05. 7. Proffer 1.c. has been clarified to basically say when VDOT says it is needed, my clients will build it. Thank you, �� r te- Gary�R. Oates, LS -B, PE Grey Wolfe, Inc