The URL can be used to link to this page

TC 07-24-06 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner—,�,s RE: July 24, 2006 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: July 17, 2006 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, July 24, 2006 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, V-7inchester, Virginia. The agenda for this meeting is as follows - AGENDA 1. Public Hearing on 2007-2008 Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plans 2. Haggerty Rezoning Adjustments to Transportation Infrastructure 3. Update on the Eastern Road Plan 4. Article Distribution .5. Other Business Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ITEM #1 Public Dearing on 2007-2008 Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plans Staff has been collaborating with VDOT to develop the 2007-2008 Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plans. This includes the updating of rankings for hard surfacing requests, revenue sharing projects to include in the Secondary plan, Interstate projects, and Primary projects. This effort is being finalized in the week leading up to the meeting and staff will present the plans. This is a public hearing item. ITEM #2 Haggerty Rezoning adjustments to Transportation Infrastructure The applicant is seeking a recommendation from the Transportation Committee on adjustments to their original Master Development Plan (MDP) as regards transportation infrastructure. Attached please find a description of the changes as well as an updated MDP. Staff and the applicant's representatives will be present to comment and answer questions. Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. J U L 1 7 2006 i July 17, 2006 i Mr. John A. Bishop, Jr. Transportation Planner Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Haggerty Transportation Network Dear John: PP__ /� On July 12, members of my office met with Frederick County- planning staff to discuss i -RA L the transportation network proposed on the Master Development Plan (MDP) for the Haggerty property- and how it relates to the transportation network approved as part of the Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the Haggerty rezoning application. We CORPORATE: would like to present the MDP to the Frederick County Transportation Subcommittee Chantilly prior to submitting the MDP application to the Planning Commission and Board of VIRGINIA OFFICES: Supervisors. Bridgewater Chantilly This letter is intended to identify the differences between these two plans and to Charlottesville provide a brief explanation for the changes. The changes are as follows: Fredericksburg Leesburg Nevport News 1. "Spine Road" Alignment Virginia Beach Winchester GDP: Spine Road crosses under future Route 37 prior to running Woodbridge parallel to the West side of the Route 37 right of way. LABORATORIES: Chantilly MDP: Spine Road does not cross under Route 37 and runs parallel to Fredericksburg the East side of the Route 37 right of way. MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Justification: The proposed Route 37 alignment cannot effectively Columbia accommodate the minimum curve radius required by VDOT for Frederik the spine road crossing as proposed on the GDP. As such, Germantown locating the spine road along the Eastern edge of Route 37 as Hollywood depicted on the MDP still satisfies the intent of the spine road as PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: a north/south connector asproffered during the Haggerty Allentown rezoning. /VEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 54).667.21 1'9 F 54).665_C493 1 17 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Haggerty Transportation Network July 17, 2006 Page 2 of 2 2. Future East/West Connector Road Alignment GDP: Connector Road is shown running parallel in close proximity to tax map parcel 55-4-3. MDP: Connector Road has been shifted approximately 400 feet South where a T -intersection is made with the proposed Spin Road. Justification: The Connector Road is intended to satisfy the relocation of Valleylvlill Road as indicated on the Eastern Road Plan. A minor shift in the location of the roadway does not hinder the ,RA connection opportunities afforded to adjacent tracts or to Valley Mill Road. As any adjacent tract develops, interconnections will be made to satisfy the Comprehensive Plan which will provide for a transportation network that serves the area 'V�,71thin the vicinity of the site and Frederick County at large. The nunor discrepancies between the GDP and MDP can be attributed to the generalized nature of a GDP. It is important to note that the major transportation issues addressed by the GDP transportation network are also addressed by the network proposed by the current MDP. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Patton Harris Rust & Associates Patrick R. Sowers P:\Pkuzraira�\ Trans Subcommittee Letter 071606.doc M 1 Revised HaggaVBNd. 4.18.06 NO. DESCPJP170N DATE REVSD MMAPPROVED DATE PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN VICINITY MAP 1'=200V March 2006 Revised April 18, 2006 Owner and Developer The Canyon, LC P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2120 Canyon, LC Date Designer and Engineer Patton, Hams, Rust, & Associates, Inc. 117 E. Picadilly Streets Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 APPROVALBLOCK Director of Planning and Development County Administrator Date Data SHEET INDEX 1. COVER SHEET 2. MASTER PLAN 3. ROAD PLAN 4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND UTILITIES PLAN 5. BOUNDARY SURVEY 6. APPROVED PROFFER STATEMENT RONAU A. tBs7oym, JR. No. M74 a ITEM NO.2 HAGGERTY PROPERTY PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. PH'IsA 208 Church Street, S.E. Leesburg, VA 20175 T 703.777.3616 F 703.777.3725 December 2005 12617-1-0 Sheet 1 of 8 ' i" - 1 - -- - ------------ _ f - _�tllc�F'� I 1 -' _-- �fi to I — - - I I 1 I / 1 1 _ 1 , , , I r _ _ __ _ - fl ______ \\` 11\ \ /; \\. ---- it \ _ A \ - \ � _ ADAMS _-_ - .�� _ 7- ----------------- \ J \— /;_OY , -- -PtSIDENTU --___ 6 \ ``aylixed`IIse ., _? DEVELOPME �''`` I 12 AC. — — \ ----------- -- , I'ICOPdS`E��D_�Ct0NA4UNITI CENTER _ --/-----------\ '\ , - t c-------- �. �NC adJUuuog (�d�rb ••"l^'••J "`.'^'•'Y•619 `, i - `_..-__ - `I ,� �AQ apptbvedin"„fiituie.bythe Bond ofSnpervisois.------------ \ i i ---dm Nis eomh�ututy mtterr will be built oD�y$ye� '`, \ , j \ ,�,l I.♦ .I /--�” ``\.�,. `\ `; \`�\\QI � "n �x ``\ ,i ' AiWaJ�topelty, dweapmdmgtheslu o YW `, `, \ It Adams CommitDtty�Ctntarto allow Ste Haggerty '\, \ \ ; 1 / /. /) -------_.1)q'elop�raatUllec4e8sa�8Msand'allowlug iDts toIf .�1,, ..I. I _ If If _ - 1 , I` CY /Il!• j — 1 \q It� ?\r�1�\ �)_\ \�\ 1 , _ rr IJl1 1 1 , , , , I I I 1 1 v 1 I A PE 9�W1 I / n\ ` EDI ION p�t I \/ BUNT -Y- \ ; 1 , i - , 1 0;' r tl9` / \ ,4, c4 , tr i>v' - v 1 1 � - 9 1� . • _ti _..ASS HISTORIC SITE VEHICULAR CIRCULATION • • • - PROPERTY BOUNDARY ----------- APPROX. LOCATION OF 10' PROPOSED PAVED TRAIL PROPOSED AREA FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE (30% Required; 31%Provided) - \ ,:`._ ..�- _ _, 1 ,1111 ,,, )SLI 1�� ,•� Ate_~^_l.-��.4L.�^n , 1 ` ,I 1 1 Y l/ .'� \C.'\ l \ ; \.�.\\ ` T /. Project Summary lin ;i'i; \\\�.�� . 11 I \ I1 R.:` y`/. / . / \ . `� ` ' 1 � k \ . \' 't � Total Area: 111.56 Acres 1'`, \� ^� ~'` \� ;` ;�^,; `, I, `, t+ f/ y��gjjyyed ; �'d1\ '`, ! \r-= C- \`,�`.�.�11('' •x` \ i�/I Existing Zoning: RP \`` , , _-- _ ; ' _� ; ; , ', 11 \ - �/' ; .; , ,,' C\CA\ _TSI 111,, \ ; , , `, - 'i;i \• Pin Numbers: 55-A-212 & 212A \ ` `'; `\, ` - - \` ------------/, ,\ 'III f ;; % I/' I �b [ . ij . \ \ ; I ;; ;; \.. Proposed Use: Single Family Attached �:��'`. :`"'` -------------- .__ _, „` � III ` `, rr'1. ., ��\ ;\. .� �%' ; ' 1// -_ \�. &SingleFamil Detached —� -c_- \`_ \\ ull ' \ ,/1_I''1 r\/ i� y i------ I;I`� \ Notes AIl-prQPosed utilities will be placed underground. / \ _ • ``_ �:� va ssN r j ': '``�\ _ _ - _ I 1 , v `tea _ l / \ - 1 , r / 1 I ' i "/ 2. Contour Interval Shown �/(/�/ 2,'. V 3. All Public Roads to be built to VDOT Standards. , _ + I , `\-- '' i 1 ,_ i , / ,//,/, ' I\ iIII _ -}•.-{ x `->_ `` _-.\ \ \ 111 .Y \1111 I,I\ \ ``\`\` 1 _ ` Adjacent Property Owners _ 7N, ". -_ : :, ;` \ \ :, . "� 1) 56-A-19 -Fredrick-Winchester Service Authority __ -___--- — — - ♦ __ I ,11.`\ ,\ \ \ -` - Fredrick -Winchester Service Authority , , 2) 55-4-1 (RA) ; ---- _ - - _ - 3) 5 Aubrey T. Chadwell (Investors AT, LLC) (RA) 4) 55-4-3 -Michael E. McKee (RA) I I ` 5) 55-4-4A -Alicia F. Grey 'I,' t ,Iti I, \` `\ , ' _ \✓ , -( I �) _ / 55-A-210 -Linden D. &Goldie L. Adams (RA) _ / �U ;z\ V�, nspa 7) 55-A-211 -Toll Brothers (RA) \ ce area to be derdicated'td, �; .,`\ / j9 LANDSCAPE EASEMENT O,PE I `\ --------- - \ I1 ® \ h, , , , ,Frederica County for a pwbl'c park, ; 8) 55-A-209 -Toll Brothers (RP) 'j /;=._ _` \' \ ` - / - ;-PRbVIDEDPERAPPRO \ s :, , {,.. ,,,Qt,7�,\`;\ = j I -= - - %i, --- i \, (, „ + _. I 9) 5 - Toll Brothers (RP) E SM -2-9-149D ;' ; ' _ / OPFE 10 65-A-195 -Forest Mildred L. Rl leman �' P� R 13-7�PLANTINOS 1'O BE', ` \:__ -, /, , / , - \ �'`__ � , . \ '\ = __ ; nFrIDED AT.TIIvIE OF _-_ — , ''v'i 1tlI n , • + `, _, _ , \' \ \\ -_ - ----- , / � SV1.1DI Y1rSION.� " __-- - ---- y- 1 ., II IIIy 111, , , t'------------ Unit � � / u -- ' I �-- _ __-� Unit Summary 1 , _ _. - �% ; ;,;; ;%;; ;' •\ l 1 -- Total Phase Phase II \I`� ,��\\ ',�i'' -_� / \` ` / 11111111,(Illl( - ,- = �; ; ; ;`. ; l;-,`" , , ; ;,%„ i '� -- \ `---- (I"fill;"1" __ \ --�_ \, `,`\` FSmall Lot Detached 81 14 67 ' 1 \\ `, ' 1 _' ` `\ `` �- 1 '11\ ``':__ i/\17,1` /,;/' - - � \ ...... � ;I (I''; III; Ill/ l; 11 / \`` ♦ \\\ ` Attached y ---- = '- = __ ,` , , \ \ , \ I , , 1` �" '-- - \ , ! 1,l _ , %,', , , ' ,I(II lll,',III(I I % _ , ,\ Small Lot A 72 64 8 g -- - \ ,,, \ — — -- _ ' --- -._", ` � , 1 1 1 '\ \ \ I)(Ir .iIII II ,� _ j___ _ � 81 S _ 72 SF I ' ' �- J-- �`. `. q \ `, \ \ \ '1, '1 , , / I I ,__, J; /'11 '' t\ . , ,/; , / Illlllll/lllr�l 111 �`�,� --`-- - - ____-_-_—_` �` — / // d II I %% Townhouse 147 72 75 i+ x - ' /__C -i- , ,\,\ l \ \ _ --' ' 1 \ /� `\- \\\',' - ! I, III 11111/11 , r J 1 1 _-- , 1 /, `\ I ----' ,��-------=---=--- - \�_ �; ---- `_ j -----' ,rr1111111(Il (' 1 `---- Total Units 300 150 150 _ \ \ I`\ '`, \ _ /�',� _ / / Y. ,( 111 I - , , t "i 'l o \ _ _ - _�f SCALE h 2 400° 0001 a� WV 2W 100 50 0 00 0 N CLI U w a N W C o N N M � m O Q i N 2 N 06 N n n C U M 3 o 0 OD y o O d N J H LL Ip vi � O R >_ = N + ..W .. C CL DRAWN SURVEY SLWIJJC PHRA DESIGN CHECKED MWf DATE DECEMBER 2005 SCALE 1'= 200° SHEET 2 of 6 FILE 12617-1.0 QZ �? z fX o a o; LL � W - Wz ~o z 'tLNe� VJ e<Of c w W (v X 2 LL DRAWN SURVEY SLWIJJC PHRA DESIGN CHECKED MWf DATE DECEMBER 2005 SCALE 1'= 200° SHEET 2 of 6 FILE 12617-1.0 `NZ%'W (((' i� '' i'��i;' ';�; \��tl" "l•.,//°6-,21 ._.:®- `��'-'___ ---. - i__��` . e •: oa"U Sim e l I I' 1` aS��1��t�,� � `,__`_ � 0� 1 ; , �� \ ; as 0 ; �:"� - I 11 ' ,ld, `� S '♦ _aD> \lol �-eV__� __\ i - ' i ---0-6 �op\ \\ -_ , `�``�-' IIIc __ :�1, ,, �, � ;1;;11. 11 V-, ,�`'` , .`\ b \\\� 1 ♦\_ , iJ ` `Vo 1 , , `;1, `\`_� __, •, _/ u'` � `\ \` ' (LII `; \, � ,�(� ` ; 111 `:\�`� ` ` `,\;: ;, '`:;; ;' `;;;:;\\ ♦ } 1 "\ ,, , ,1' I ` \\I ` _; ; p ♦ 1111 \,1, ,`,: „ // 't;\`�♦-1`. 111\0\, ,,\, ------------ - - ' \\ �♦; � �\ 1 11j .\� \\ \\\ ` -_- , }/,y - ?Y' YJ � / '1 \I "\ \`� -,♦ _--__�� / ,i 11 ,,, \\`�,, 'v'v, `\� ♦` `' , % % 1 11 \\--__ _ _ \ �J ll�\ `\`\ ` ----' -- \'' �\ '-—_-_-_-- '111 \\♦♦ , n11, -'' ,.'ItC /::\ v, _ ------------ —¢ -�"�?-_�-_,._'moo t_ •^ __ _ /'/ __ ___ $ - ' _�.c- _'' L-�Ty+ ''-�----,__- I -- -- It x 1`\` W ` i '-_1"`l< \ -- --_' ; 1. ; - , , 111 \ - `, ��1,\r ( I i i i I'!-�\ ♦\ iii.,111 .`` \ ``_,"'1 i'1 ``` �`-._—/ \-_______-: i `i' `♦` `\ � J vI r � -__-__ / i ,/ � 1\\ 1 �`I \ i ; l I ��\C�\i\ `♦ i ' 1, �I i`�`\`\ \ \\\`C `�. 11 \ \ � — p�t�1'i� � ___'-_�.\ �-__; ' -_ "_ i �� % 1 `\1\ 1 `\ _ I \ I 1, 111"\11 „ �'j �,i I Ill l"`_\ `�_ - '`\ I `1 `♦\ � i/ % - � ` \ ` \\ -�__ '- �_I `\ 1 \\`\`\` __ '-� 1 1 /Ill 11\\ /% //, h/ 1 ; /,/ � 1 ♦ /=�-'_-,_ � , 1 `,l 1 I / /-__ - ' � \ I` :�`�`_`� -_`\`\`\ 1\ /,`\`\\ - ✓, , VIII III\`%/, �li/ / ,//////i��,_ � %_/ -.='I ;1/111%/`♦ ♦\lOi _ - `\`` \`` ____, '\1 \\`\� .�.•-\ IIII1\\\\\\_I\,; ,11(11 , ' II(//�;/l,/;' \- ,\'\\`\ ``\`\\� - `♦\ _ \�\\♦` _ - \ / \\♦_ /�/1'1111 I /,'/''/)r-'- --`- - \ ` ♦'\`1 _ `11,\` _ \� �^ `♦ ` I 1 -- _ � I \\♦+` ,^\\� //1\\1\ _' 1111/,/1// \ _ 1 ,\ \\ 1 1 " I -''', \♦♦`_ - II I;1\I\1\\1 - 1111'" lI";Ir \ I i ';�-\-_;� \\\ \`♦` `` _j \'\\'ll `♦`, `,\1 `,`\`\�--_'J \�`� ._, '^```___ _ 1'111``\\`\`�;II'I\"`\�`� I/ 1'I/IIIIIIII' /' ,`♦` ;/;'i __ \ �\,;�� 1\ I'i' „1 1\j `-- I i ``` _-__ / 1\ ;�-� /1111/ _ 1 / ♦ ♦,11 11 ( '� Y I I ` `` �._'�l`\�----'/`- _��, ;♦;;\\\ , 1 \\ ,,,1,'1,1,1 1111`, , `I I / -.` `�♦;`; `;:.\;\ ` ,Ill \ l'," �` = ---- -- - --1 111 , ;t1 ♦: \�:: `'- ;',,(;I,, ;111 `,:\. --- -' ' '-- - \;:: �:" `\ _ ,'; t ` \ / 1 \ `, + I i I / / ji�4//'/ _� \ ` , ` ` 'tii li;,,' •_-c\ �� __ _ 2 �__ � `_ ' � - ` ` '(I /; 1 \} I, ,�i,l, , /,� , Il;(/,`\\\li Iii/' ^_��:"'�=�_\�_��`. `.\ , II'}r 9✓`\\4-\ If�� _ �, %'%/I/i'/ i i i ; I w � 11111\ i ,__ _ .� : -` -�. Il, _`\ `��. \?� !1',11 \ ` ` \1'' \ ♦`;,\\ , , `, �\� -�_ .�_%l,�/,ice `=`\_♦ \``: `\ _,, 1 ;,\\� `'` \ L r J�`�' 1 ''' 1 /% 1\\\\\``` _ `� .\ `I1\,, 1\♦ _ _ \\\♦I\\\ ''\` `/ ` \ \`` ` `\`'IIIIIIII/i%i - �\♦"w Irl/// �'// /`��\l\ l=X`_,��iC� ,11 �,, /66 ---- --�\ \ ♦\\1\\\\\ ♦`I ` ` \� 1 I l f llf��, ��` `` _ -_ , 01 I� /� \ \ \� - , 00" 11 ,i %,i_ 11� ` 1\\ _ � \ �``````\II IIII,11, ♦\��" _��\ III ,1\ \`,� 1\ I 1 I 1 r - , ` , 1Jjl 11 nl /,/ ;`. ``: . o J,111 1\\ \ `` \. ' In ♦\ �, I, 4/bii 'i -- \\�� •\`oma•'` _-�,j%' /,/pi-_-� `,\��♦ _ - ♦`, ` \j 1 (�_-_ �--____-- � �_ � i 111 r1 `I, III �'i \�\��\�♦ ��_ ___ _52- \, \ IIII \ 0 \`�`` I 1 `♦ ` I III ��\\�I / '/ � `♦``I ' _ l/�` ' // 1 , ♦ ♦ \ ��\\`' //�,' i'/ ,,,�,/, _ 111` C 1 \�\ , `Pi C c .`%,:�i'i lu: p':i' _\`.-��- ♦ \ // pROIIPg'yQ. mm\ :\� ♦, -_- / , \ `i'1`= a�ii � `\`-.`,`�`� ,�`, ��` � �L_- /-D-B'�IDIjfi96�on _''�:I �-.� _` •\�`` -• - 1 \ \ \ \ ______ -- / y of �.J ,) c-_ _rca-c _�-`C_. \� �__ - __`I\ li,ll , 1 I i ` i I _ _ _� _ 1`:`_/, ' --• `_-- rIM .`e3.\2:\\ j o -/\♦ _ ,:_ ,; - j--------- ;`';;.''' I -- - 1 Jj - '----; -- /'r- --- ---`I I V I ;;; ;i; ' - � ; 5✓-,; �I;,\`:-r',,I \I `I ` V� \ \`' ' - ` ,; -- \\ 1, -\ y/,,,',�I/tomR/--:=';�-'' `-----= - " /� \� IU 1\ V ll.( \ `` �,' 4ei I�✓--G'I }iii / i i '\♦,1,\,`, I y \ , � - \ \ I , ` ��, :' ' � - __-___ ___ ` �`��\♦`' ->�______ C3 - '� ` \ \,_ ,, '✓, '1 , ; ; ,i Ih,:�� -' ,1 ;' ; __ _ -- ' '; \r=°� ♦=. )�1, ----------- _ --� \ '^q j♦ . Q ; ,'; 41 X \ \ /�,15' SD;'1uol it `/ 'OIt /�,- ?l. M \ ,- _\ - , i ,jam 1 `\_ _ ♦♦♦((( \,11 'Ill ,, 1 % J„` t 1\ O ;, - :.Q�\\. ,f/�i Y'O /` ly V(� •\ 1�/ , _ ..`/`\\;,.. .`�` '1 III,, 11111,'11 I(/r `\ ;' ALJ 1 � '4b'9 ; I'`.p V� '\;-\ I r__ 1 `' l ._ O �, -- r'\`\::`\\ �-`I1, ,11,,,,, ,\`��•\`'%.-� _ ```�\:`\, �+� _____` r \ �♦_` \P\ 'n11,a 1, t \` /`\ 1 nuA )'V) � a% yL ry - `'\ ” ,♦ o , , e _0_ o ° � `` �;` `� _�NY" - -' ---` � ` ;;�\�, ,_ ,I Ipl ; • 1 ) ,,,/,`,�;';,v `, ` :.`�>�,. �' '- 1 1 �' � , `,\\� \\`� ,O V , I I`, b'. V ♦ -_ O \` l `O ' 1\`�♦`�"````�� _.� //l lil iI \ ` 1 ii �_-\J'\lil b,\ \ 1 .`\♦`\,C"i, Q_ '`JII � - �11��, , ``' � / , •\ `'\ p'`\.` -' _ AD=_ i _ ,\ , , ,\., . / ,1"11, , S`, NII \ `q .'. N` -Lip Id, ,, Q-` ',l e, _ ,O `.�\, `�♦;_-, �, 1,, ,.-`; w�,,,1'\ `` ..,b o� V �`A (�" p..'�!J/�- �\�l .�D?, i+� �❑j � >?��\1, / e2' Q - :\'`---`__ ' \ \C rlr �� -_'___ ,\`\ �ZY. -... g _ ` V_'q 3'/1 -�. -�\ /' �Ib' Ar iafl'i Lj 4 �/ `II �� O ` -- �� ` ♦�/`I �. i `/ g ,/ _-/ `� \\ \,\ \. - o. O`_- 'A.: A�`.. ,.`� Ci Q.)r !ic ❑ f',l -='OV Q v, __ ♦i�"Z --. - AVE, - VIt Ka. 1% / I 1 I / 1 I I 1 II\L1 DRAWN SURVEY SLW/JJG PHRA DESIGN Mwr CHECKED \ DATE DECEMBER 2005 SCALE i ni< i 11' 111 I 1 3d6 F•u.E 12617-1.0 I 1 1 I i . � u \ I -N 1 1', I/ 1 _ C 10 II\L1 DRAWN SURVEY SLW/JJG PHRA DESIGN Mwr CHECKED \ DATE DECEMBER 2005 SCALE i SEW 3d6 F•u.E 12617-1.0 1 1 I i . � u \ I -N 1 1', I/ 1 _ C 10 it --- 51PI \\\ ,``, Proposed signal as warrented b Proffer 3.3 a y( ) LEGEND 3 LANES �— 2 LANES SCHEMATIC HAGGERTY RD I RT. 7 INTERSECTION VEHICULAR CIRCULATION PROPERTY BOUNDARY 6^W0'W (IR�IOI ROW L I 12' 12' 12' 12' 1 HAGGERTY BLVD. (B TO C) 60' ROW iRm HAGGERTY BLVD (C TO D) 2' 1e' 56' ROW j ROW ACCESS ROAD (C TO F) 16' 2' SUBDIVISION STREET (E) SCALE 800' 400' 200' 100' 0' 400' 800' 1200' 0 Ili -cc re a N W O o rn p N mn 0-6 o n a C N f2 Jj /1 N t > M M di N N c U q 0 O 3 0 0 I` �a NJ f IL b ai c u; + Om 0 N �+ C W O d w C11 mw F� ^, Q W — Z CD C7 Oo Z I a Q D 0 00 CD go Lu cc w w U - DRAWN SURVEY SLW/JJG PHRA DESIGN Mwr CHECKED DATE DECEMBER 2005 SCALE 1' = 4001 SEW 3d6 F•u.E 12617-1.0 it SII pl F� ^, Q W — Z CD C7 Oo Z I a Q D 0 00 CD go Lu cc w w U - DRAWN SURVEY SLW/JJG PHRA DESIGN Mwr CHECKED DATE DECEMBER 2005 SCALE 1' = 4001 SEW 3d6 F•u.E 12617-1.0 1 \ 1 I ' \'- -----' _ '- -_• ; ;'; il'��i i' ' i - ``\ ` , ` -------- - - - / _ / I /•�A�� / \ 1 \\ ��11```' `I \ ` '= _ - ---- ---= ` `;\\\I\ 1 _ \,1,11/ II`\\` \\ - ` ;, \ -_ ----- _ ---- _ `.\lull)`::`\0 1;111 111 -___- \ _ _ 1 , , 1111111 I , //, � \\\\\ `\\\ \ `\` I 1 \ \1\\ "N ` \ \ `.\ `. --�, ` ------------- I \ , I \ I , , , I I _ ,//•i'i//i i /' :�: `.`��.;-,; �``\`\`.�``.�------------- _ If fit, I ' IN IN P. ------------ t \ IIv i 1 I \ ADAMS 1 - 1 1 - _ Z, X` 1 / , ,, .__ \ ---- %---------__ :'%0POSED'.COMMUNNYCEN'TER \, - ---- / \\ \%\ /`/ `\ \ \ '\ . = ' (Ifthe adjoining`Adam's PtopeAy ltezoaing is ` I ! ` , \ \ `., \` (\\ r \_ apppVnved in the fitlntgby the Board of so"sont. ` ` � ' M1 \ _ \ \ - \. \ / • then this oinnDvoitY.center will be buih on the \ ` \\ ,\ `�_, j \ i�./ y. ./:_�,\ /\`\, ,� \'- `\\Mam.sProperty, thus' mcp=dm 8fltesiuofthe \\ �Admms Community Ceakito allow the Haggerty`, Deyelopmmi fDlb access nghta'aadaBuwmBtots to l; ,J�J/ // / -i\bl; \� \I.J IV I I `. \ „I 7JI-l' f \ J- IN J/r �, a21 i If \ \ ' /' , ','/ /Ili 1 /.^1. I. i. f1' a! ' 1 /i� 1 mt --_`- • \, , I�1 / \ �� \ I\ TYP. STEEP SLOPE , \ , - / r ` 7. ``7' lit r'�1� \ �� ? (50%OIC GREATER) J �� LamV ( )% JII ` ', I /' ., 'I/.�`' /, .A _`,\ 7-1 • /✓/ ,� X11 I / / �� 11. Y , , ;I I - I I - I \ \ LO an ci---------------- Q N as Ui ROW I, L ONFOR \ IN „, _---- \ o c 0 n ?AD BY' /' / H�y�/%/,�'/irr it / 1 1 `I `\ 1 1 I N -1 f'LL / ' `'1 ``, \`, \\ \`I IN i ill O 0 J '^ G �'i 9i!/''Il�'j i i `.\ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I •�. T a/5 f 'i�i, _'\ i ' 111 ' 'I l0 I- / ami y I' / ' I \ \ \ ,blit% ii '/ 1 1 1 3 IN C v - - - ---- i Cnl i i . - Mili 11 1111OW11 I- \ \\ - - - -- ---- ll�ll rll, 1 __ ______ __ _ _____. I'111I II1\ 1 — >,� \ \`�` \`•'`• __-__ \ratsN cancel.'` / / \.\ / 1�,.1J ` ly,/ .� ' ', i i rilIlli/\`�� \`'.`.= 1\ /--- _ \`\ `.\\ \,.�\ `.� `I \\ • `: - � /t , � � L \ If r\ : \ �\ • l l `.\\ ._ __ _' l \.`. \ ��_J�-- �4 f / ' �.. `\ \ 'i i i i �', /iliii ilii/ �♦}y� g \ \ \_` \ .` ♦- ., \\ `�` /V �>-..i-... 1 ♦ _ -___ / `.. 1 t II I i I' Il'I11 I I / -� `--.`-_ 2 p \ _♦ \ ` .--- J \"� 1 111 1'I 'Illt,'11\� \ ` \ .` _- . I I 1 -71 ; I I ♦ ,___ / _ __ � __-_ ♦.. . 1 , 1 I j II e 1 ,, r , , 1 \ \ `_. \ , / - \ 4' / ; `- 1 / 1,///',/ 1`\111 \\\\1��'\-�;;-\`\\ ` IN as jai _ ''"- '' -`,``. ' '\ \`\\\\\"\\`\�\'\ -J _\111 \I tt 1 15 &j / ------ A _� - - � �< r� . ♦„A AA"\A,A -= IN,— II I ' 1 \ 1\ Atl, Ic;` l -� Opp `. >�oD. \`; � ` ` 06 If ------------- FL ---------- IN II ^\`• - �\ /,� /_ `"__ '1\I1l 11 1 I' `I \I \I __ •-_- 1 l._ ' /I\\` I, '1,(`�vi/..�\___ ,/j ','�'' '-// �.�. N O� '' � 'I II '{ 1 ♦, 1 I 1 � I t�-� � � 1 `\-- `� ' ' 1'I'1'I!`� �`'i ,1'I'V IN'\ 0 4- `121\ \, I I, \ , \---------- -- -_-__---- 11� Al I. _ oo If IN 1 LEGEND PROPERTY BOUNDARY FLOOD PLAIN 20.38 AC gAgp STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PONDS MODOO. STORM/RUNOFF DIRECTION - STEEP SLOPES (50'1 1.57 AC OPEN SPACE (30% Required; 31% Proposed) - PROPOSED WATER MAIN 0- ► PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN WITH MAN HOLE e POWER POLE NOTES - UTILITIES LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OR SUBDIVISION DRAWINGS. - SANITARY SEWER AND WATER AVAILABLE PER FCSA - ALL UTILITIES WILL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND SCALE 40V 280' 10V 5a ON 20T 400' 600` DRAWN SURVEY SLW/JJC 0- I- U Q —z MWT JJJVJ 2 W Z ^1 O� Y U W m K LU Z 0 W 2 cu W LL DRAWN SURVEY SLW/JJC PHRA DESIGN CHECKED MWT DATE DECEMBER 2005 SCALE I"= 200' SHEET W6 6 FREE 12617.1-0 Hs3'SB. ° sp F LEDGEND PROPERTY BOUNDARY SCALE 400' 200' 100' 50' (Y 20(Y 400' 600' 0 'i CL U Ka S V) Em aZ III DRAWN SURVEY SLwmc PHRA DESIGN CHECKED MWf DATE DECEMBER 2005 SCALE r=2oa SHEET 5 of 6 FILE 12617-1-0 w W 15 a z O = o > co Q y 0 W o Qo 0 U CD uj cuo = m LL DRAWN SURVEY SLwmc PHRA DESIGN CHECKED MWf DATE DECEMBER 2005 SCALE r=2oa SHEET 5 of 6 FILE 12617-1-0 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. q 14-04 Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Perforaance (RP) PROPERTY: 111.56 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 55-A-212 & 212A (the "Property") RECORD OWNER The Canyon, LC APPLICANT: The Canyon, LC PROJECTNAME: Haggerty Property ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 20, 2004 REVISION DATE(S): 1/12/05;1/20/05; 2/9/05 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property), as described above, shad be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void Further, these proffers are contingent upon fatal rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit.' development plans until such contest 6 resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all fume owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Haggerty Property" dated i:, rember 20, 2004 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: 1. Lt 'TT) USE: 1.1 Reside,. ial development on the Propertyshall not exceed a maximum of 300 dwelling mm.:. Housing. types shall be limited to single family detached and single familyattacked units. Proffer Statement Haggerty 132 The Applicant shall construct a collector road as the "spine" of time project's internal road network and to provide direct access from the project to VA Roane 7. Said collector road shall be located within -a sixty foot right of way aligned parallel to the planned right of way for VA Route 37; and shall be constructed as an urban undivided (LIZ) cross section with a center tum lane. The collector road shall be constructed from VA.Roure 7 to the project site prior ro issuance of the fust building permit for the project, and shad be completed to the south project boundary prior to issuance of the 151" building permit The Applicant reserves the right to apply for partial funding for collector road construction through revenue sharing or other programs as may be available through VDOT and/or Frederick County. (See 4 o GDP) 13.3 The Applicant shall install those improvements necessary to complete the cross-over at the intersection of the "spine" collector road and VA Route 7; including Route 7 improvements with nun lanes, pursuant to VDOT specifications .and approval The Applicant shall further enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT for said intersection. 13.4 The Applicant shall make available the area necessary for the future construction by others of an east -west mad that will connect to the "spine" collector road (See 5 on GDP) 13.5 The Applicant shallconstruct an entrance onto the "spine" collector road for the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The final location and design of said entrance shall be determined pursuant to the specifications and approval of VDOT, the County, and the FWSA- 13.6 The right of, way. for VA Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the GDP will be surveyed and platted The Applicant will came the dedication of this right of way at no cost to the. Countywithin 90 days of request bythe County. (See 6 on GDP). 13.7 The Applicant shall construct a complete densely planted landscape screen on a 20' landscape easement adjacent to sides of the proposed VA Route 37 right of way and/or the proposed "spine" collector road. At least 3 trees are to be planted for each 10 linear feet of easement and are to be 4 feet in height at time of planting. The. mix of trees are to be determined through discussion with the Virginia Forestry service and VDOT and shad be shown on initial construction plans. (See 7 on GDP). 14. ESCALATORCLAUSE: 14.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board afar 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions Page 5 of 8 Rev. 2/09/05 Proffer Statement Haggerty 1.2 Single family detached housing types shall comprise a minimum of 60 units, but shall not exceed a maximum of 150 units. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: 2.1 The Property shad be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with app]icabk ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Haggerty Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. The project is a mixed use residential type allowing a range of housing types within limits established bythis proffer statement. _ 22 The maximum dwelling units for which certificates of occupancy are requested. shall be 75 in any 12 mouth period within the fust 24 months of project development, beginning on the date of master development plan approval by the Board, and 50 in any 12 month period thereafter. Any such units not .requested in a given 12 month period shall be allowed to carry over tom subsequent 12 month period in addition to those units otherwise pe 2.3 After 60 months from master development plan approval by the Board, any remaining certificates of occupauryup to 300 maybe requested. 3. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 3.1 The AppEcant shall design and build a public pedestrian-bicyt:le trail system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and open space areas within the development The precise location of said trail system shall be determined during the master development plan (MDP) process, pursuant to the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Planning Commission The trails shall be 10 feet wide, have an asphalt surface and shad be located to enable connections with adjoining developments. 4. FIRE &RESCUE: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $889.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single faradydetached unit 4.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $707.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single familyatrached unit 5. SCHOOLS: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $7,571.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building peru t fon each single familydetached unit Page 2 of 8 Rev. 2/09/05 Proffer Statement Haggerty are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that dare 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a rap of 6% per year, non -compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Page 6 of 8 Rev. 2/09/05 Proffer Statement Haggerty 42 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $5,881.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single familyatesched unit. 6. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,288.00 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single familydetached unit. 6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,040.00 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single famlyattached unit. 7. LIBRARIES: 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $213.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such single familydetached tout 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $173.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such single familyattached unit. 8. SHERIFFS OFFICE 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $50.00 per dwelling unit for the Sheriffs Office upon issuance of building permit for each such unit. 9. ADMINISTRATIONBUILDING 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $200.00 per dwelling unit for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of building permit for each such unit. 10. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 10.1 The residential -development shall be made subject to a homeowners' association (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all comm areas, including my conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are cnsromnary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. 102 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ss) common buffer areas located Page 3 of 8 Rev. 2/09/05 Proffer Statement Haggerty Respectfully submitted, The Canyon, LC By. I . JAL, Title: Manager V STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK ODUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day Of R.iJ f .2005,by -Dagi 1 B. WS) i�ab / My commissionexpires�(] j 305 7�C1Cih NotaryPublic �a2 AD i-j�y rp,(mm Page 7 of 8 Rev. 2/09/05 Proffer Statement Haggerty outside of residential lots; (rh) common solid waste disposal programs, if they decide to use a commercial collection company,, (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any perimeter or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument and (v) responsibilityfor payment for maintenance of streetlights. 103 The Applicant shall providemanagement and start up assistance to the HOA, to include a contdbmion of $100 per dwelling unit to an escrow account established for HOA operations. 10.4 Curb side ttush collection service shall be provided to all dwelling units by commercial carrier. The HOA shall be responsible for arranging and managing the delivery of said service to all dwelling units within the res dentia] development. 11. WATER&SEWER 11.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities requited for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority"the FCSA" ( . ) 11.2 The Applicant shall provide needed lands and easements on this site at no cost to the FCSA in order to implement the Semeny Road Regional Sewage Pump Station project. (See 1 on GDP). 11.3 The Applicant shall establish a buffer to a distance of 600' from presently planned future treatment units on the Frederick Winchester Service Authority ("the FWSA") site. No residential dwelling units (str cnue) shall be located within this buffer. (See 2 on GDP). 11.4 The Applicant shall install a water main to a point of connection with the FWSA Opequon Sewer Plant property line. The water main will be installed and serviceable before the 101" building permit is issued (See 3 on GDP). 12. ENVIROIZENT: 12.1 Stormwater management and- Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3 which results in the highest order of srorntwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 13. TRANSPORTATION.- 13.1 RANSPORTATION:13.1 Transportation improvements shall be initiated at the outset of the development process unless otherwise specified below. Page 4 of 8 Rev. 2/09/05 Page 8 of 8 . 1NIA �o Z XW G�U0 Q n h,i w JV SLW/JJC PHRA MWf 01� DECEMBER 2005 �n N.T.S. 6of6 M 12617-1-0 E �i Z CD >0 a acZ LO O U � Y o U_ M LU 00 W W mw U- ITEM #3 Update an Eastern Road Plan Staff continues to work on the Eastern Road Plan update and will summarize the remaining issues to be addressed at the meeting. I'T'EM #4 Article Distribution Attached please find three recent articles regarding transportation and associated proffers from some high profile rezonings in the Northern Virginia area. Town Reaps Hard Cash for New Houses washingtonpost.com Town Reaps Hard Cash for New Houses Warrenton's $22 Million Deal Signifies High Stakes for Developers By Sandhya Somashekhar Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 16, 2006; A01 In the frenzy to build subdivisions in Northern Virginia's exurbs, one of the nation's largest housing developers has offered to write the small Fauquier County town of Warrenton a $22 million check, an unprecedented cash donation, according to Virginia real estate specialists. In exchange, Centex Homes of Dallas would get permission from county and town leaders to build a subdivision just outside Warrenton with nearly 300 luxury homes for seniors, starting at $850,000. Pagel of 3 The $22 million -- almost half of Warrenton's annual budget -- would pay off the debt on a new swimming pool complex in the town of 8,000 people. Town and county leaders gave their initial approval last week to Centex's proposal, which involves asking Warrenton to annex property so the builder can connect to the town's sewer system. George B. Fitch, the mayor of Warrenton, which sits about 40 miles west of the District, hailed the tentative agreement as a major victory for the town and for other communities seeking to have some control over the rapid pace of development. "I think we're finally coming to a place where growth is sustaining growth," Fitch said, explaining that housing developers seem increasingly willing to pitch in to compensate for the stress on infrastructure caused by new residents. Centex's contribution would amount to nearly $74,000 per unit, more than double what Fauquier County usually receives from a developer. But development specialists say the unusually large promise of cash highlights a disturbing trend in Virginia's booming housing market. Developers eager to plant new homes in exurban locales are building roads, establishing parks and offering money -- all in an effort to appease increasingly resistant communities. The result, the specialists say, is more expensive homes. In Loudoun County, the developer Greenvest has offered to spend $192 million on road improvements in exchange for permission to build 15,000 homes near Dulles International Airport. Toll Brothers, another developer, plans to contribute 233 acres of parkland to Prince William County so it will rezone rural land to build 420 houses near Silver Lake. The Warrenton deal and agreements like it amount to bribes, said John McIlwain, senior resident fellow for housing at the Urban Land Institute, a Washington -based nonprofit research and education organization for the development industry. "Facilitating the process is a nice way of saying it," McIlwain said. "Centex saved themselves two or three years of controversial negotiations trying to get approval, and that's worth a lot of money in itself." In Fairfax County and other jurisdictions, developers traditionally have offered land or money to offset the cost of http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dynlcontent/article/2006/07/15lAR20060715010O4_pf,html 7/17/2006 Town Reaps Hard Cash for New Houses Page 2 of 3 building schools, roads or libraries to accommodate the additional residents that new homes bring. In Maryland, those impact fees are required by state law, but in Virginia, local governments negotiate what are known as "proffers" to cover that cost. The proffer by Centex is unusual in that the vast majority of the money isn't needed to support roads or schools for the development. Because the new residents will primarily be senior citizens, officials say that the impact on schools will be minimal and that they won't have to increase school capacity. The subdivision would be built off main thoroughfares, which they say will require few road improvements. Additionally, Centex has agreed to pay for sewer improvements, though the company is still studying what improvements might be necessary. The promise of payment is not a bribe, said John Foote, an attorney for Centex. It is simply the "price of doing business" in a state with such complex and unusual land -use policies as Virginia, he said. "One thing developers always hear is they're not paying their fair share," said Foote, a veteran Northern Virginia land - use lawyer who said the cash contribution is by far the largest per lot that he has seen. "Well, in this case Centex is paying substantially more than their fair share." Centex has acquiesced to other demands that Foote said are in some ways more significant than the $22 million offer. The current agreement reflects a compromise in the company's initial plan to build more than 600 homes for families as well as seniors, he said. The 298 luxury homes would be clustered on 25 percent of a 492 -acre parcel known as Arrington farm, he said, with the remaining area to stay largely undeveloped. The company also has agreed to allow officials to have a say in the subdivision's design to ensure that it is consistent with the town's architecture, Fitch said. And it will be constructed below the ridgeline, maintaining the rural panorama seen when driving into town, he said. Slow -growth advocates in Fauquier are closely watching the project, which they say appears at this early stage to be reasonable regardless of the cash promise. "I won't say it's perfect, but it's certainly a step in the right direction," said Jolly de Give, county field officer for the Piedmont Environmental Council. "What this tells you is how phenomenally profitable development is at the moment. Not to be cynical, but they're not giving till it hurts. They're giving so they can make a profit." And in the end, it will be the homeowners who pay the price, said Mcllwain, who added that it is these kinds of agreements that drive home prices skyward and suburban sprawl farther and farther into rural Virginia. "Probably the people who are getting hurt aren't even in the conversation, because they are moderate -income seniors who might have been able to afford moderately priced senior housing," he said. Though the project is still at the early stages of design, the town and the county passed resolutions last week in support of the proposal. Centex has asked Warrenton to annex part of the Arrington farm property from the county to allow it to hook up to the town's sewer system. If the project goes forward as expected, the property would be transferred to Warrenton upon final approval later this year with virtually no strings attached. 2006 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google Planned Communities Golf Course, Private Lake and More South Carolina's Premium Community http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dyn/content/articlel2006lO7ll 5lAR2006071501004_pf html 7/17/2006 Town Reaps Hard Cash for New Houses www.GrandHarbor.net Centex Homes New FL Active Adult Homes. From Mid -200's to Mid -300's. www.CentexHomes.com New Ryland Homes. DC Area Rvland Homes®, New Home Builder Award -Winning Homes Now Availablel www.Ryland.com Page 3 of 3 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15lAR2006071501004_pf.html 7/17/2006 VDOT: Transition CPAM Would Have `Profound Effect' -- Leesburg2Day-- The Journal of Loudoun C... Page 1 of') This article can be found online at: http://www.leesburg2day.com/news/2006]ul/071306roads.cfm Copyright 1998-2000 leesburg2day.com. All Rights Reserved. VDOT: Transition CPAM Would Have 'Profound Effect' Dusty Smith 07/13/2006 -- The Virginia Department of Transportation❑s Northern Virginia District Manager sent a letter to Loudoun Planning Director Julie Pastor this week indicating that a proposal to allow 28,000 new homes in the county❑s Transition Policy Area would overwhelm the region❑s roads. The letter came as part of a pilot program intended to set the groundwork for a state law that takes effect next year in which VDOT will be expected to review local land use decisions. Dennis Morrison, VDOT❑s district manager, sent the July 12 letter, identifying roads that would be significantly impacted by the Upper Broad Run/Upper Foley Comprehensive Plan Amendment, also referred to as the Transition CPAM. Because of those impacts, Morrison suggested that Loudoun work more closely with Fairfax and Prince William counties about the plans. According to the letter, if the new homes were constructed in the Dulles portion of the Transition Area, that would result daily in more than six hours of stop and go traffic along Rt. 50 at Rt. 28; more than six hours of stop and go traffic along Braddock Road near Pleasant Valley; two to six hours of stop and go traffic along the Dulles Greenway; and two to six hours of stop and go traffic along I-66 near Rt. 29. ❑What our traffic models show is it would have a profound effect on this regional [transportation] network,❑ said VDOT spokeswoman Joan Morris. To demonstrate how stop and go traffic translates to VDOT❑s Level of Service scale, Morris said that VDOT defines one hour of stop and go traffic in the morning and one hour in the evening, or two hours total, as an ❑F❑ Level of Service, or LOS. VDOT defines three or more hours of stop and go traffic in the evening and in the morning, or at least six hours total, as LOS ❑G.❑ ❑The transportation analysis conducted by Loudoun examines the impact of these proposed plan amendments on roadways in Loudoun County in the immediate vicinity of the comprehensive plan amendments,❑ Morrison stated in the letter. ❑Significantly, Loudoun County❑s review did not consider the impacts of these proposed amendments on several major roadways in Loudoun County outside the immediate vicinity of the amendment area, nor on major regional transportation arteries in Fairfax and Prince William counties. ❑ VDOT❑s review assumed 28,000 additional homes would be built in the subject area by 2025. The new homes would generate between 250,000 and 300,000 vehicle trips per day, according to the letter. The review also assumed that projects identified in the Constrained Long Range Plan would be constructed and operating, including the Dulles Metrorail extension and the widening of Rt. 50, Braddock Road and the Dulles Greenway. Morrison recommended http://www.leesburg2day.com/print.cfm?newsid=12248 7/17/2006 VDOT: Transition CPAM Would Have `Profound Effect' -- Leesburg2Day-- The Journal of Loudoun C... Page 2 of 3 that Loudoun conduct ❑a more consequential analysis❑ of the impacts. ❑Clearly mitigation of these impacts to the regional transportation network would require significant additional investments,❑ Morrison stated in the letter, suggesting that Loudoun ❑work in consultation with Fairfax and Prince William counties. ❑ Supervisor Stephen 3. Snow (R -Dulles) said VDOT did not factor in the roads that were being proffered by developers if the projects move through the rezoning stage. ❑Interestingly enough, they did not take into consideration our network plan, which we believe is the right way to do this,❑ Snow said, referring to a package of roads being proffered by several developers. ❑The didn❑t take that into account. El The developer road package, he said, would alleviate a great deal of traffic. Snow also said he has been working with Fairfax, contrary to VDOT❑s suggestion. However, he admits not contacting Prince William. ❑I❑ve already met with Fairfax three times, with [Fairfax Supervisor] Mike Frey [(R -Sully)],❑ he said. ❑I❑ve been working with them for 18 months. ❑ He acknowledged, however, that those discussions have resulted in no solid agreements, particularly for Braddock Road. Snow said he constantly sends developers to Fairfax offering to pay for improvements to Braddock, but that Fairfax has resisted because that road in not on the county❑s transportation plan. Snow said he believes that Fairfax plans to add it to the transportation plan, but that Frey has said it would still not be a priority for funding. ❑We❑ve not been favorably considered by Fairfax,❑ he said. As for Prince William, Snow said, ❑I didn❑t think it would have much impact on them, so I didn❑t call them.❑ In his view, all of the proposed road improvements would result in a net positive for that county, explaining that the proposed Rt. 659 Relocated would take traffic off Rt. 15 and the existing Rt. 659, also known as Gum Spring Road. ❑This is going to be a tremendous benefit for Prince William,❑ he said. Snow said VDOT was already weighing in on county land use proposals, meaning the review is nothing new for Loudoun. Leesburg Today was awaiting a response Thursday from VDOT about whether the analysis for the Transition CPAM was more detailed than previous project reviews. Morris said VDOT performed a ❑preliminary analysis, nothing more.❑ Snow said he welcomed the help, but that what he would really like is for the state to start putting money towards road construction in Loudoun. http://www.leesburg2day.com/print.cfm?newsld=12248 7/17/2006 VDOT: Transition CPAM Would Have `Profound Effect' -- Leesburg2Day-- The Journal of Loudoun C... Page 3 of 3 ❑Mr. Governor, thank you for you interest,❑ Snow said, indicating his thoughts about the new law the led to the pilot program. ❑Please send us money.❑ Loudoun County Chairman Scott K. York (I -At Large) said he was not surprised by VDOT❑s assessment. ❑I would concur that we have done very little evaluation of transportation globally,❑ he said. ❑We better make sure we understand the magnitude of the impact before we as a corporate board say yea to it, or nay.❑ The county planning commission recommended approval on the CPAM after making several changes to the proposed densities. The county planning staff has not yet completed an analysis of the potential residential, fiscal and transportation impacts of the changes proposed by the commission. Morrison said in the letter that his staff would be contacting the county to arrange a meeting and that the agency ❑would be pleased to help facilitate a broader regional review of not only this proposed comprehensive plan amendment, but also future land use decisions of similar consequence. ❑ Del. Bob Marshall (R-13), who attended a planning commission meeting last month to object to the plan, issued a statement Thursday intended to highlight VDOT❑s review. ❑Unless Loudoun residents like reading long Russian novels while sitting in traffic, I see a citizens rebellion in 2007,❑ Marshall said. http://www.leesburg2day.com/print.cfm?newsid=12248 7/17/2006 Commission Endorses Transition CPAM -- Leesburg2Day-- The Journal of Loudoun County Page 1 of 3 This article can be found online at: http://www.leesburg2day.com/news/2006Ju1/071306cpam.cfm Copyright 1998-2000 leesburg2day.com. All Rights Reserved. Commission Endorses Transition CPAM Dusty Smith 07/13/2006 -- A proposal to increase planned residential densities in the Dulles District❑s portion of the Transition Policy Area won approval from the planning commission Monday night on an 8-0-1 vote, bringing developer Greenvest a step closer to its vision of building more than 15,000 homes there. While the recommendation calls for higher densities than currently allowed in the area straddling Rt. 50 and Braddock Road west of the planned Rt. 659 Relocated, it also creates a new, smaller transition area where development would be limited to one -acre lots on average. The two subareas are currently planned for development of one- and three -acre house lots and zoned for one -acre lots. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment initially called for up authorities to develop up to four homes per acre in the Upper Broad Run subarea, roughly north of Braddock Road, and up to three homes per acre in the Upper Foley subarea, roughly south of Braddock Road. Commissioners altered that proposal and recommended a swath of one -acre lot development south of Rt. 50 and west of the planned Lenah Collector Road. That limited density would continue north of Rt. 50 for a short distance as well as south along the Prince William County border. Most of the two subareas could be developed with up to four homes per acre. In addition, the commission recommendation identifies a strip of land along Rt. 659 Relocated where higher residential densities and additional commercial uses would be allowed. That higher density beehive extends slightly beyond the subareas and into the Arcola area. ❑It❑s the art of compromise,❑ said Lawrence Beerman, the Dulles District planning commissioner. ❑It❑s trying to deal with the future needs of the county.❑ Beerman explained that the recommended changes still allow for a transition area between the suburban east and rural western part of the county, taking into consideration the existing low density Marshes and Lenah Run communities. In addition, Beerman pointed out, the recommendation allows for developers to push density toward the east of the subject area to create more open space to the west. At the same time, the higher density areas proposed allow for the development of the future George Mason University campus and Inova health complex. ❑We❑re accommodating for the future growth of George Mason and the town center,❑ Beerman said, adding that development pressure continues to mount as retailers seek space along Rt. 50 to serve existing and future residents. ❑The issue❑s ripe.❑ The planning commission just recently forwarded a comprehensive plan amendment to the board that changes the vision for the eastern portion of Rt. 50 and Arcola. The transition CPAM http://www.leesburg2day.com/print.cfm?newsid=12243 7/17/2006 Commission Endorses Transition CPAM -- Leesburg2Day-- The Journal of Loudoun County Page 2 of 3 is the next step westward. The higher density area recommended as part of the transition CPAM crosses into previously reviewed Arcola CPAM area. Allowing the higher density zone is intended to disperse development along collector roads and the future Rt. 659 Relocated corridor, which will eventually meet up with the Rt. 234 Bypass in Prince William County, Beerman said. That should help alleviate congestion along Rt. 50, he said. ❑I think this is way better than what we started with and I❑m proud to send it to the board,❑ said Teresa White Whitmore, the planning commission❑s chairman. County Planner Cindy Keegan said the planning staff has not yet had time to assess transportation and fiscal impacts associated with the commission❑s recommendation and have not determined how many homes could be developed under the commission's proposal. ❑We haven❑t finished them yet,❑ Keegan said, referring to the assessment of those impacts. ❑We have to go back and look at every single parcel.❑ The idea for the transition CPAM came from Greenvest, which has proposed constructing more than 15,000 new homes in four communities, including a GMU campus. In exchange, Greenvest has proposed the construction of schools, roads and other community needs. The developer launched a major advertising campaign to build public support for the proposal. ❑We❑re very excited,[] said Packie Crown, a representative of Greenvest, adding that the recommended changes require the developer to make adjustments to its proposed projects. ❑But we can certainly work with it. It is very doable. We❑re going to have to evaluate all of the aspects of our proposal. She said some of the projects would lose some homes to address increased commercial planning recommended by the commission. She said the overall number of homes proposed in the four projects would go ❑probably down, but I don❑t see it shifting up❑ because of the commission recommendations. Through the proposal, Greenvest would construct a network of roads in and around the proposed communities, including collector roads and Rt. 659 Relocated, all of which are intended to relieve congestion on Rt. 50. To pay for the road network, Greenvest wants to establish a Community Development Authority, which is a tax district by which residents of the new developments would pay for debt service on bonds. The roads around the Dulles Town Center were constructed through a CDA that commercial landowners are repaying now. Greenvest has proposed applying 80 percent if its capital facilities proffer, essentially the contribution typically required to offset the cost of school construction, toward the debt payments for the roads. Once homes are built, the new owners would pay a fee to cover the debt payments. Those payments could be as high $1,900 a year for a single-family detached home in one of the communities. That fee would be in addition to homeowners association fees and real estate taxes. However, while Greenvest plans to build roads, it is not proffering the cash to pay for them http://www.leesburg2day.com/print.cfm?newsid=12243 7/17/2006 Commission Endorses Transition CPAM -- Leesburg2Day-- The Journal of Loudoun County Page 3 of 3 because the residents would make those payments. Greenvest would borrow the money to build the roads. ❑dive❑re going to build the road infrastructure upfront instead of giving the fTIoney to the county,❑ Crown said, adding that much of that work would be done before the first homes are constructed. ❑The people who buy those units pay for those improvements. El Crown said development projects often provide as much as $16,000 per unit for transportation impacts, a cost developers pass on to homebuyers. The homes in Greenvest❑s CDA communities would not have that extra charge added to the price of homes when they are sold. She also said a recent Florida study shows that homes in a CDA typically sell below market prices, trying to make the point that Greenvest would not be walking away with a windfall of money because of the arrangement. Greenvest planners are now evaluating the commission❑s recommendation to see exactly what it means for its proposal. ❑We❑re try to evaluate each project and see what we need to do, what changes we need to make,❑ Crown said. The commission balked when John Merrithew, a senior county planner, suggested the commission delay the certification of its recommendation because of the upcoming August break. By delaying the commission certification until September, Merrithew said, it would give the board more time to deal with the item. Commissioners also rejected Merrithew❑s suggestion that the plan changes be readvertised for another public hearing at the commission level. Newly appointed Catoctin District Commissioner Nancy Doane abstained from the commission❑s vote because she had not been present for the review. http://www.leesburg2day.com/print.cfm?newsid=12243 7/17/2006