Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-04 CommentsRezoning Comments Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: i cLo. c u� Mail to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Public Works Attn: Director of Engineering 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665 -5643 Frederick Couuty Department of Public Works Patton Barris Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Current Zoning: RP Zoning Requested: RP 1 ccw otn y, Notice to Dept. of Public Work €c yY Public Works Signature Date: e 0 Qu HAGGERTY REZONING Hand Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Public Works Attn: Director of Engineering. DEC 2 1 2D Co. Administration Bldg., 4� Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Please 1 OU C��,lll rn u �r re C1] Y th foration mas S r aocurately as ;m order`to "assist the Applicant:: >Akachla�copv ":of your app�!c�tion form, location Phone: (54__S0_67-'2,1:__3 9 Location of Property: Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Opequon WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Acreage: 111.56 Ac Deprtment of Public Work's Comments: c�eE tat 14_ r G t_. 1O•2 cc c SVttrnrtn cc\ n kccb wr e0.121. 10. wVtctc s t 1 I 5 dcc cc4_.0 LCLA Stc icon LF t(ki la<<c✓ lrxn� Please Return This 'Form to the Applicant 10 1. Call to Order Frederick Winchester Service Authority AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2004 9:00 AM BOARD ROOM, FREDERICK COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 107 NORTH KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 2. Consideration of Engineering Services Contract Parkins Mills Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion 3. Roadway Request across Opequon Water Reclamation Facility property 4. Next Meeting Monday, January 24, 2005 at 5:30 PM Election of Officers 5. Adjournment CLARKE COUNTY 6 December 2004 Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Clifford Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Haggerty Property Rezoning Frederick County Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced request. I distributed the first few pages of your materials to the Clarke County Planning Commission and the matter was discussed at their December 3` regular meeting. They requested me to forward a complete copy of your materials to the County's engineer for review and requested a committee of the Commission to review a complete copy. By copy of the letter I am distributing these materials. By what date would you like comments? We will make every effort to respond quickly and again appreciate this opportunity. Charles Johnston Planning Administrator Copy: Mike Ruddy, Frederick County County Planning Commission Policy Committee Rick Travers, View Engineers 7 2004 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT J 102 North Church Street Voice (540) 955 -5132 Berryville, VA 22611 www.co.clarke.va.us Fax (540) 955 -4002 PHRA CORPORATE: Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Chantilly Bridgewaiei F redericksburg eesburg Richmond Virginia Beach Winchester Woodbridge I ARO RATORI ES: Chantilly Fredericksburg .MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown iollywood WEsr VIRGINIA OFFICE:: Martinsburg I 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 a) "g 11 LS 1 M E LLSSSS v D DEC s zoos Li FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT gilb -t w. clifford associates a division of Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects, December 2, 2004 Mr. Michael Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 N. Kent St. \XTinchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Haggerty and Chadwell Rezoning Proposals Subject: Response to Additional Preliminary Comments Dear Mike: This correspondence is in response to your letter dated November 22, 2004, wherein you offer several pages of comments concerning the Haggerty and Chadwell rezoning applications, which we are currently preparing for submission. These comments were offered in addition to the initial staff review, which was issued on July 12, 2004. Each issue raised through your analysis is summarized below and organized according to the outline of your letter. I have provided a response to each comment provided in your letter. It is requested that this document be included in the official record of the Haggerty and Chadwell applications. The issues and responses are as follows: 1. Preliminary Matters Staff Issue: Application form included reference to "multi- family" in proposed use description. Also, development program assumed by TIA includes multi family and different single family attached and detached totals that described in IAS. Staff recommends amending all application components that reference multi family units, to include TIA. PHR +A Response: (1) Application form will be amended to state "mixed residential," rather than specifically referencing housing types. (2) Remainder of 1AS consistently speaks to "mixed residential" and uses 200 single family P H RA Haggerty ',Indwell Rezoning Response to PlanniComments 12/3/2004 Page 2 of 16 b) Staff Issue: attached and 100 single family detached units as basis for impact projections. There should be no confusion about land use vision. In fact, single family detached units represent the most intensive residential use vis -a -vis impact generation, and the proposed proffer statement accordingly limits the total number of such units to no more than 150 (minimum of 60 to ensure mix). Tangible impacts are adequately controlled by this restriction, and it ensures the validity of the TIA, which assumes 180 single family detached units. Thus, all transportation planning for this project was based on a more intensive land use scenario than is proposed by proffer thereby ensuring that whatever the ultimate housing mix, impacts will be mitigated effectively. (3) Due to the fact that the assumptions used in the TIA capture the scope and impacts of the proposed development program, there is no reasonable basis for amending the TIA. To require modification of the TIA when it is not fundamentally flawed fails to satisfy any reasonable purpose. The TIA is a technical document provided to ensure that VDOT is able to accurately assess impacts to its public road network and properly evaluate proposed improvements. It is noted that VDO"I' has not questioned the validity of the TIA following revision of the development program, and appears satisfied with the assumptions and scope of the analysis. The TIA is therefore sufficient in its present form and will continue to be used in support of this application. The project adjoins Clarke County. Adjoining property in Clarke County should be included with the application for the purposes of legal notification. It was further noted that the Code of Virginia requires that notice be provided to the chief operating officer of any locality within mile of a rezoning in an adjoining jurisdiction. Staff suggested that the planning director in Clarke County should comment as a component of the rezoning exercise. Also, staff astutely pointed out that two properties P Haggerty •hadwell Rezoning Response to PlannifiComments 12/3/2004 Page 3 of 16 that are not adjacent were erroneously identified as such on the application form. PHR +A Response: (1) Section 15.2- 2204.C. of the Code of Virginia requires that notice be provided to the chief administrative officer of any locality situated within one half mile of a proposed rezoning in an adjoining jurisdiction. Responsibility for such notification falls clearly on the locality wherein the rezoning is proposed, and specifically on the local commission or its designated representative. The applicant has no legal responsibility to inform the adjoining jurisdiction of their land use proposal, and should therefore not be compelled to modify or delay an otherwise complete application to accommodate the review or commentary of an adjoining locality. In deference to the wishes of staff, a copy of the application package was sent to Chuck Johnston, Clarke County Planning Administrator, on November 23, 2004, as a courtesy to facilitate awareness of the proposal. However, the applicant has no intention of indefinitely postponing submission of the application for the purposes of either receiving comment or addressing concerns voiced by Mr. Johnston on behalf of Clarke County. The public process is arguably the appropriate venue for resolution of inter jurisdictional land use issues, especially since this proposal conforms with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. (2) While staff suggests that two parcels are erroneously identified as adjoining properties on the application form, they fail to specifically identify these parcels for confirmation of this claim. Regardless, there is no harm in "over- notifying" by providing public hearing notices to properties in the vicinity of a proposed rezoning that are not clearly adjacent to the subject parcel. As the county is responsible for providing legal notice to adjoining property owners, it is certainly the prerogative of staff to eliminate parcels from the "adjoiner" list provided by the applicant if such properties are ultimately deemed to not be adjacent. PH RtA Haggerty•hadwell Rezoning Response to Plannitomments 12/3/2004 Page 4 of 16 c) d) Staff Issue: The managing members of The Canyon, LC must be identified on the application form as they have ownership interest in the property. PHR +A Response: The application form will be amended to specify the managing members of The Canyon, LC. Staff Issue: Staff suggests that the Chadwell and Haggerty rezoning petitions should be consolidated as a single application. Also, it is recommended that the timing of improvements associated with each should be more clearly identified. PHR +A Response: (1) The Chadwell and Haggerty rezoning proposals involve different property owners and are intended to develop independently. Given the coincidental timing of the proposals, it was determined that traffic analysis efforts should occur in a coordinated fashion to ensure an equitable transportation improvement strategy for the area. The coordinated impact analysis resulted in an initial proposal for the respective applicants to share the cost of signalization at the intersection of Route 7 and Route 659. However, outside of transportation issues, the two projects are not intended to be integrated, particularly with regard to project and /or unit phasing. The county's most notable experience with the consolidation of otherwise independent projects under a single rezoning is the Channing Drive project. The implementation of the development plan for Channing Drive has been anything but integrated, and has instead been plagued by controversy and litigation that has proven costly to all parties involved, to include the county. It is not advisable for either applicant in this case to subjugate their unique interests and requirements to a collective development scheme. (2) The phasing of unit occupancy and site improvements is clearly delineated by proffer. Staff did not specify which elements of the proposed development program caused confusion or uncertainty. The applicant has attempted to be PH to Haggerty Ilhadwell Rezoning Response to Plannin.Comments 12/3/2004 Page 5 of 16 2. Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement a) precise in defining triggers for unit phasing and site improvements, and is comfortable that the current approach is sufficient to ensure completion of the project in a phased and reasonable manner. Staff Issue: Staff recommends providing specific design and /or layout concepts intended to achieve housing choice and the vibrancy referenced in the Statement of Justification section of the [AS. Staff also notes that Route 37 will ultimately create two neighborhoods on the site, and requests that the application demonstrate how these neighborhoods would relate to each other before and after construction of the road (how will each maintain its identity). PHR +A Response: (1) As noted in the IAS, the layout of the site is dictated by the future path of Route 37, as well as the planned collector road system that will extend from the project. The distinct neighborhoods referenced by staff will in fact be formed at the outset of the project. The neighborhoods will be linked together by an internal collector road system complemented by the proffered trail network. These connections will remain in place following actual construction of Route 37 through the site. As such, it is difficult to envision a discernable change in the physical identity of the project or its constituent neighborhoods that would demand a specific design response in the application. (2) By including single family attached and detached housing types within a unified development scheme, this project will offer an alternative to the homogeneity of the single family detached neighborhoods that dominate the UDA. The combination of such units in a walkable setting will enhance the potential for interaction amongst residents of varying social and economic backgrounds. Such interaction is the essence of a vibrant, interesting, and healthy living environment. Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 6of16 b) c) (3) Similarly, by delivering a range of product types within a single project, there will inherently be greater choice for prospective homebuyers. A more diverse selection of housing types will be accompanied by a broader array of price points from which to choose thereby promoting affordability. The proffers proposed with this rezoning effectively codify housing choice, as the applicant has proffered to limit single family detached units to no more than 150 (minimum of 6), or 50 of the project total. (4) Housing choice and neighborhood vibrancy are not mere matters of design as implied by staff, but rather are fundamental characteristics of positive, well managed growth for a community. This application is structured to deliver these outcomes and contribute to an improved living environment within the UDA. Staff Issue: Site background indicates that site is unimproved, but references the presence of the original farmhouse (Haggerty House) on a parcel included in the rezoning. This inconsistency should be addressed. PHR +A Response: The IAS will be amended to note that the site is largely unimproved, with the exception of the original farmhouse. Staff Issue: The proposed collector road linking the project directly to Route 7 is the preferred transportation concept for the area, and should be implemented through this application to the extent feasible. Staff contends that the Route 820 Route 659 connection to Route 7 is not an acceptable arrangement for primary project access without "substantial" improvements to these roadways. PHR +A Response: (1) The transportation network serving the Haggerty project has been re- designed to de- emphasize the referenced access arrangement. The central "spine" road proffered by the applicant will be extended through the FWSA property to connect with Route 7, which will serve as the principal Haggerty•hadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 7 of 16 project access. The Haggerty project will not have a direct entrance on Eddys Lane through this approach thereby alleviating the concerns expressed by staff. Future land development proposals for properties west of Eddys Lane will be responsible for improving an east -west collector that will enable their residents to access Route 7 via the spine road. (2) As per the staff comment, the re- designed access arrangement is the preferred transportation concept for the Haggerty project and the easternmost portion of the UDA as a whole. It is therefore expected that county staff and VDOT will support efforts to negotiate with the FWSA to obtain the necessary right of way for the proposed collector road. The transportation system originally proposed with this application was based upon a collector road traversing the FWSA property. In December 2003, the Planning Department questioned the appropriateness of this arrangement in the midst of the applicant's discussions with the FWSA, which negatively influenced negotiations resulting in the abandonment of the collector road concept. This action prompted a costly design exercise aimed at establishing a mutually acceptable alternative access and transportation scheme, a process that has continued to the present. It is ironic that the proposal originally discouraged by staff is now the preferred alternative, suggesting that the applicant has been forced to endure a circular evaluation process that did nothing more than impede public review of the rezoning petition. (3) It is important to note that the location of the proposed collector road across the FWSA property is further west from the operable units of the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility (ORWF) than the original collector road concept. This shift in alignment will ensure that the road will not impede or otherwise compromise the expansion and long- term viability of ORWF operations. Staff Issue: Provide opportunities for connectivity with parcels to the west of the site. Haggerty•hadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 8 of 16 PHR+A Response: (1) The GDP included with the proposed proffer statement provides for connections with parcels to the west and southwest for both vehicles and pedestrians. The LAS further describes how the proposed transportation program will facilitate inter parcel connection. Specifically, the IAS indicates that an east -west connector road will ultimately link properties to the west with the Haggerty site and the proposed "spine" road. This combination of collector roads will provide access to the project(s) from Route 7 as well as Senseny Road in the future. Thus, the suggestion by staff that inter connectivity remains an unresolved or unexplored concept is simply inaccurate. Staff Issue: (2) The GDP shows a potential connection point with the Fu -Shop project for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It is understood that an extensive trail system is planned with the Fu -Shep MDP, which is oriented around the prominent lake feature. At present, it is unclear whether county staff ensured that the design of this trail system provided for connectivity with adjoining sites, particularly the Haggerty tract. Consistent with the current GDP, the applicant is willing to link the respective trail systems in order to both promote recreational opportunities and establish a true multi-modal transportation system within the easternmost portion of the UDA. As such, the potential connection points will be maintained on the GDP, although actual connectivity will depend on the status of the Fu -Shep design process and the willingness of its developer(s) to establish links with the Haggerty project. Staff has requested that the rezoning application include detailed design information concerning the project's internal connecting road that will ultimately be bridged by Route 37. Also, concern was raised that impacts to the one -lane bridge on Route 659 had not been adequately addressed by the IAS. PHR+A Response: (1) As noted above, the transportation program has been re- designed to effectively eliminate the use of Eddys Lane and Route 659 for project access. PHZtA T- Iaggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 9 of 16 Staff Issue: The issue of impacts to the one lane bridge is therefore moot. (2) Detailed design information for all internal roads will be provided during the master development plan (MDP) process, as required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The connecting road will be located and constructed pursuant to VDOT standards, with particular attention to its relationship to the future construction of VA Route 37. The information requested by staff exceeds the level of detail that is either necessary or appropriate for evaluation of a rezoning proposal. Comfort with the transportation concept and its ability to adequately mitigate projected impacts is of principal importance at this stage of the design process. As per discussions with planning staff and VDOT on November 22, 2004, all parties appear satisfied with the transportation concept with the clear understanding that its successful implementation will depend upon accommodation of future VA Route 37. (3) A follow -up meeting was held with VDOT on November 29, 2004 to discuss the design of the "spine" collector road, and general agreement was reached concerning the preferred location for the road and its intersection with VA Route 7. This alignment has been submitted to the FWSA for concurrence. Attached with this letter is an exhibit depicting the proposed road alignment. Staff suggests that the proffer language stating that the project will be developed as one single and unified development is incorrect. It is further suggested that the phasing of certain project elements contradicts this statement. PHR +A Response: (1) The Haggerty project will ultimately be developed pursuant to a single unified master development plan (MDP). The transportation improvements required to serve particular sections of the project will be clearly delineated on the MDP, and access to these sections will be dependant upon construction of these improvements. If PHRA Haggerty &I hadwell Rezoning Response to Planninn Comments 12/3/2004 Page 10of16 Staff Issue: transportation improvements shown on the MDP and subsequent subdivision design plans are not complete, the county will not issue occupancy permits for impacted dwellings. Given that project access will be dependant upon the collector "spine" road, it is reasonable to conclude that this most essential transportation component will be completed prior to the issuance of the project's first occupancy permit. (2) The proposed proffer statement clearly specifies triggers for all other transportation improvements, which ensure an effective link between the construction and occupancy of dwellings and the initiation and completion of the project's transportation network. (3) The contradictions suggested by staff are not evident in the structure and content of the proposed proffer statement, or when the proffered development program is considered in the context of the county's established land development process. Throughout the comments provided by staff, it appears that details consistent with a preliminary MDP are desired as part of the rezoning application. It is important to note that current ordinance provisions only require an MDP at the time of rezoning with R4 (Planned Residential Community) proposals. Clarification of the plan's multi-modal elements is needed. PHR +A Response: (1) The proposed proffer statement provides for the installation of a public pedestrian and bicycle trail network constructed to Parks and Recreation standards. As such, the trail system will be developed pursuant to prevailing AASHTO standards, which call for 10 -foot wide trail sections constructed with an asphalt surface. These standards are explicitly stated in the proposed proffer statement, and are adequate to support both pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The proffer statement further indicates that these trails will link internal components of the project as generally shown on the PHA Haggerty &;hadwell Rezoning Response to Plannin.Comments 12/3/2004 Page 11 of 16 Staff Issue: GDP. The trail system is depicted as a thin solid line that follows the project's road system. It is important to note that the MDP for the project will provide greater detail concerning the trail system, and is likely to outline a more extensive system than what is shown on the GDP as product types and layouts are finalized. The GDP provides the fundamental framework upon which the over ll system articulated through the MDP will be based. The current proffer statement and GDP arguably provide sufficient information concerning the planned trail network for this stage of the development review process. (2) The current development concept for the Haggerty property does not include disturbance of the riparian areas associated with Opequon Creek for recreational purposes. Installation of 10 -foot wide asphalt trails adjacent to the creek is arguably inconsistent with the important goal of protecting the natural value of the riparian areas. Should the applicant ultimately choose to provide a lineal trail element near the creek, it is likely to be located outside of the riparian buffer area, comprised of pervious materials, and reserved for the passive use of the project's residents. Decisions concerning such amenities will be made during the MDP process. Project design should account for road efficiency buffers required adjacent to major collector and arterial roadways. Proffered screening of the Route 37 corridor appears to involve a lesser standard than what is required by ordinance through the road efficiency buffer requirements. PHR +A Response: (1) Preliminary project design has indeed provided for the inclusion of buffers on the site where required by the Zoning Ordinance. Such buffers will be depicted on the MDP for the project pursuant to final project design. (2) The referenced evergreen screen is proffered as an enhancement to standard ordinance provisions, and is neither intended nor proposed as an PHA Haggerty •hadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 12 of 16 d) Staff Issue: alternative to otherwise required buffers. The relationship of the enhanced screening to the required buffers will be detailed on the MDP. Staff claims that the JAS provides contradictory information concerning site suitability, as it states that no conditions exist that will preclude or substantially hinder development despite the presence of slopes and riparian features. PHR +A Response: (1) The assessment of the site suitability section of the IAS stating that the site is developable is accurate. The soil type of the Haggerty property is generally consistent with Martinsburg shale, which contains some areas of steeply eroded slopes, especially adjacent to streams and natural drainage ways. As such, the soils comprising the Haggerty site are similar to those found on the majority of land located east of Interstate 81 within the UDA. It is noted that although moderate slopes are prevalent on the site, no steep slopes as defined by the Zoning Ordinance have been identified. (2) The I_AS appropriately acknowledges that the preliminary project design has deliberately accommodated the unique natural characteristics of the site. Such accommodation is the signature of contextually sensitive design, and ensures that the most valuable attributes of a site are included in the ultimate development program. To that end, certain areas of the site are inherently more or less favorable and /or desirable for particular product types and layouts, resulting in some being deemed "unsuitable" through the design process. The natural features of the site represent discernable challenges to project design, but do not constitute constraints that would preclude or otherwise hinder site development. (3) The principal constraint to site development identified by the IAS is the planned path of VA Route 37, and, more specifically, the substantial right of way proffered by the applicant to facilitate its eventual construction. The preliminary design for the project demonstrates that the site remains PHA Haggerty •hadwell Rezoning Response to PlanninComments 12/3/2004 Page 13 of 16 e) 1) Staff Issue: PHR+A Response: (1) Relevant components of the application have been modified to eliminate the proposed land dedication for public use. This area will be reserved to allow flexibility in project design at the applicant's discretion. The ultimate use of this area may include a portion of the proffered residential program and /or open space and recreational amenities for project residents, the exact design of which will be established through the required MDP. Additional comments from Frederick County Public Schools and Parks and Recreation are therefore unnecessary. Staff Issue: developable despite the significant impacts of this future roadway. The proposed land dedication for public use(s) requires the analysis and approval of those agencies that are identified as potential users of the site, namely Frederick County Public Schools and Parks and Recreation. Such comments should be submitted as components of the formal application. The proposed proffer language governing the timing of the right of way dedication for VA Route 37 should be re- evaluated. Specifically, staff recommends eliminating the third sentence of the condition, which specifies that if the right of way is not requested by the county within 10 years of rezoning approval, the dedication agreement will become null and void. The proffered condition further stipulates that the acreage reserved for dedication may be used at the applicant's discretion without restriction should the 10 year period elapse without the request for dedication. PHR +A Response: (1) The right of way dedication offered by the applicant is made willingly to advance regional transportation objectives despite its discernable impact on the use of the site. The proposed language contested by staff is intended to provide assurance to the applicant that the county will utilize the land as intended within a reasonable period of time. This provision offers a mutually beneficial Haggerty Ahadwell Rezoning Response to Planninomments 12/3/2004 Page 14 of 16 g) Staff Issue: arrangement whereby the applicant's responsibility for the acreage will be limited and certain, while the county will he provided time to move forward with planning for the road without assuming immediate liability for the property. The proposed proffer further codifies that accountability for the availability and use of the dedicated acreage is shared between the applicant and county. This is arguably an appropriate proposal befitting the significance of the proffered dedication to both the applicant and the community as a whole. (2) It is important to reiterate that the proffered dedication of the VA Route 37 right of way is a voluntary offer to the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County. The applicant is willing to dedicate the right of way to further transportation objectives of the county's Comprehensive Plan. The property owner retains the option of by right RA (Rural Areas) development on the site, which could occur without any provision for the planned path of VA Route 37. Furthermore, the construction of VA Route 37 is fundamentally a public road improvement project, which entitles the property owner to compensation for acquisition of the required right of way. The proffered dedication therefore represents a tangible savings to the taxpayers of Frederick County. In the context of the rezoning, the suburban residential use of the Haggerty and Chadwell sites is supported by adopted land use policy, which implies the appropriateness of RP zoning assuming effective impact mitigation. It is reasonably debatable whether the rezoning could legally be rejected on the basis of dissatisfaction with the parameters stipulated by the applicant governing a voluntary dedication, or due to other issues related purely to VA Route 37. Consideration should be given to the preservation and incorporation of the Haggerty House in the project's design. PHR +A Response: (1) As reported in the IAS, the Haggerty House is not identified as a potentially historic structure by P Haggerty Rezoning Response to Plannir Comments 12/3/2004 Page 15 of 16 h) Staff Issue: the Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County. The HRAB comment received from planning staff reflects the relative insignificance of this structure by noting that "the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule formal review of the rezoning by the HRAB" (see letter from Candice 13. Mills to Chuck Maddox, dated April 27, 2004). As such, there is no compelling rationale for retaining the house on the site and incurring the cost of its renovation for puhlic or community use. The applicant has proffered to extend water lines to the boundary of the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility (ORWF). Staff has suggested that the applicant proffer to increase the length of this extension to connect with the existing lines already in place on the ORWF property. PHR +A Response: (1) The applicant has proffered the water line extension to the ORWF property as per discussions with FWSA representatives. This proffer has been welcomed and accepted by FWSA and FCSA. (2) The comment provided by staff concerning the redundancy of the dedicated ORWF water tank and the need to pursue discussions with the FCSA and the FWSA to replace this tank with a "community" water storage tank appears inappropriate. Planning staff does not possess responsibility for the design, construction, and /or maintenance of the public water conveyance or treatment facilities in Frederick County, nor does it possess the expertise to assume such responsibility or offer comment on related matters. Moreover, the current FCSA long range water facilities improvement plan does not include or identify the need for an elevated "community" water tank anywhere near the ORWF. Nevertheless, the applicant will work with the FCSA and the FWSA as required to ensure adequate water and sewer service to the project, to include any related facility enhancements. Haggerty Rezoning Response to Planniitomments 12/3/2004 Page 16 of 16 I look forward to submitting the Haggerty and Chadwell applications for formal review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in the very near future. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding the content of this correspondence. Sincerely. PATTON HARRIS UST ASSOCIATES, pc Maddox, Jr., P.E enior Vice President CEM /kf Attachment (3) It is noted that neither the FCSA nor the FAUSA offered any objection to the proposed rezoning of the Haggerty property. cc: Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT Mr. Lloyd Ingrun, VDOT Mr. Eric Lawrence, AICP, Frederick County Planning Director HAGGERTY PROPERTY H SENSENY ROAD ROUTE 7 CONNECTOR o o PROPOSED ALIGNMENT Cl cnrnrnvv mrrr raoranw gilbert w. clifford associates a division of Patton, Harris, Rust Associates, pc 117 E. "cod y St Vfochesfer, Virginia 22601 •woe (540) 667 -2139 FM (540) 665 -0193 P CORPORATE: Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Chantilly Bridgewater Fredericksburg Leesburg Richmond Virginia Beach Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES: Chantilly Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg a) D T 540.667.2139 Ea i �cr i4IJ15trAd' E uc, IrosIVVVr .n „IYI CPGII D 601 DEC 6 2004 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT gilbert w. clifford associates a division of Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Arc h itecls December 2, 2004 Mr. Michael Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Subject: Dear Mike: This correspondence is in response to your letter dated November 22, 2004, wherein you offer several pages of comments concerning the 1- laggerty and Chadwell rezoning applications, which we are currently preparing for submission. These comments were offered in addition to the initial staff review, which was issued on July 12, 2004. Each issue raised through your analysis is summarized below and organized according to the outline of your letter. I have provided a response to each comment provided in your letter. It is requested that this document be included in the official record of the 'Haggerty and Chadwell applications. The issues and responses are as follows: 1. Preliminary Matters Staff Issue: Haggerty and Chadwell Rezoning Proposals Response to Additional Preliminary Comments Application form included reference to "multi- family" in proposed use description. Also, development program assumed by TIA includes multi- family and different single family attached and detached totals that described in IAS. Staff recommends amending all application components that reference multi family units, to include TIA. PHR+A Response: (1) Application form will be amended to state "mixed residential," rather than specifically referencing housing types. (2) Remainder of IAS consistently speaks to mixed residential" and uses 200 single family Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 2of16 b) Staff Issue: attached and 100 single family detached units as basis for impact projections. There should be no confusion about land use vision. In fact, single family detached units represent the most intensive residential use vis -a -vis impact generation, and the proposed proffer statement accordingly limits the total number of such units to no more than 150 (minimum of 60 to ensure mix). Tangible impacts are adequately controlled by this restriction, and it ensures the validity of the TIA, which assumes 180 single family detached units. Thus, all transportation planning for this project was based on a more intensive land use scenario than is proposed by proffer thereby ensuring that whatever the ultimate housing mix, impacts will be mitigated effectively. (3) Due to the fact that the assumptions used in the TIA capture the scope and impacts of the proposed development program, there is no reasonable basis for amending the TIA. To require modification of the TIA when it is not fundamentally flawed fails to satisfy any reasonable purpose. The TIA is a technical document provided to ensure that VDOT is able to accurately assess impacts to its public road network and properly evaluate proposed improvements. It is noted that VDOT has not questioned the validity of the TIA following revision of the development program, and appears satisfied with the assumptions and scope of the analysis. The TIA is therefore sufficient in its present form and will continue to be used in support of this application. The project adjoins Clarke County. Adjoining property in Clarke County should be included with the application for the purposes of legal notification. It was further noted that the Code of Virginia requires that notice be provided to the chief operating officer of any locality within mile of a rezoning in an adjoining jurisdiction. Staff suggested that the planning director in Clarke County should comment as a component of the rezoning exercise. Also, staff astutely pointed out that two properties PHA Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 3of16 that are not adjacent were erroneously identified as such on the application form. PHR +A Response: (1) Section 15 2- 2204.C. of the Code of Virginia requires that notice be provided to the chief administrative officer of any locality situated within one half mile of a proposed rezoning in an adjoining jurisdiction. Responsibility for such notification falls clearly on the locality wherein the rezoning is proposed, and specifically on the local commission or its designated representative. The applicant has no legal responsibility to inform the adjoining jurisdiction of their land use proposal, and should therefore not be compelled to modify or delay an otherwise complete application to accommodate the review or commentary of an adjoining locality. In deference to the wishes of staff, a copy of the application package was sent to Chuck Johnston, Clarke County Planning Administrator, on November 23, 2004, as a courtesy to facilitate awareness of the proposal. However, the applicant has no intention of indefinitely postponing submission of the application for the purposes of either receiving comment or addressing concerns voiced by Mr. Johnston on behalf of Clarke County. The public process is arguably the appropriate venue for resolution of inter jurisdictional land use issues, especially since this proposal conforms with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. (2) While staff suggests that two parcels are erroneously identified as adjoining properties on the application form, they fail to specifically identify these parcels for confirmation of this claim. Regardless, there is no harm in "over- notifying" by providing public hearing notices to properties in the vicinity of a proposed rezoning that are not clearly adjacent to the subject parcel. As the county is responsible for providing legal notice to adjoining property owners, it is certainly the prerogative of staff to eliminate parcels from the "adjoiner" list provided by the applicant if such properties are ultimately deemed to not be adjacent. Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 4of16 c) d) Staff Issue: The managing members of The Canyon, LC must be identified on the application form as they have ownership interest in the property. PHR +A Response: The application form will be amended to specify the managing members of The Canyon, LC. Staff Issue: Staff suggests that the Chadwell and Haggerty rezoning petitions should be consolidated as a single application. Also, it is recommended that the timing of improvements associated with each should be more clearly identified. PHR +A Response: (1) The Chadwell and Haggerty rezoning proposals involve different property owners and are intended to develop independently. Given the coincidental timing of the proposals, it was determined that traffic analysis efforts should occur in a coordinated fashion to ensure an equitable transportation improvement strategy for the area. The coordinated impact analysis resulted in an initial proposal for the respective applicants to share the cost of signalization at the intersection of Route 7 and Route 659. However, outside of transportation issues, the two projects are not intended to be integrated, particularly with regard to project and /or unit phasing. The county's most notable experience with the consolidation of otherwise independent projects under a single rezoning is the Charming Drive project. The implementation of the development plan for Champing Drive has been anything but integrated, and has instead been plagued by controversy and litigation that has proven costly to all parties involved, to include the county. It is not advisable for either applicant in this case to subjugate their unique interests and requirements to a collective development scheme. (2) The phasing of unit occupancy and site improvements is clearly delineated by proffer. Staff did not specify which elements of the proposed development program caused confusion or uncertainty. The applicant has attempted to be Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 5of16 2. Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement a) precise in defining triggers for unit phasing and site improvements, and is comfortable that the current approach is sufficient to ensure completion of the project in a phased and reasonable manner. Staff Issue: Staff recommends providing specific design and /or layout concepts intended to achieve housing choice and the vibrancy referenced in the Statement of Justification section of the 1AS. Staff also notes that Route 37 will ultimately create two neighborhoods on the site, and requests that the application demonstrate how these neighborhoods would relate to each other before and after construction of the road (how will each maintain its identity). PHR +A Response: (1) As noted in the IAS, the layout of the site is dictated by the future path of Route 37, as well as the planned collector road system that will extend from the project. The distinct neighborhoods referenced by staff will in fact be formed at the outset of the project. The neighborhoods will be linked together by an internal collector road system complemented by the proffered trail network. These connections will remain in place following actual construction of Route 37 through the site. As such, it is difficult to envision a discernable change in the physical identity of the project or its constituent neighborhoods that would demand a specific design response in the application. (2) By including single family attached and detached housing types within a unified development scheme, this project will offer an alternative to the homogeneity of the single family detached neighborhoods that dominate the UDA. The combination of such units in a walkable setting will enhance the potential for interaction amongst residents of varying social and economic backgrounds. Such interaction is the essence of a vibrant, interesting, and healthy living environment. PHA Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 6of16 b) c) Staff Issue: PHR +A Response: Staff Issue: (3) Similarly, by delivering a range of product types within a single project, there will inherently be greater choice for prospective homebuyers. A more diverse selection of housing types will be accompanied by a broader array of price points from which to choose thereby promoting affordability. The proffers proposed with this rezoning effectively codify housing choice, as the applicant has proffered to limit single family detached units to no more than 150 (minimum of 6), or 50 of the project total. (4) Housing choice and neighborhood vibrancy are not mere matters of design as implied by staff, but rather are fundamental characteristics of positive, well managed growth for a community. This application is structured to deliver these outcomes and contribute to an improved living environment within the UDA. Site background indicates that site is unimproved, but references the presence of the original farmhouse (Haggerty House) on a parcel included in the rezoning. This inconsistency should be addressed. The TAS will be amended to note that the site is largely unimproved, with the exception of the original farmhouse. The proposed collector road linking the project directly to Route 7 is the preferred transportation concept for the area, and should be implemented through this application to the extent feasible. Staff contends that the Route 820 Route 659 connection to Route 7 is not an acceptable arrangement for primary project access without "substantial" improvements to these roadways. PHR +A Response: (1) The transportation network serving the Haggerty project has been re- designed to de- emphasize the referenced access arrangement. The central "spine" road proffered by the applicant will be extended through the FWSA property to connect with Route 7, which will serve as the principal P H RA Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 7 of 16 project access. The Haggerty project will not have a direct entrance on Eddys Lane through this approach thereby alleviating the concerns expressed by staff. Future land development proposals for properties west of Eddys Lane will be responsible for improving an east -west collector that will enable their residents to access Route 7 via the spine road. (2) As per the staff comment, the re- designed access arrangement is the preferred transportation concept for the Haggerty project and the easternmost portion of the UDA as a whole. It is therefore expected that county staff and VDOT will support efforts to negotiate with the FWSA to obtain the necessary right of way for the proposed collector road. The transportation system originally proposed with this application was based upon a collector road traversing the FWSA property. In December 2003, the Planning Department questioned the appropriateness of this arrangement in the midst of the applicant's discussions with the FWSA, which negatively influenced negotiations resulting in the abandonment of the collector road concept. This action prompted a costly design exercise aimed at establishing a mutually acceptable alternative access and transportation scheme, a process that has continued to the present. It is ironic that the proposal originally discouraged by staff is now the preferred alternative, suggesting that the applicant has been forced to endure a circular evaluation process that did nothing more than impede public review of the rezoning petition. (3) Tt is important to note that the location of the proposed collector road across the FWSA property is further west from the operable units of the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility (ORWF) than the original collector road concept. This shift in alignment will ensure that the road will not impede or otherwise compromise the expansion and long- term viability of ORWF operations. Staff Issue: Provide opportunities for connectivity with parcels to the west of the site. P H RA Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 8 of 16 PHR +A Response: (1) The GDP included with the proposed proffer statement provides for connections with parcels to the west and southwest for both vehicles and pedestrians. The IAS further describes how the proposed transportation program will facilitate inter parcel connection. Specifically, the [AS indicates that an east -west connector road will ultimately link properties to the west with the Haggerty site and the proposed "spine" road. This combination of collector roads will provide access to the project(s) from Route 7 as well as Senseny Road in the future. Thus, the suggestion by staff that inter- connectivity remains an unresolved or unexplored concept is simply inaccurate. Staff Issue: (2) The GDP shows a potential connection point with the Pu -Shep project for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It is understood that an extensive trail system is planned with the Fu -Shep MDP, which is oriented around the prominent lake feature. At present, it is unclear whether county staff ensured that the design of this trail system provided for connectivity with adjoining sites, particularly the Haggerty tract. Consistent with the current GDP, the applicant is willing to link the respective trail systems in order to both promote recreational opportunities and establish a true multi-modal transportation system within the easternmost portion of the UDA. As such, the potential connection points will be maintained on the GDP, although actual connectivity will depend on the status of the Fu -Shep design process and the willingness of its developer(s) to establish links with the Haggerty project. Staff has requested that the rezoning application include detailed design information concerning the project's intemal connecting road that will ultimately be bridged by Route 37. Also, concem was raised that impacts to the one -lane bridge on Route 659 had not been adequately addressed by the IAS. PHR +A Response: (1) As noted above, the transportation program has been re- designed to effectively eliminate the use of Eddys Lane and Route 659 for project access. P HA Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 9of16 Staff Issue: The issue of impacts to the one lane bridge is therefore moot. (2) Detailed design information for all internal roads will be provided during the master development plan (MDP) process, as required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The connecting road will be located and constructed pursuant to VDO standards, with particular attention to its relationship to the future construction of VA Route 37. The information requested by staff exceeds the level of detail that is either necessary or appropriate for evaluation of a rezoning proposal. Comfort with the transportation concept and its ability to adequately mitigate projected impacts is of principal importance at this stage of the design process. As per discussions with planning staff and VDOT on November 22, 2004, all parties appear satisfied with the transportation concept with the clear understanding that its successful implementation will depend upon accommodation of future VA Route 37. (3) A follow -up meeting was held with VDOT on November 29, 2004 to discuss the design of the "spine" collector road, and general agreement was reached conceming the preferred location for the road and its intersection with VA Route 7. 'Phis alignment has been submitted to the FWSA for concurrence. Attached with this letter is an exhibit depicting the proposed road alignment. Staff suggests that the proffer language stating that the project will be developed as one single and unified development is incorrect. It is further suggested that the phasing of certain project elements contradicts this statement. PHR +A Response: (1) The I- Taggerty project will ultimately be developed pursuant to a single unified master development plan (MDP). The transportation improvements required to serve particular sections of the project will be clearly delineated on the MDP, and access to these sections will be dependant upon construction of these improvements. If Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 10 of 16 transportation improvements shown on the MDP and subsequent subdivision design plans are not complete, the county will not issue occupancy permits for impacted dwellings. Given that project access will be dependant upon the collector "spine" road, it is reasonable to conclude that this most essential transportation component will be completed prior to the issuance of the project's first occupancy permit. (2) The proposed proffer statement dearly specifies triggers for all other transportation improvements, which ensure an effective link between the construction and occupancy of dwellings and the initiation and completion of the project.'s transportation network. (3) The contradictions suggested by staff are not evident in the structure and content of the proposed proffer statement, or when the proffered development program is considered in the context of the county's established land development process. Throughout the comments provided by staff, it appears that details consistent with a preliminary MDP are desired as part of the rezoning application. It is important to note that current ordinance provisions only require an MDP at the time of rezoning with R4 (Planned Residential Community) proposals. Staff Issue: Clarification of the plan's multi-modal elements is needed. PHR +A Response: (1) The proposed proffer statement provides for the installation of a public pedestrian and bicycle trail network constructed to Parks and Recreation standards. As such, the trail system will be developed pursuant to prevailing AASI -ITO standards, which call for 10 -foot wide trail sections constructed with an asphalt surface. These standards are explicitly stated in the proposed proffer statement, and are adequate to support both pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The proffer statement further indicates that these trails will link internal components of the project as generally shown on the Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 11 of 16 Staff Issue: GDP. The trail system is depicted as a thin solid line that follows the project's road system. It is important to note that the MDP for the project will provide greater detail concerning the trail system, and is likely to outline a more extensive system than what is shown on the GDP as product types and layouts are finalized. The GDP provides the fundamental framework upon which the overall system articulated through the MDP will be based. The current proffer statement and GDP arguably provide sufficient information concerning the planned trail network for this stage of the development review process. (2) The current development concept for the Haggerty property does not include disturbance of the riparian areas associated with Opequon Creek for recreational purposes. Installation of 10 -foot wide asphalt trails adjacent to the creek is arguably inconsistent with the important goal of protecting the natural value of the riparian areas. Should the applicant ultimately choose to provide a lineal trail element near the creek, it is likely to be located outside of the riparian buffer area, comprised of pervious materials, and reserved for the passive use of the project's residents. Decisions concerning such amenities will be made during the MDP process. Project design should account for road efficiency buffers required adjacent to major collector and arterial roadways. Proffered screening of the Route 37 corridor appears to involve a lesser standard than what is required by ordinance through the road efficiency buffer requirements. PHR +A Response: (1) Preliminary project design has indeed provided for the inclusion of buffers on the site where required by the Zoning Ordinance. Such buffers will be depicted on the MDP for the project pursuant to final project design. (2) The referenced evergreen screen is proffered as an enhancement to standard ordinance provisions, and is neither intended nor proposed as an P H IS Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 12 of 16 d) Staff Issue: alternative to otherwise required buffers. The relationship of the enhanced screening to the required buffers will be detailed on the MDP. Staff claims that the IAS provides contradictory information concerning site suitability, as it states that no conditions exist that will preclude or substantially hinder development despite the presence of slopes and riparian features. PHR +A Response: (I) The assessment of the site suitability section of the IAS stating that the site is developable is accurate. The soil type of the Haggerty property is generally consistent with Martinsburg shale, which contains some areas of steeply eroded slopes, especially adjacent to streams and natural drainage ways. As such, the soils comprising the Haggerty site are similar to those found on the majority of land located east of Interstate 81 within the UDA. It is noted that although moderate slopes are prevalent on the site, no steep slopes as defined by the Zoning Ordinance have been identified. (2) The JAS appropriately acknowledges that the preliminary project design has deliberately accommodated the unique natural characteristics of the site. Such accommodation is the signature of contextually sensitive design, and ensures that the most valuable attributes of a site are included in the ultimate development program. To that end, certain areas of the site are inherently rnore or less favorable and /or desirable for particular product types and layouts, resulting in some being deemed "unsuitable" through the design process. The natural features of the site represent discernable challenges to project design, but do not constitute constraints that would preclude or otherwise hinder site development. (3) The principal constraint to site development identified by the LAS is the planned path of VA Route 37, and, more specifically, the substantial right of way proffered by the applicant to facilitate its eventual construction. The preliminary design for the project demonstrates that the site remains I- Iaggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 13 of 16 e) Staff Issue: PHR+A Response: (1) Relevant components of the application have been modified to eliminate the proposed land dedication for public use. This area will be reserved to allow flexibility in project design at the applicant's discretion. The ultimate use of this area may include a portion of the proffered residential program and /or open space and recreational amenities for project residents, the exact design of which will be established through the required MDP. Additional comments from Frederick County Public Schools and Parks and Recreation are therefore unnecessary. Staff Issue: developable despite the significant impacts of this future roadway. The proposed land dedication for public use(s) requires the analysis and approval of those agencies that are identified as potential users of the site, namely Frederick County Public Schools and Parks and Recreation. Such comments should be submitted as components of the formal application. The proposed proffer language governing the timing of the right of way dedication for VA Route 37 should be re- evaluated. Specifically, staff recommends eliminating the third sentence of the condition, which specifies that if the right of way is not requested by the county within 10 years of rezoning approval, the dedication agreement will become null and void. The proffered condition further stipulates that the acreage reserved for dedication may be used at the applicant's discretion without restriction should the 10 year period elapse without the request for dedication. PHR +A Response: (1) The right of way dedication offered by the applicant is made willingly to advance regional transportation objectives despite its discernable impact on the use of the site. The proposed language contested by staff is intended to provide assurance to the applicant that the county will utilize the land as intended within a reasonable period of time. This provision offers a mutually beneficial PHA Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 14of16 g) Staff Issue: arrangement whereby the applicant's responsibility for the acreage will be limited and certain, while the county will be provided time to move forward with planning for the road without assuming immediate liability for the property. The proposed proffer further codifies that accountability for the availability and use of the dedicated acreage is shared between the applicant and county. This is arguably an appropriate proposal befitting the significance of the proffered dedication to both the applicant and the community as a whole. (2) It is important to reiterate that the proffered dedication of the VA Route 37 right of way is a voluntary offer to the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County. The applicant is willing to dedicate the right of way to further transportation objectives of the county's Comprehensive Plan. The property owner retains the option of by right RA (Rural Areas) development on the site, which could occur without any provision for the planned path of VA Route 37. Furthermore, the construction of VA Route 37 is fundamentally a public road improvement project, which entitles the property owner to compensation for acquisition of the required right of way. The proffered dedication therefore represents a tangible savings to the taxpayers of Frederick County. In the context of the rezoning, the suburban residential use of the Haggerty and Chadwell sites is supported by adopted land use policy, which implies the appropriateness of RP zoning assuming effective impact mitigation. It is reasonably debatable whether the rezoning could legally be rejected on the basis of dissatisfaction with the parameters stipulated by the applicant governing a voluntary dedication, or due to other issues related purely to VA Route 37. Consideration should be given to the preservation and incorporation of the Haggerty House in the project's design. PHR +A Response: (1) As reported in the IAS, the Haggerty House is not identified as a potentially historic structure by P Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 15 of 16 h) Staff Issue: the Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County. The HRAB comment received from planning staff reflects the relative insignificance of this structure by noting that "the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule formal review of the rezoning by the HRAB" (sec letter from Candice E. Mills to Chuck Maddox, dated April 27, 2004). As such, there is no compelling rationale for retaining the house on the site and incurring the cost of its renovation for public or community use. The applicant has proffered to extend water lines to the boundary of the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility (ORWF). Staff has suggested that the applicant proffer to increase the length of this extension to connect with the existing lines already in place on the ORWF property. PHR +A Response: (1) The applicant has proffered the water line extension to the ORWF property as per discussions with FWSA representatives. This proffer has been welcomed and accepted by V VSA and FCSA. (2) The comment provided by staff concerning the redundancy of the dedicated ORWF water tank and the need to pursue discussions with the FCSA and the FWSA to replace this tank with a "community" water storage tank appears inappropriate. Planning staff does not possess responsibility for the design, construction, and /or maintenance of the public water conveyance or treatment facilities in Frederick County, nor does it possess the expertise to assume such responsibility or offer comment on related matters. Moreover, the current FCSA long range water facilities improvement plan does not include or identify the need for an elevated "community" water tank anywhere near the ORWF. Nevertheless, the applicant will work with the FCSA and the FWSA as required to ensure adequate water and sewer service to the project, to include any related facility enhancements. P CEM /kf Attachment Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 16 of 16 I look forward to submitting the Haggerty and Chadwell applications for formal review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in the very near future. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding the content of this correspondence. Sincerely. PATTON HARRIS RUST &,.ASSOCIATES, pc Maddox, Jr., P.E /fSenior Vice President (3) It is noted that neither the FCSA nor the I \VSA offered any objection to the proposed rezoning of the T- Iggerty property. cc: Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT Mr. oyd Ingram, VDOT r. Eric Lawrence, AICP, Frederick County Planning Director gilbert w. clifford associates a division of Patton, Harris, Rust Associotes, pc 1f7 E Readily St Vochestet Virtfria 22601 1 (540) 667 -2139 FAY (510) 665-0493 HAGGERTY PROPERTY SENSENY ROAD ROUTE 7 CONNECTOR PROPOSED ALIGNMENT November 22, 2004 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. P.E., VP Patton Harris Rust Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Chuck: 1) Preliminary Matters Re: Additional Preliminary Comments Haggerty Rezoning. Thank you for forwarding to this office the revised Haggerty rezoning application materials for our review. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to address the issues associated with this rezoning application. These comments are provided in addition to those previously offered by this department. It is my understanding that VDOT has also been provided with the revised rezoning application materials and has provided you with their comments. As customary, it is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. a) Item 6.B) of the Rezoning Application identifies the proposed use of the property as Single Family and Multi Family Residential. This should be revised to reflect the mix of housing types proposed in the revised rezoning package. In addition, the materials accompanying this rezoning application maintain several references to multifamily housing unit types that are no longer proposed with this particular application. Attention should be paid to ensuring that the Impact Statement, Proffer Statement and TIA accurately reflect the desired mix of housing types and that they avoid any redundant and potentially confusing language or inaccurate trip generation figures pertaining to housing unit types that are no longer proposed. b) Item 7. of the Rezoning Application requires that a listing of all adjoining property owners is provided. This appears to be the first rezoning proposal that Frederick County has entertained that directly adjoins Clarke County. The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204.C. requires that adjoining property owners in adjacent jurisdictions of the Commonwealth are notified or the proposed zoning change. Please ensure that property owners in Clarke County who adjoin the Haggerty property via the Opequon Creek are included in the adjoining property listing. The Code also requires that written notice is also provided to the CEO of the adjacent locality if the property is within 1/2 mile of the boundary of the adjoining locality. Recognizing this requirement, it is critical that this application is provided to the County Administrator and Planning Director of Clarke County as soon as possible for their review. It is expected that their review comments will be part of any rezoning application that is officially submitted for this project. In addition to the above, it appears as though two properties that do not adjoin this project have been erroneously included in the listing. c) Item 5. of the Rezoning Application requires full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please ensure that the managing members of The Canyon, LC are identified in the final application. d) Throughout the rezoning application materials there is a connection between the Haggerty property application and the proposed Chadwell rezoning application. This is particularly evident with the proposed access and transportation program. The relationship between the two applications could be strengthened with the consolidation of the two applications into one package and ideally one rezoning application. This would greatly simplify the evaluation of the rezoning requests and aid in the future administration of the rezoning commitments and development of the projects. At a minimum, the connection and timing of commitments in the proffer statements should be strongly associated between the two projects. 2) Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement a) The Summary and Justification statement envisions a mixed residential land use that will promote housing choice and result in a vibrant neighborhood. It would be helpful if any specific design or layout elements and neighborhood concepts that may have been formulated to effect this vision could be explained and incorporated into the application. The initial appearance of the project is that at the outset of the project the Route 37 right -of -way, and ultimately Route 37, would create two distinct neighborhoods. Effort should be made and concepts incorporated into the application that would clarify how the two neighborhoods would relate to each other prior to the construction of Route 37 and how they related and/or maintained there own identity and function upon the completion of Route 37. b) The Site Background and History narrative identifies the subject site as being unimproved yet recognizes the historic farmhouse as still existing on a separate IM of record that is part of this application. Please clarify in the narrative that the separate parcel of record containing the historic farmhouse is part of the subject site for which the rezoning is being sought and that the subject site is improved. It is recognized that parcel 55 -A -212 is unimproved. c) Transportation. i) Frederick County recognizes that the section of Route 37 that will ultimately pass through this project will establish a critical connection between Route 7 and Route 657. The incorporation of this transportation element into the project is critical. To further the concept of a direct connection between the Haggerty site and Route 7 and ultimately between Route 7 and Route 659, it is strongly recommended that the concept described in the text of the statement and identified on Figure 3 as a future extension (by others) be revisited. This concept identifies a major collector road parallel to the Route 37 right -of -way with a direct extension north to Route 7 and provisions for a continuation of the road to the southern property line of the Haggerty property. At this time, this would be the preferred transportation concept of the County provided there are no additional impacts to the present and future function of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility and that the ultimate construction of Route 37 is not negatively impacted. Such a collector road connection has merit both as a solution to the projects transportation needs before and after the construction of Route 37, and the broader transportation needs of the County. It is recognized that this is a short term solution when compared to the completion of Route 37. However, a collector road making a direct connection is an important short term solution to Eastern Frederick County's transportation needs. The opportunity may then exist to continue this collector road concept to Route 657 in conjunction with future plans for the adjoining property to the south of the Haggerty property. Preliminary discussions with VDOT indicate merit may be given to an at grade intersection further west of the existing median crossover on Route 7. This could be in direct alignment with the proposed eastern most access to Route 37. ii) Regarding the applicants desire to use Valley Mill Road via Eddys Lane as the means of site access from Route 7, it is a continued concern that without substantial improvements to Eddys Lane, Route 659, and Route 7, the feasibility of this option as a means of addressing the access to the project is not acceptable. Further, the feasibility of this route as a viable collector road connection from Route 7 to Route 657 is questionable. iii) In addition to preserving inter parcel connectivity to the adjacent property to the south. Please ensure that connectivity in appropriate locations is provided to the other surrounding properties to the west. It may behoove this application to work closely with the adjacent properties to ensure the implementation of a workable local transportation program. iv) The roadway connection linking the west and east sides of the development should be designed to recognize the ultimate construction of Route 37. In designing the connection consideration should be given to minimizing future construction costs associated with Route 37 and inconvenience to the future residents of the project. It may be helpful to describe the details of this connection, including the location, grading, and future public costs of the connection, in more detail in the application and potentially in the proffer statement. This may provide the County with some assurances that the future impacts of Route 37 on this connection are acceptable. v) Regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). It is recognized that by distributing the trips associated with this development wholly to Route 7 via Route 659 the greatest potential impact to this section of the road network can be evaluated. However, recognition should be given to the continued use of the one lane bridge by some portion of the traffic generated by this project. Any impacts to the level of service of the road segment and one lane bridge feature should be addressed. The TIA does not appear to address the full impact of the project, and the latest modifications to the access plan, on Route 820 Eddy's Lane. Also, the TIA does not accurately represent the proposed and proffered housing mix and should be modified accordingly. It is important that the initial public submission is as accurate as possible. vi) It would be desirable to ensure that the ultimate transportation improvements associated with this project are implemented as early as possible in the development of this project, preferably prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. The Proffer statement commits to the property being developed as one single and unified development. However, there appears to be several contradictions to this approach. The Proffer Statement identifies a phased approach to the project with several commitments tied into the phasing of the project. It would be helpful to provide further clarification of the commitments and phasing within the Generalized Development Plan and Proffer Statement. The phased approach may need to be reevaluated to ensure the necessary initial road improvements are completed and the phasing is logical with the design of the development. vii) Please provide further clarification on the multi -modal elements of the plan In recognition of the proposed public dedication associated with this application, it would be helpful to clarify the multi -modal elements of this plan including their location and connectivity to the various elements of the project. As previously requested, this could be done a separate exhibit for clarity. Opportunities appear to exist to connect such elements to adjacent properties and development projects. In particular, consideration should be given to coordination with the open space and trail system of the FU- Shep /Channing Drive project. Further consideration could be given to a lineal element along the Opequon Creek connecting the proposed public dedication area to the adjacent properties to the north and south. Additional riparian benefits may be realized with such a concept. Recognizing recent State and local efforts to incorporate bicycling elements into road improvement projects, an evaluation of bicycle improvements within the right of way would also be appropriate. viii) Road efficiency buffers associated with Route 37 and any collector road element incorporated into the plan should be recognized in the design of the project. Special attention should be given in the application to the design of these elements. It is recognized that a landscaped buffer area adjacent to Route 37 is proffered by the applicant. However, it is important to point out that proffer conditions offered by the applicant should be limited to identifying commitments that enhance and exceed those that are required by the Zoning Ordinance. As previously noted, it is inappropriate and unnecessary to include or repeat the requirements of County ordinances in the proffer statement. Further discussion may be warranted regarding the potential north south collector road and its relationship to the future Route 37 road efficiency buffer. Special consideration of this feature and improvement may be appropriate. d) The Site Suitability Analysis indicates that the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. However, it is indicated that the site is typical for the Martinsburg shale region with steeply eroded side slopes and reasonably level plain areas. Further, that area unsuitable for development has been appropriately set aside for environmental and open space purposes and that clustering techniques have been employed to accommodate site constraints. The environmental table is helpful in identifying the conditions of the site. It is requested that a similar table is provided specifically for the twenty acre parcel proposed to be dedicated for public purposes. This will be of assistance to the County Agencies in their review of this recent proposed dedication. e) Land dedication in the amount of approximately twenty acres has been proffered by the applicant for public use. As the applicant has also identified that this would be for the placement of parks and recreation and /or public school facilities it is important that the two agencies responsible for such public uses are provided the opportunity to review this proposal. Please ensure that their review comments on this recent modification to the rezoning application are provided as part of the official submission of the rezoning package. As previously noted opportunities may exist to incorporate such a dedication into a larger program of public improvements that could benefit the project and surrounding area. f) The proposed language regarding the land dedication of the Route 37 right of way and the timing of the dedication should be reevaluated. It is recommended that the third sentence be eliminated and that language similar to that used for the proposed dedication of the twenty acres for public use be substituted in its place. g) The Haggerty House is identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County. Please comment on the potential of incorporation of the house into the projects design. It would appear as though with some imagination consideration could be given to maintaining the house on its own lot and central to the project, to the use of the house as a community facility and part of the recreational compliment of the project, or to the relocation of the house to an alternate part of h) The provision of water service to the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility is desirable and should be facilitated to provide a connection to the existing lines within the Opequon facility's property. This would be beyond what is currently proffered to the property line. Ultimately, the water tank providing service and fire suppression to the Opequon facility may become redundant. Discussion may be appropriate at this time between the County, FCSA, FWSA, and the applicant regarding the use of this elevated site as a future community water tank location. If it is determined that this concept has merit, accommodations to facilitate this concept could be incorporated into this application. Please feel free to contact me at any time regarding the above comments or the application in general. As I have identified in this letter, further coordination of the review with Clarke County, the Frederick County Director of Parks and Recreation, and the Frederick County School System is of primary importance at this time. I look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this application. Sincerely, the site as a core element of the public space of the project. The house could be particularly valuable if the Small Lot Single Family housing unit option which would require a community center is ultimately part of the vision for the project. Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director, Department of Planning Development November 22, 2004 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. P.E., VP Patton Harris Rust Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester. VA 22601 Re: Additional Preliminary Comments Haggerty Rezoning. Dear Chuck: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 Thank you for forwarding to this office the revised Haggerty rezoning application materials for our review. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to address the issues associated with this rezoning application. These comments are provided in addition to those previously offered by this department. It is my understanding that VDOT has also been provided with the revised rezoning application materials and has provided you with their comments. As customary, it is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 1) Preliminary Matters a) Item 6.B) of the Rezoning Application identifies the proposed use of the property as Single Family and Multi Family Residential. This should be revised to reflect the mix of housing types proposed in the revised rezoning package. In addition, the materials accompanying this rezoning application maintain several references to multifamily housing unit types that are no longer proposed with this particular application. Attention should be paid to ensuring that the Impact Statement, Proffer Statement and TIA accurately reflect the desired mix of housing types and that they avoid any redundant and potentially confusing language or inaccurate trip generation figures pertaining to housing unit types that are no longer proposed. b) Item 7. of the Rezoning Application requires that a listing of all adjoining property owners is provided. This appears to be the first rezoning proposal that Frederick County has entertained that directly adjoins Clarke County. The Code of Virginia. Section 15.2- 2204.C. requires that adjoining property owners in 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 2 adjacent jurisdictions of' the Commonwealth are notified of the proposed zoning change. Please ensure that property owners in Clarke County who adjoin the Haggerty property via the Opequon Creek are included in the adjoining property listing. The Code also requires that written notice is also provided to the CEO of the adjacent locality if the property is within 1/2 mile of the boundary of the adjoining locality. Recognizing this requirement, it is critical that this application is provided to the County Administrator and Planning Director of Clarke County as soon as possible for their review. It is expected that their review comments will be part of any rezoning application that is officially submitted for this project. In addition to the above, it appears as though two properties that do not adjoin this project have been erroneously included in the listing. c) Item 5. of the Rezoning Application requires full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please ensure that the managing members of The Canyon, LC are identified in the final application. d) Throughout the rezoning application materials, there is a connection between the Haggerty property application and the proposed Chadwell rezoning application. This is particularly evident with the proposed access and transportation program. The relationship between the two applications could be strengthened with the consolidation of the two applications into one package and, ideally, one rezoning application. This would greatly simplify the evaluation of the rezoning requests and aid in the future administration of the rezoning commitments and development of the projects. At a minimum, the connection and timing of commitments in the proffer statements should be strongly associated between the two projects. 2) Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement a) The Summary and Justification statement envisions a mixed residential land use that will promote housing choice and result in a vibrant neighborhood. It would be helpful if any specific design or layout elements and neighborhood concepts that may have been formulated to affect this vision could be explained and incorporated into the application. The initial appearance of the project is that at the outset of the project, the Route 37 right -of -way, and ultimately Route 37, would create two distinct neighborhoods. Effort should be made and concepts incorporated into the application that would clarify how the two neighborhoods would relate to each other prior to the construction of Route 37 and how they relate to and /or maintain their own identity and function upon the completion of Route 37. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 3 b) The Site Background and History narrative identifies the subject site as being unimproved, yet recognizes the historic farmhouse as still existing on a separate lot of record that is part of this application. Please clarify in the narrative that the separate parcel of record containing the historic farmhouse is part of the subject site for which the rezoning is being sought and that the subject site is improved. It is recognized that parcel 55 -A -212 is unimproved. c) Transportation. i) Frederick County recognizes that the section of Route 37 that will ultimately pass through this project will establish a critical connection between Route 7 and Route 657. The incorporation of this transportation element into the project is critical. To further the concept of a direct connection between the Haggerty site and Route 7 and ultimately between Route 7 and Route 659, it is strongly recommended that the concept described in the text of the statement and identified on Figure 3 as a future extension (by others), be revisited. This concept identifies a major collector road parallel to the Route 37 right -of -way with a direct extension north to Route 7 and provisions for a continuation of the road to the southern property line of the Haggerty property. At this time, this would be the preferred transportation concept of the County, provided there are no additional impacts to the present and future function of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility and that the ultimate construction of Route 37 is not negatively impacted. Such a collector road connection has merit both as a solution to the projects transportation needs before and after the construction of Route 37, and the broader transportation needs of the County. It is recognized that this is a short term solution when compared to the completion of Route 37. However, a collector road making a direct connection is an important short term solution to Eastern Frederick County's transportation needs. The opportunity may then exist to continue this collector road concept to Route 657 in conjunction with future plans for the adjoining property to the south of the Haggerty property. Preliminary discussions with VDOT indicate merit may be given to an at -grade intersection further west of the existing median crossover on Route 7. This could be in direct alignment with the proposed eastern -most access to Route 37. ii) Regarding the applicants desire to use Valley Mill Road via Eddys Lane as the means of site access from Route 7, it is a continued concern that without substantial improvements to Eddys Lane, Route 659, and Route 7, the feasibility of this option as a means of addressing the access to the project is not acceptable. Further. the feasibility of this route as a viable collector road connection from Route 7 to Route 657 is questionable. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 4 iii) In addition to preserving inter parcel connectivity to the adjacent property to the south, please ensure that connectivity in appropriate locations is provided to the other surrounding properties to the west. It may behoove this application to work closely with the adjacent properties to ensure the implementation of a workable local transportation program. iv) The roadway connection linking the west and east sides of the development should be designed to recognize the ultimate construction of Route 37. In designing the connection, consideration should be given to minimizing future construction costs associated with Route 37 and inconvenience to the future residents of the project. It may be helpful to describe the details of this connection, including the location, grading, and future public costs of the connection, in more detail in the application and potentially in the proffer statement. This may provide the County with some assurances that the future impacts of Route 37 on this connection are acceptable. v) Regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). It is recognized that by distributing the trips associated with this development wholly to Route 7 via Route 659 the greatest potential impact to this section of the road network can be evaluated. However, recognition should be given to the continued use of the one lane bridge by some portion of the traffic generated by this project. Any impacts to the level of service of the road segment and one lane bridge feature should be addressed. The TIA does not appear to address the full impact of the project, and the latest modifications to the access plan, on Route 820 Eddy's Lane. Also, the TIA does not accurately represent the proposed and proffered housing mix and should be modified accordingly. It is important that the initial public submission is as accurate as possible. vi) It would be desirable to ensure that the ultimate transportation improvements associated with this project are implemented as early as possible in the development of this project, preferably prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. The Proffer statement commits to the property being developed as one single and unified development. However, there appears to be several contradictions to this approach. The Proffer Statement identifies a phased approach to the project with several commitments tied into the phasing of the project. It would be helpful to provide further clarification of the commitments and phasing within the Generalized Development Plan and Proffer Statement. The phased approach may need to be reevaluated to ensure the necessary initial road improvements are completed and the phasing is logical with the design of the development. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 5 vii) Please provide further clarification on the multi -modal elements of the plan. In recognition of the proposed public dedication associated with this application, it would be helpful to clarify the multi -modal elements of this plan, including their location and connectivity to the various elements of the project. As previously requested, this could be done as a separate exhibit for clarity. Opportunities appear to exist to connect such elements to adjacent properties and development projects. In particular, consideration should be given to coordination with the open space and trail system of the FU -Shep /Chaining Drive project. Further consideration could be given to a lineal element along the Opequon Creek connecting the proposed public dedication area to the adjacent properties to the north and south. Additional riparian benefits may be realized with such a concept. Recognizing recent State and local efforts to incorporate bicycling elements into road improvement projects, an evaluation of bicycle improvements within the right -of -way would also be appropriate. viii) Road efficiency buffers associated with Route 37 and any collector road element incorporated into the plan should be recognized in the design of the project. Special attention should be given in the application to the design of these elements. It is recognized that a landscaped buffer area adjacent to Route 37 is proffered by the applicant. However, it is important to point out that proffer conditions offered by the applicant should be limited to identifying commitments that enhance and exceed those that are required by the Zoning Ordinance. As previously noted, it is inappropriate and unnecessary to include or repeat the requirements of County ordinances in the proffer statement. Further discussion may be warranted regarding the potential north south collector road and its relationship to the future Route 37 road efficiency buffer. Special consideration of this feature and improvement may be appropriate. d) The Site Suitability Analysis indicates that the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. However, it is indicated that the site is typical for the Martinsburg shale region with steeply eroded side slopes and reasonably level plain areas. Further, that area unsuitable for development has been appropriately set aside for environmental and open space purposes and that clustering techniques have been employed to accommodate site constraints. The environmental table is helpful in identifying the conditions of the site. It is requested that a similar table is provided specifically for the twenty acre parcel proposed to be dedicated for public purposes. This will be of assistance to the County Agencies in their review of this recent proposed dedication. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 6 e) Land dedication in the amount of approximately twenty acres has been proffered by the applicant for public use. As the applicant has also identified that this would be for the placement of parks and recreation and /or public school facilities, it is important that the two agencies responsible for such public uses are provided the opportunity to review this proposal. Please ensure that their review comments on this recent modification to the rezoning application are provided as part of the official submission of the rezoning package. As previously noted, opportunities may exist to incorporate such a dedication into a larger program of public improvements that could benefit the project and surrounding area. f) The proposed language regarding the land dedication of the Route 37 right -of- way and the timing of the dedication should be reevaluated. It is recommended that the third sentence be eliminated and that language similar to that used for the proposed dedication of the twenty acres for public use be substituted in its place. The Haggerty House is identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County. Please continent on the potential of incorporation of the house into the projects design. It would appear as though with some imagination, consideration could be given to maintaining the house on its own lot and central to the project, to the use of the house as a community facility and part of the recreational compliment of the project, or to the relocation of the house to an alternate part of the site as a core element of the public space of the project. The house could be particularly valuable if the Small Lot Single Family housing unit option which would require a community center is ultimately part of the vision for the project. h) The provision of water service to the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility is desirable and should be facilitated to provide a connection to the existing lines within the Opequon facility's property. This would be beyond what is currently proffered to the property line. Ultimately, the water tank providing service and fire suppression to the Opequon facility may become redundant. Discussion may be appropriate at this time between the County, FCSA, FWSA, and the applicant regarding the use of this elevated site as a future community water tank location. If it is determined that this concept has merit, accommodations to facilitate this concept could be incorporated into this application. g) Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 7 Please feel free to contact me at any time regarding the above comments or the application in general. As I have identified in this letter, further coordination of the review with Clarke County, the Frederick County Director of Parks and Recreation, and the Frederick County School System is of primary importance at this time. I look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this application. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director, MTR/bhd VDOT COMMENTS TO HAGGERTY CHADWELL REZONING November 10, 2004 Item: Transportation VDOT will require that any development using a Route 820 and Route 659 combination to access Route 7, bring these existing roads up to a Minor "U4" Collector Road Standard. Using a 40 MPH design speed, the minimal acceptable right -of -way would be 56' and greater at intersections for needed turn lanes. 13.1 TIA Staunton District Traffic Engineering Comments dated November 4, 2004 are attached. VDOT requests a master plan and traffic impact analysis that better defines the full potential growth of this area of eastern Frederick County. 13.2 Applicant's proposal of the spine road is an excellent proposal due to its potential to be the first step in a connector between Route 7 Senseny Road. The proposed spine road 60' right -of -way is sufficient of a collector roadway. Currently the developer shows the proposed constructed portion of the spine road ending at tie -in with Route 820. Route 820, currently has insufficient right -of -way (40') for a collector roadway. While the developer is building a significant portion of the spine road, he has extended the right -of -way the entire length of the property. The end portions of the spine road have been left for others to build. 13.3 The developer's proposed improvements for the intersection of Routes 820 659 will be extremely limited if the improvements will only occur within the current right of -way. The intersection of Route 820 with Route 659 has sight distance constraints due to a large embankment on the northeast side of the intersection. As most of this embankment appears to be off of the right -of -way there appears to be little improvement that can be made within the right -of -way. Additional right of way will need to be obtained for a collector road that is envisioned to tie into the spine roadway. This right -of -way should be of a sufficient size to allow the Route 820 traffic to become the through traffic priority via a construction of a curve meeting collector road design criteria. This would then limit the eastbound Route 659 to a "stop" condition at the intersection. Route 820 appears to be only a prime and double seal. A bond to cover potential damage to the existing roadway will need to be posted by the developer prior to the start of construction. VDOT Comments to Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning November 10, 2004 Page #2 13.4 Route 659 roadway geometrics and additional lane improvements should also be included as part of the total intersection improvements. 13.5 While VDOT agrees with the proposed financial arrangements it has concerns about the method proposed to trigger the placement of the signal bond into escrow. It may be advantageous to install the signal at an earlier date if it is determined to be more cost effective compared to some extensive intersection improvements that may be required or if the traffic signal is warranted in the early stages of the development. There is extensive turns lanes to be built as well as a sight differential between the east and west bound left turn lanes that could require extensive improvements to the total roadway cross section. VDOT also requests that the language not restrict the proffer to the Route 7 Route 659 intersection, as the signal may need to be located at the proposed intersection of the spine road and Route 7. There may also be a safety issue, due to the increased traffic from the development, at the Route 7 Route 659 intersection that would make it imprudent to wait for the 76 building permit before modifications are made to the crossover or the traffic light is needed. 13.6 VDOT is agreeable. Summary The proposed development put forth by PHR&A has an excellent internal roadway system and a potential for putting forth a vital first step in a collector roadway extending from Route 7 to Senseny Road that is critical in the County's future growth. This will need to be addressed by Frederick County. VDOT is concerned that the existing road system cannot accommodate this additional traffic. Unless the developer designs a collector roadway, obtains the needed right of way for the collector roadway traffic and builds two lanes of this roadway VDOT cannot support this development as currently proposed. If the developer(s) adopts the spine road with a new crossover option on Route 7. VDOT will propose a cul -de -sac design for Route 820 at approximately the 20 +00 location. Through inter parcel connectors existing as well as future development will have access to the proposed spine road to Route 7 or Route 657. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION November 10, 2004 TO: PATTON, HARRIS, RUST ASSOCIATES FROM: LLOYD A. INGRAM SUBJECT: HAGGERTY PROPERTY REF. ROUTE 7, 659, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND 820 REVIEW COMMENTS FREDERICK COUNTY The following comments were received from Staunton District Traffic Engineering: We have reviewed "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property located in Frederick County Virginia prepared by PHR &A and dated September 24, 2004. This analysis included Intersection Route 7 /Route 659 and Intersection Route 659 /Route 820. Signalization will be warranted at the Route 7 /Route 659 Intersection. Two -way stop control is anticipated to be adequate at intersection Route 659 /Route 820. This Traffic Impact Analysis does not: 1. Provide an analysis at the Haggerty Main Entrance /Route 820 Intersection, [See also Chadwell review comments dated November 4, 2004] 2. Address the need for roadway improvements on Route 820 from Intersection Route 659 to the Haggerty Main Entrance Intersection. 3. Address the need for roadway improvements on Route 659 from the Route 7 /Route 659 Intersection to the Route 659 /Route 820 Intersection. 4. Address the Route 7 east bound lane left turn lane and taper and the east bound lane right turn lane and taper at the eastbound lane approach to the Route 7 /Route 659 intersection. 5. Address the Route 7 west bound lane left turn lane and taper at the west bound lane approach to the Route 7 /Route 659 Intersection. Additional information indicates the entrance to Chadwell, and two of three entrances to Haggerty may be served from a proposed spine road beginning near a Route 659 horizontal curve extending east, turning and continuing south along the location of a proposed Route 37, as shown on a `Haggerty Property Generalized Development Plan" by Gilbert W. Clifford Associates, dated 10/24/04. Other properties currently accessed near the south end of Route 820 have the potential for an additional 3,700 to 3,800 daily vehicular trips. Haggerty and Chadwell represent 3133 daily vehicular trips. When the four areas are combined a projected 6833 to 6933 additional daily vehicular trips are anticipated on Route 659 and in the Route 659 /Route 7 Intersection. Due to the potential as represented in several undeveloped areas of this neighborhood, we are requesting a master plan and traffic impact analysis that defines and analyses the entire area of potential development. Traffic impact analysis shows an existing ADT of 350 on Route 820, ADT of 1370 on Route 659 from Route 820 to Route 7. The combined 1370 VPD and ADT 6933 8300 VPD and by design standards will require two lanes each direction divided by 18 foot width median. We request a master plan and traffic impact analysis that better defines the full potential of the area. If you have additional questions, please contact me. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION November 10, 2004 TO: PATTON, HARRIS, RUST ASSOCIATES FROM: LLOYD A. INGRAM SUBJECT: CHADWELL PROPERTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW COMMENTS REF. ROUTE 7. 659 AND 820 FREDERICK COUNTY The following comments were received from Staunton District Traffic Engineering: We have reviewed "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Chadwell Property located in Frederick County Virginia prepared by PHR &A and dated September 24, 2004. This analysis included Intersection Route 7 /Route 659 and Intersection Route 659 /Route 820. Signalization will be warranted at the Route 7 /Route 659 Intersection. Two -way stop control is anticipated to be adequate at intersection Route 650 /Route 820. This Traffic Impact Analysis does not: 1. Provide an analysis at the Chadwell Main Entrance /Route 820 Intersection, [See also Haggerty review comments dated November 4, 2004. 2. Address the need for roadway improvements on Route 820 from Intersection Route 659 to the Chadwell Main Entrance intersection. 3. Address the need for roadway improvements on Route 659 from the Route 7 /Route 659 Intersection to the Route 659 /Route 820 Intersection. 4. Address the Route 7 east bound lane left turn lane and taper and the east bound lane right turn lane and taper at the eastbound lane approach to the Route 7 /Route 659 Intersection. 5. Address the Route 7 west bound lane left turn lane and taper at the westbound lane approach to the Route 7 /Route 659 Intersection, Additional information indicates the entrance to Chadwell, and two of three entrances to Haggerty may be served from a proposed spine road beginning near a Route 659 horizontal curve extending east, turning and continuing south along the location of a proposed Route 37, as shown on a "Haggerty Property Generalized Development Plan" by Gilbert W. Clifford Associates, dated 10/24/04. Other properties currently accessed near the south end of Route 820 have the potential for additional 3700 to 3800 daily vehicular trips. Haggerty and Chadwell represent 3133 daily vehicular trips. When the four areas are combined a projected 6833 to 6933 additional vehicular trips are anticipated on Route 659 and in the Route 659 /Route 7 Intersection. Due to the potential as represented in several undeveloped areas of this neighborhood, we are requesting a master plan and traffic impact analysis that defines and analyses the entire area of potential development. Traffic impact analysis shows an existing ADT of 350 on Route 820, ADT of 1370 on Route 659 from Route 820 to Route 7. The combined 1370 VPD and ADT 6933 8300 VPD and by design standards will require two lanes each direction divided by 18 foot width median. We request a master plan and traffic impact analysis that better defines the full potential of the area. If you have additional questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Philip A. Shucet COMMISSIONER June 4, 2004 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. G. W. Clifford Associates, Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Chuck: Transportation 12.1 Ref: Haggerty Property Rezoning Routes 659, 820 and 7 Frederick County COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 659, 820 and 7. These route are the VDOT roadway(s) which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Chadwell Property rezoning application dated March 22, 2004 addresses transportation concems associated with this request. The Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property as included in the rezoning application is incomplete when compared to a Traffic Impact Analysis as normally submitted to VDOT. This analysis does not include traffic counts and intersection analysis. The study does however suggest the Route 7 /Route 659 intersection has been analyzed and concludes the traffic impacts associated with the Haggerty Property development are acceptable and manageable. Intersection Route 7 /Route 659 will remain at Levels of Service "F" until the addition of a traffic signal and turn lane at which time a Level of Service "C" or better will be obtained. The Route 659/Route 820 Intersection is not analyzed. VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984 -5600 FAX (540) 984 -5607 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Ref: Haggerty Property Rezoning June 4, 2004 Page #2 The residential development commercial entrance at Route 820 is not analyzed. The impacted segments of Secondary Route 659 and Route 820 are not analyzed. Did the traffic analysis take into consideration the additional u-turn traffic generated on Route 7 east, due to the closing of the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park crossover? The current crossover is being closed due to Red Bud Subdivision construction. 12.2 As Route 659 is still part of the County's Eastern Road Plan, it may be premature to review the cul -de -sac of Route 659 at this time. I believe this proffer may be driven from the roadway infrastructure noted on figure 10, which possibly would solve the current one -lane bridge bottleneck. Currently VDOT has not received notification from all of the adjacent landowners nor Frederick County that they concur with this proposal, and until such time, the existing Eastern Road Plan will govern our transportation review. If the County Board adjusts the current Eastern Road Plan, then the proffer would be appropriate. Improvements at the intersection of Route 659 and Route 820 will need to reviewed and addressed at the Phase 1 commencement. The extension/construction of the existing Route 7 westbound left tum -lane should be included in the Phase 1 development plan. The existing turn lane is insufficient in length to provide a safe storage zone for more than the existing traffic load. Is the last sentence in this paragraph to dedicated right turn vs. dedicated right -of -way? 12.3 Will the proposed $180,000 cover the estimated cost of completing improvements of the intersection at Route 7 and Route 659? 12.4 No comment. 12.5 No comment. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Ref: Haggerty Property Rezoning June 4, 2004 Page #3 Route 820: The above mentioned issues deserve clarification due to the following: The anticipated 4673 vehicles per day on existing Route 820 and Route 659. Existing Conditions: 18 -foot width travel surface 4 -foot width cut and fill shoulder 110 vehicles per day (2002) Route 659: 14 -foot width travel surface 2 -foot width cut and fill shoulder 1500 vehicles per day (1999) Current Geometric Design Standards for Rural Collector Road System GS -3 [ADT over 2000], Rolling Terrain establishes 12 -foot minimum width lane, a 11 foot minimum width of fill shoulder, with guardrail an 8 foot minimum width of cut shoulder and fill shoulders without guardrail, with standard CS -4, CS -4A, or CS -4C recommended slopes. "The Applicant [Haggerty] shall provide minor road widening on Eddy's Lane (Route 820) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659) within currently available rights of way for the roadways including right of way and left tum lanes on Route 659 at the Va. Route 7 intersection." The existing 18 -foot width travel surface with 4 -foot width cut and fill shoulders on Route 820 and the existing 14 -foot width travel surface with 2 -foot width cut and fill shoulders on Route 659 does not indicate adequate existing right of way is available to provide the roadway necessary to accommodate the transportation system required by this proposal. Average daily traffic volume Year 2007 build out conditions is anticipated to be 4673 vehicles and indicated the need for additional right of way and roadway improvement. Haggerty Impact Analysis Statement, Division III Impact Analysis, Section D Traffic includes a Figure 10. Figure 10 provides a suggested future phase improvement plan where an interconnecting roadway is provided with links to Channing Drive and service to the west. This roadway addition would employ improvements to the existing Route 820 and Route 659 and provide an eastern connection point with Route 7. This is very suggestive information, however, the impact analysis for both Chadwell and Haggerty are completely void of this road connector analysis. Furthermore, the Haggerty /Chadwell developments are anticipated to generate traffic which will require a roadway typical section anticipated to exceed the existing right of way and is anticipated to be a more immediate need than the future phase links to Charming Drive. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Ref: Haggerty Property Rezoning June 4, 2004 Page #4 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. VDOT is concerned that this these developments are not Linked to the other developments west of them in the Charming Drive road area. Cur concern is the potential effect of connecting these developments and those west of Channing Drive to Route 7 at various locations. We believe it would be appropriate to meet with you and County Planning staff to further explore and agree on these issues before moving forward with these two tracts of property. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer LAUrf Enclosure Comment Sheet xc: Mr. Chris Mohn Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached letter from VDOT to G. W. Clifford Associates dated June 4, 2004. yam-- VDOT Signature Date: _i_r Notice to VDOT Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Virginia Dept. of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Current Zoning: RA ifr d VOOT Edinburg Residency APR 14 7004 CTOSSOL Virginia Department of Transportation or e m atom asap ssible order to.�assis three cpj esLofiyou4,agp1 Gilbert W. Clifford Assoc. c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Zoning Requested: RP HAGGERTY REZONING Hand deliver to: Virginia Dept. of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540)667 -2139 Location of Property: Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Opequon WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Acreage: 111.56 Ac 9 Philip A. Shucet COMMISSIONER June 4, 2004 Dear Chuck: Mr. Charles E Maddox, Jr., P.E. G. W. Clifford Associates, Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: Chadwell Property Rezoning Routes 659, 820 and 7 Frederick County COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 659, 820 and 7. These route are the VDOT roadway(s) which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Chadwell Property rezoning application dated March 22, 2004 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Transportation 12.1 The Traffic Impact Analysis of the Chadwell Property as included in the rezoning application is incomplete when compared to a Traffic Impact Analysis as normally submitted to VDOT. This analysis does not include traffic counts and intersection analysis. The study does however suggest the Route 7 /Route 659 intersection has been analyzed and concludes the traffic impacts associated with the Chadwell Property development are acceptable and manageable. Intersection Route 7 /Route 659 will remain at Levels of Service "F" until the addition of a traffic signal and turn lane at which time a Level of Service "C" or better will be obtained. The Route 659/Route 820 Intersection is not analyzed. Virginia0O1org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984 -5600 FAX(540)984 -5607 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Ref: Chadwell Property Rezoning June 4, 2004 Page #2 The residential development commercial entrance at Route 820 is not analyzed. The impacted segments of Secondary Route 659 and Route 820 are not analyzed. Did the traffic analysis take into consideration the additional u -turn traffic generated on Route 7 east, due to the closing of the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park crossover? The current crossover is being closed due to Red Bud Subdivision construction. 12.2 As Route 659 is still part of the County's Eastern Road Plan, it may be premature to review the cul -de -sac of Route 659 at this time. I believe this proffer may be driven from the roadway infrastructure noted on figure 10, which possibly would solve the current one -lane bridge bottleneck. Currently VDOT has not received notification from all of the adjacent landowners nor Frederick County that they concur with this proposal, and until such time, the existing Eastern Road Plan will govern our transportation review. If the County Board adjusts the current Eastern Road Plan, then the proffer would be appropriate. Improvements at the intersection of Route 659 and Route 820 will need to reviewed and addressed at the Phase 1 commencement. The extension/construction of the existing Route 7 westbound left turn -lane should be included in the Phase 1 development plan. The existing turn lane is insufficient in length to provide a safe storage zone for more than the existing traffic load. Is the last sentence in this paragraph to dedicated right turn vs. dedicated right -of -way? 12.3 Will your proposed $20,000, combined with the I- Iaggerty Property's $180,000, cover the estimated cost of completing improvements at the intersection of Route 7 and Route 659? 12.4 No comment. 12.5 No comment. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Ref: Chadwell Property Rezoning June 4, 2004 Page #3 The above mentioned issues deserve clarification due to the following: The anticipated 4673 vehicles per day on existing Route 820 and Route 659. Existing Conditions: Route 820: Route 659: 18 -foot width travel surface 4 -foot width cut and fill shoulder 110 vehicles per day (2002) 14 -foot width travel surface 2 -foot width cut and fill shoulder 1500 vehicles per day (1999) Current Geometric Design Standards for Rural Collector Road System GS -3 [ADT over 2000], Rolling Terrain establishes 12 -foot minimum width lane, a 11 foot minimum width of fill shoulder, with guardrail an 8 foot minimum width of cut shoulder and fill shoulders without guardrail, with standard CS -4, CS -4A, or CS -4C recommended slopes. "The Applicant [Haggerty] shall provide minor road widening on Eddy's Lane (Route 820) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659) within currently available rights of way for the roadways including right of way and left tum lanes on Route 659 at the Va. Route 7 intersection." The existing 18 -foot width travel surface with 4 -foot width cut and fill shoulders on Route 820 and the existing 14 -foot width travel surface with 2 -foot width cut and fill shoulders on Route 659 does not indicate adequate existing right of way is available to provide the roadway necessary to accommodate the transportation system required by this proposal. Average daily traffic volume Year 2007 build out conditions is anticipated to be 4673 vehicles and indicated the need for additional right of way and roadway improvement. Haggerty Impact Analysis Statement, Division III Impact Analysis, Section D Traffic includes a Figure 10. Figure 10 provides a suggested future phase improvement plan where an interconnecting roadway is provided with links to Channing Drive and service to the west. This roadway addition would employ improvements to the existing Route 820 and Route 659 and provide an eastern connection point with Route 7. This is very suggestive information, however, the impact analysis for both Chadwell and Haggerty are completely void of this road connector analysis. Furthermore, the Haggerty /Chadwell developments are anticipated to generate traffic which will require a roadway typical section anticipated to exceed the existing right of way and is anticipated to be a more immediate need than the future phase links to Channing Drive. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Ref: Chadwell Property Rezoning June 4, 2004 Page #4 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. VDOT is concerned that this these developments are not linked to the other developments west of them in the Channing Drive road area. Our concern is the potential effect of connecting these developments and those west of Channing Drive to Route 7 at various locations. We believe it would be appropriate to meet with you and County Planning staff to further explore and agree on these issues before moving forward with these two tracts of property. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer LAUrf Enclosure Comment Sheet xc: Mr. Chris Mohn Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached letter from VDOT to G. W. Clifford Associates dated June 4, 2004. r VDOT Signature Date: Notice to DOT P ease Retui n This +to the A Rezoning Comments Mail to: Virginia Dept. of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 ro e.. 9 5 4 r e: h 'W4 &2',n.," -"W i a ten 3' f v` 3 i Y+u: t` `§f a�:� .tea r Applic dease ott e tnform8as.aaeourat as posy bli ur Nlh ..,ea o f 4` Tn�ms ortatton ytth their rev�t ttaeh thtr4eo hest :'"¢75 xr a f r si .€s.. en T ''asa�,3'r ac t a fi ab d a P t locatrontmap ,Aoryo tmpac and any e i t R.p tttinent infgrmat Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Current Zoning: RA Virginia Department of Transportation Gilbert W. Clifford Assoc. c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 adjacent and west of the Clarke County line and Opequon Creek. V007 li d nhur.QI L urq Re sidegCy Arw 20 2004 CHADWELL REZONING Hand deliver to: Virginia Dept. of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: Approximately 3 miles east of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Opequon WWTP and east of Eddys Lane (Routh g20) and Phone: (540)667 -2139 Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 12.5436 9 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 We Kato :ginia Moving I111 II11ill IIIIIIIu IIi IItlIIIIu IIIIIIIII llilllllllllllllll llll Mr. Chris Mohn C/O County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 -5000 e O Q ql' ^I 5113;i; U.S POSTAGE 1 t Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Vice President Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. a division of Patton Harris Rust Associates, p.c. 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 June 4, 2004 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK RE: Haggerty Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Chuck: We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning and offer the following comments: Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 I) Under the description of location and access, the narrative indicates 60 feet of road frontage on Route 820 (Eddys Lane). This width does not appear to be sufficient to accommodate a future major collection road as annotated on Figure 10. Please indicate how the developer will address this issue. Under the Traffic discussion, we concur with your conclusion that safe and convenient access to Virginia Route 7 is paramount to the traffic improvements. Also, we support your proposal to provide a stoplighted intersection at Route 7 and Route 656. According to the traffic study this will improve the level of service at this intersection turn from an "F" to a "C" rating. However, we recommend that this improvement occur at the initial phase of construction rather than in Phase II as proposed in the proffer statement. This action will insure the safe and convenient access for all phases of development. 3) As indicated in the proffer statement, improvements will be required to Eddys Lane to accommodate the increase in traffic. The proffer statement indicates that the applicant will provide minor road widening of Eddys Lane and Valley Mill Road within currently available right -of ways including installation of dedicated right -of -way and left turn lanes on Route 659 at the Virginia Route 7 intersection. Eddys Lane is currently showing signs of pavement deterioration. Therefore, we Haggerty Rezoning Comments Page 2 June 4, 2004 HES /rls A: \hag ge rtyrezeom.wpd recommend that the above improvements be expanded to include a sufficient overlay to accommodate the additional traffic loading. The improvements may also require additional ditching and piping to accommodate storm drainage. The narrative should indicate who will be responsible for obtaining the necessary right of ways if the existing right -of -ways are not sufficient to accommodate the proposed improvements to Eddys Lane and Valley Mill Road. 4) Figure 10 indicates a suggested interconnection between Channing Drive and Eddys Lane. We realize that this connection is conceptual in nature especially with the proposed cul -de -sac closure of Valley Mill Road to the west of the one way bridge at Abrams Creek. if this connection is adopted, it will be necessary to upgrade Eddys Lane beyond the improvements highlighted in the proffer statement. Indicate if the applicant will implement these additional improvements at the time of the construction of the interconnection roadway. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, cc: Frederick County Planning and Development file Harvey E.Wtrawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Planning Development- 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665 -5651 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of Property: Current Zoning: RA Gilbert W. Clifford Assoc. c/o C E Maddox, Jr.. P.E., VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Zoning Requested: RP Historic Resources Advisory Board HAGGERTY REZONING Hand deliver to: Frederick County Dept. of Planning Development Co. Administration Bldg., 4 Floor 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 ut so ry Boatd i s tateme t,im snt, rrmact o of your apphcaYion form locatron! mentrinformation accurately ass Phone: (540)667 -2139 RErk APR 1 Zu„4 Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the:north by the Opequon WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). au "3c rr_L= ..Mwan,r Acreage: 111.56 Ac 7 Required Resources: Submittals: FREDERICK COUNTY HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW CHECKLIST Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey and Maps -Note level of significance in survey Potential Historic District •g" Frederick County Battlefield Network Plan l National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley Ne Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation National Historic District Management Plan FJ Department of Historic Resources Files: Structures and Consult any Archeological Survey Maps Battlefield Management Plans: Dens-tram Opequon (Third Winchester) Note cut -off dates for meetings, which should normally be three weeks prior to the meeting date. The HRAB prefers to have agendas mailed 2 weeks prior to meeting. Impact Analysis Statement: Information on property and structures to include date built, by whom, historic significance, summary of information found in resource checklist (Cite Page Etc) Map illustrating property proposed for development and all historic structures and battlefields Photographs of historic resources and setting /landscape Copies of any information from Department of Historic Resources Files July 12, 2004 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. P.E, VP G.W. Clifford Associates, Inc., A Division of PHR &A 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Preliminary Comments Haggerty Property Rezoning Proposal Dear Chuck: This correspondence is intended to identify issues of concern regarding the preliminary application materials for the Haggerty Property rezoning proposal. The preliminary application package consists of the following principal components: (1) Impact Analysis Statement, to include A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property, dated March 29, 2004, prepared by Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC; (2) Proposed Proffer Statement dated March 29, 2004; and (3) Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated March 19, 2004. It is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The following comments are offered for your records: A. Impact Analysis Statement 1. Traffic a. A future transportation phase is included in the Impact Analysis Statement that depicts a collector roadway extending from Route 820 (Eddys Lane) to Charming Drive. As you are aware, the viability of this roadway is dependant upon its inclusion with other development plans, most notably the Fieldstone project, within which the connection with Channing Drive would occur. It is noted that the revised master development plan for Fieldstone does not provide for this connection. The future transportation phase shown in the Impact Analysis Statement is therefore impossible and should be amended accordingly. The feasibility of closing Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) immediately west of the one lane bridge would arguably depend upon the availability of an alternative path to Route 7 for eastbound traffic. In the absence of a new collector roadway, an effective alternative would be possible only through the realignment of Route 659 to move traffic around the one -lane bridge. However, no provisions for the realignment of 1. Land Use Page 2 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Haggerty Property Rezoning Proposal July 12, 2004 Route 659 are included with this application. It is therefore recommended that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) be revised to assume the continued use of the one -lane bridge and the impact of this feature on level of service conditions both on Route 659 and Route 820. c. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application does not address impacts to Route 820 (Eddvs Lane), which is the principal means of access to the subject site. It is noted that this roadway will not be used exclusively by development of the Haggerty Property, as it is planned to provide access to Phase 10 of the Channing Drive project (Fu -Shep tract) and will further be used to carry trips generated by the future development of parcels located west of the Haggerty Property. As such, it is recommended that the TIA be revised to specifically address projected conditions on Route 820. B. Proposed Proffer Statement 1.2 Unless otherwise addressed by the proffered conditions proposed by the applicant, development of the subject site will be permitted pursuant to the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and, in particular, the requirements of the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. If the rezoning is ultimately approved, the proposed proffer statement will be adopted as an ordinance unique to the subject site, the provisions of which should exceed or complement those enumerated by county ordinances. It is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary to include or repeat the requirements of county ordinances in the proposed proffer statement. As such, the statement indicating that the mix of uses will be allowed in accord with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance is not necessary and should be deleted from the proposed proffer statement. 1.4 The Zoning Ordinance allows up to 40% of RP developments greater than 50 acres in size to consist of multi family housing types (Section 165- 62.1.C.). The proposed proffer statement repeats this standard by stipulating that no more than 120 multi family units will be developed on the subject site, which equals 40% of the total number of dwelling units proffered for the project. As noted above, it is inappropriate and unnecessary to include or repeat requirements of county ordinances in the proposed proffer statement. The proffered condition limiting the number of multi family units is therefore not necessary and should be deleted from the proposed proffer statement. Page 3 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Haggerty Property Rezoning Proposal July 12, 2004 2. Conditions Precedent to the Issuance of Permits and Plan Approval Recommended Clarification: h is recommended that the proposed proffer statement clearly articulate the number and composition of land use phases for the development. While it is assumed that each phase consists of 100 dwelling units, no language is provided that confirms this assumption for the purposes of implementing the remainder of the proposed proffer statement. 2.2 The proposed proffer statement stipulates that building permits for no more than 100 dwelling units will be issued within any twelve (12) month period beginning on the date of final master development plan approval. It is noted that building permits are not issued for individual multi- family units. Indeed, the building permit for a single multi- family building provides for the development of multiple units, a fact that could confuse implementation of the proffered phasing schedule. Indeed, as currently written, the subject proffered condition arguably does not guarantee that a maximum of 100 units will be constructed in any given twelve month period. It is recommended that the language of this proffered condition be clarified. 2.3 The proposed proffer statement provides for the phasing of dwelling units over a thirty (36) month period beginning on the date of final master development plan (MDP) approval. In the event that the actual development cycle extends beyond or begins after this three year period, no phasing of dwelling units would be required. Indeed, given the variables affecting site development activities following MDP approval, it is highly possible that a substantial number of allowable units may remain undeveloped at the conclusion of the thirty six month phasing period and would therefore be exempt from phasing. To ensure the graduated introduction of new dwelling units and their associated impacts to the community, it would be advisable to either lengthen the phasing period or simply commit to a set number of units per year, regardless of the passage of time. 3. Pedestrian Trail System and Recreation Areas 3.1 The trail system is difficult to follow on the proposed Generalized Development Plan (GDP). It is recommended that the scale of the GDP be adjusted to more clearly depict the trail system and other development features, or that an additional GDP sheet be used to delineate the trail system relative to the remainder of the project. Page 4 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Haggerty Property Rezoning Proposal July 12, 2004 4. Schools 5. Transportation Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence. Sincerely, Christopher M. Mohn, AICP Deputy Planning Director CMM/bad 5.3 The proffered monetary contribution for public school purposes includes an exception for designated "age restricted" housing. Such housing is neither discussed nor proposed in the Impact Analysis Statement, and there is no reference to such housing in preceding sections of the proposed proffer statement. The application should be clarified to address the possibility of "age restricted" units within the proposed development, and highlight any implications to the development program (phasing, etc.) should such housing be introduced as either a portion of the mix or as the predominant product type. 13.1 through 13.5 Several issues concerning the scope and assumptions applied in the draft Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) have been identified in this correspondence. Until these issues are resolved, it is difficult to conclusively evaluate the content of the transportation proffers proposed by the applicant. Specifically, the TIA must be modified to include assessment of impacts to Route 820 (Eddys Lane) and provide analysis of road conditions under the assumption that Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) will not be closed at the one lane bridge. This information will assist in determining the effectiveness of the transportation proffers proposed with the application thereby enabling final comment by both planning staff and VDOT. cc: Jerry Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation Ben Lineberry, Virginia Department of Transportation Lloyd Ingram, Virginia Department of Transportation J w VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION November 10, 2004 TO: PATTON, HARRIS, RUST ASSOCIATES FROM: LLOYD A. INGRAM SUBJECT: HAGGERTY PROPERTY REF. ROUTE 7, 659, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND 820 REVIEW COMMENTS FREDERICK COUNTY The following comments were received from Staunton District Traffic Engineering: We have reviewed "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property located in Frederick County Virginia prepared by PHR &A and dated September 24, 2004. This analysis included Intersection Route 7 /Route 659 and Intersection Route 659 /Route 820. Signalization will be warranted at the Route 7/Route 659 Intersection. Two -way stop control is anticipated to be adequate at intersection Route 659 /Route 820. This Traffic Impact Analysis does not: 1. Provide an analysis at the Haggerty Main Entrance/Route 820 Intersection, [See also Chadwell review comments dated November 4, 2004] 2. Address the need for roadway improvements on Route 820 from Intersection Route 659 to the Haggerty Main Entrance Intersection. 3. Address the need for roadway improvements on Route 659 from the Route 7 /Route 659 Intersection to the Route 659 /Route 820 Intersection. 4. Address the Route 7 east bound lane left turn lane and taper and the east bound lane right turn lane and taper at the eastbound lane approach to the Route 7 /Route 659 Intersection. 5. Address the Route 7 west bound lane left turn lane and taper at the west bound lane approach to the Route 7 /Route 659 Intersection. Additional information indicates the entrance to Chadwell, and two of three entrances to Haggerty may be served from a proposed spine road beginning near a Route 659 horizontal curve extending east, turning and continuing south along the location of a proposed Route 37, as shown on a "Haggerty Property Generalized Development Plan" by Gilbert W. Clifford Associates, dated 10/24/04. Other properties currently accessed near the south end of Route 820 have the potential for an additional 3,700 to 3,800 daily vehicular trips. Haggerty and Chadwell represent 3133 daily vehicular trips. When the four areas are combined a projected 6833 to 6933 additional daily vehicular trips are anticipated on Route 659 and in the Route 659 /Route 7 Intersection. Due to the potential as represented in several undeveloped areas of this neighborhood, we are requesting a master plan and traffic impact analysis that defines and analyses the entire area of potential development. Traffic impact analysis shows an existing ADT of 350 on Route 820, ADT of 1370 on Route 659 from Route 820 to Route 7. The combined 1370 VPD and ADT 6933 8300 VPD and by design standards will require two lanes each direction divided by 18 foot width median. We request a master plan and traffic impact analysis that better defines the full potential of the area. If you have additional questions, please contact me. VDOT COMMENTS TO HAGGERTY CHADWELL REZONING November 10, 2004 Item: Transportation VDOT will require that any development using a Route 820 and Route 659 combination to access Route 7, bring these existing roads up to a Minor "U4" Collector Road Standard. Using a 40 MPH design speed, the minimal acceptable right -of -way would be 56' and greater at intersections for needed turn lanes. 13.1 TIA Staunton District Traffic Engineering Comments dated November 4, 2004 are attached. VDOT requests a master plan and traffic impact analysis that better defines the full potential growth of this area of eastern Frederick County. 13.2 Applicant's proposal of the spine road is an excellent proposal due to its potential to be the first step in a connector between Route 7 Senseny Road. The proposed spine road 60' right -of -way is sufficient of a collector roadway. Currently the developer shows the proposed constructed portion of the spine road ending at tie -in with Route 820. Route 820, currently has insufficient right -of -way (40') for a collector roadway. While the developer is building a significant portion of the spine road, he has extended the right -of -way the entire length of the property. The end portions of the spine road have been left for others to build. 13.3 The developer's proposed improvements for the intersection of Routes 820 659 will be extremely limited if the improvements will only occur within the current right of -way. The intersection of Route 820 with Route 659 has sight distance constraints due to a large embankment on the northeast side of the intersection. As most of this embankment appears to be off of the right -of -way there appears to be little improvement that can be made within the right -of -way. Additional right of way will need to be obtained for a collector road that is envisioned to tie into the spine roadway. This right -of -way should be of a sufficient size to allow the Route 820 traffic to become the through traffic priority via a construction of a curve meeting collector road design criteria. This would then limit the eastbound Route 659 to a "stop" condition at the intersection. Route 820 appears to be only a prime and double seal. A bond to cover potential damage to the existing roadway will need to be posted by the developer prior to the start of construction. VDOT Comments to Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning November 10, 2004 Page #2 13.4 Route 659 roadway geometrics and additional lane improvements should also be included as part of the total intersection improvements. 13.5 While VDOT agrees with the proposed financial arrangements it has concerns about the method proposed to trigger the placement of the signal bond into escrow. It may be advantageous to install the signal at an earlier date if it is determined to be more cost effective compared to some extensive intersection improvements that may be required or if the traffic signal is warranted in the early stages of the development. There is extensive turns lanes to be built as well as a sight differential between the east and west bound left turn lanes that could require extensive improvements to the total roadway cross section. VDOT also requests that the language not restrict the proffer to the Route 7 Route 659 intersection, as the signal may need to be located at the proposed intersection of the spine road and Route 7. There may also be a safety issue, due to the increased traffic from the development, at the Route 7 Route 659 intersection that would make it imprudent to wait for the 76 building permit before modifications are made to the crossover or the traffic light is needed. 13.6 VDOT is agreeable. Summary The proposed development put forth by PHR&A has an excellent internal roadway system and a potential for putting forth a vital first step in a collector roadway extending from Route 7 to Senseny Road that is critical in the County's future growth. This will need to be addressed by Frederick County. VDOT is concerned that the existing road system cannot accommodate this additional traffic. Unless the developer designs a collector roadway, obtains the needed right of way for the collector roadway traffic and builds two lanes of this roadway VDOT cannot support this development as currently proposed. If the developer(s) adopts the spine road with a new crossover option on Route 7. VDOT will propose a cul -de -sac design for Route 820 at approximately the 20 +00 location. Through inter parcel connectors existing as well as future development will have access to the proposed spine road to Route 7 or Route 657. Fire Marshal's Comments: -1 7 1S— Fire Marshal's Signature Date Notice to Fire Marshal Please R urn This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick Co. Fire Marshal 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665 -6350 HAGGERTY REZONING Frederick County Fire Marshal R ECEIVE® APR 1 2004 revie oun ro e-s g1' ffer tatementimpact analvsis;an n oniastaccurate osstble nlorder tolassist the;_ our a pticatio form to atio erhnenttinformatio Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Current Zoning: RA Gilbert W. Clifford Assoc. c/o C. E. Maddox Jr. P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Fire Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal Co. Administration Bldg., 1 Floor 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540)667 -2139 Location of Property: Approx 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Opequon WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 111.56 Ac 12 Control number RZ04 -0007 Project Name Haggerty Rezoning Address 117 E.Piccadilly Street Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Access Comments Additional Comments Plan Approval Recommended Yes Date received Date reviewed 4/13/2004 4/15/2004 Tax ID Number 55 -A -212 212A Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department Office of the Fire Marshal Plan Review and Comments City Winchester Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System No Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway /Aisleway Width Not Identified Reviewed By Timothy L. Welsh Fire District 18 Applicant G.W.Clifford Associates State VA 22601 Signature 44a Zip Applicant Phone Residential Sprinkler System Yes Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Rescue District 18 Date Revised 540- 667 -2139 Election District Red Bud Emergency Vehicle Access Comments An emergency vehicle access should be diligently pursued which will allow a separate access to the site during construction. Extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting shall meet the requirements of Frederick County Code section 90 -4. Title n1 C AN ArPROVED TL�ti�r�� FIRE MARSHAL, FREDERICICCOUNTY Department of Inspections Comments: No COMMF,vr RF4uJRr17 EXCEPT T 4 r MO -IO•4 1 4 /fV ,J L if e l S013 f) iv is 1 o N IA( HEN S OSvt I FTE.O 0 01/ Inspections Signature Date: _rd Notice to Dept. of I ctions Please Return Th' 'orm to the App icant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665 -5650 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Current Zoning: RA Frederick County Department of Inspections Gilbert W. Clifford Assoc. Hand deliver to: APR 1. 3 2004 Frederick Co. Dept. of Insp Attn: Director of Inspections FREDERICKCOUNIY Co. Administration Bldg., 4` WORK 8INSPECTIONS 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 c/o C. E. Maddox Jr. P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Opequon WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 111.56 Ac HAGGERTY REZONING Phone: (540)667 -2139 RECEIVED 'S) 2t \o`t Er 3° C G A Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Vice President Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. a division of Patton Harris Rust Associates, p.c. 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Haggerty Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Chuck: June 4, 2004 COUNTY of FREDERICK We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning and offer the following comments: Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 1) Under the description of location and access, the narrative indicates 60 feet of road frontage on Route 820 (Eddys Lane). This width does not appear to be sufficient to accommodate a future major collection road as annotated on Figure 10. Please indicate how the developer will address this issue. 2) Under the Traffic discussion, we concur with your conclusion that safe and convenient access to Virginia Route 7 is paramount to the traffic improvements. Also, we support your proposal to provide a stoplighted intersection at Route 7 and Route 656. According to the traffic study this will improve the level of service at.this intersection turn from an "F" to a "C" rating. However, we recommend that this improvement occur at the initial phase of construction rather than in Phase II as proposed in the proffer statement. This action will insure the safe and convenient access for all phases of development. 3) As indicated in the proffer statement, improvements will be required to Eddys Lane to accommodate the increase in traffic. The proffer statement indicates that the applicant will provide minor road widening of Eddys Lane and Valley Mill Road within currently available right -of ways including installation of dedicated right -of -way and left turn lanes on Route 659 at the Virginia Route 7 intersection. Eddys Lane is currently showing signs of pavement deterioration. Therefore, we 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Haggerty Rezoning Comments Page 2 June 4, 2004 HES /rls 4) Figure 10 indicates a suggested interconnection between Channing Drive and Eddys Lane. We realize that this connection is conceptual in nature especially with the proposed cul -de -sac closure of Valley Mill Road to the west of the one way bridge at Abrams Creek. If this connection is adopted, it will be necessary to upgrade Eddys Lane beyond the improvements highlighted in the proffer statement. Indicate if the applicant will implement these additional im pro4ements at the time ofthe construction ofthe interconnection roadway. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above comments cc: Frederick County Planning and Development file A:\haggertyrezcom.wpd recommend that the above improvements be expanded to include a sufficient overlay to accommodate the additional traffic loading. The improvements may also require additional ditching and piping to accommodate storm drainage. The narrative should indicate who will be responsible for obtaining the necessary right of ways if the existing right -of -ways are not sufficient to accommodate the proposed improvements to Eddys Lane and Valley Mill Road. Sincerely, E Harvey E.Wtrawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works Sanitation-Authority Comments:- referred to on the water and sewer layout drawing be required with "initial construction? Refer tOEastern-States Engineering's.revised master development plan for Charming Drive, Phases 9 and 10 for water routing to the site. Sanitation Authority Signature Date: I� 7 Notice to Sanitation Auth P. Please Return This Form to the Applicant 07(06/2004 09:11 Rezonine Comments 5408681061 Mail to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 868 -1061 FCSA Frederick County Sanitation Authority Applicant's Name: Gilbert W Clifford Assoc Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Current Zoning- RA .Hand-deliver-to: Frederick Co, Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, VA HAGGERTY REZONING Phone: (540)667 -2139 Location of Property: Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Opequon -w WIT and East-of- Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Zoning RP Acreage:. 111.56 Ac PAGE 03 R; VD 15 Frederick Winchester Health Department's Comments: 4 t 4 t-v c e1 G hN S l v. lam t. t F9. t-ci c e c. 5.4- pa yityt Health Signature Date: Notice to Health Department Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments outne mtot ii ation,asNaccural par unththeir,reuiew A r ►mpact analysrs4and; any otlier,pe e inlordei to' of yo app inenj i':nasth Dupl. kik L'au Mail to: Frederick Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street 'Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722 -3480 mchesterHe o A,M911.map,_pr f Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Frederick Winchester Health Department Gilbert W. Clifford Assoc. c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Opequon WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Hand deliver to: Frederick Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent St., Suite 201 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722 -3480 OCo9 Da70 1/ 5_ -A -aia, c HAGGERTY REZONING 0 U, Phone: (540)667 -2139 Acreage: 111.56 Ac 04 16 fa December 15, 2004 C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Senior Vice President Gilbert W. Clifford Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Chuck: Frederick Winchester Service Auth Post Office Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Office: 107 North Kent Street County Office Complex Winchester, Virginia 22601 1 -540- 722 -3579 F flo DEC 2 3 2004 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Reference: Roadway Proposal Opequon Water Reclamation Facility This letter is to service as a follow up to our meeting of December 7, 2004 with the Frederick County Planning Department and as a response to your letter related to this roadway proposal. Clearly, this proposal better addresses the concerns previously expressed by the Service Authority and it is worthy of further discussion. Vital to the Service Authority in considering any proposal is that it maintains adequate buffer between the facility and future development, allows for retaining adequate adjoining property for potential expansion, and ensures that abutting development is "best suited" as a neighbor to a wastewater treatment operation. With those concerns in mind, I believe that the Frederick Winchester Service Authority would be willing to consider the proposed alignment and right of way request with the acceptance of the following conditions, some of which were discussed at our meeting. Deed remaining undeveloped portion of parcel south of the plant site and along the Opequon Creek to the Frederick Winchester Service Authority. With the construction of the roadway public water would be extended and tied into the existing on -site water system of the Opequon facility. Developer will design and construct a new plant entrance along the new roadway with necessary fencing and gated entry. FWSA shall provide approval of plans and specifications prior to construction. FWSA will provide specifications and reimburse developer for security entrance system. Developers will construct an earthen berm and pine buffer along new roadway. Endorsements of roadway and its alignment from the County of Frederick and Virginia Department of Transportation. D: \Temp \Temporary Internet Files \OLK5 \Maddox 122104.doc anonadv 6 ifn..wv ?ton 1/1/.%'%lemz 4hi n December 23, 2004 Page 2 I realize that the rezoning request has not been submitted for consideration at this point. Submittal and subsequent approval by the County of that request would be essential for obtaining finalized agreement. However, I would see no reason that the Board would be willing to accept a tentative agreement of understanding should we receive acknowledgment that the above stated demands are acceptable to the interested developers that you are representing. Please feel free to contact me regarding this issue. Sincerely, Jesse W. Moffett Executive Director Frederick Winchester Service Authority Cc: Frederick Winchester Service Authority Board Members John R. Riley. County Administrator County of Frederick Eric R. Lawrence Director Planning and Development Fred -Wine S rvice Authority's Comments: no ,,a' 4124104 Fred-Winc Service Authori FWSA Signature Date: �1 Notice to Fred -Winc Service Authority Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 722 -3579 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of Property: Current Zoning: Frederick Winchester Service Authority Gilbert W. Clifford Assoc., Inc. c/o C. E. Maddox. Jr., P.E., VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Zoning Requested: 41 HAGGERTY REZONING Hand deliver to: Fred -Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 g accuratel y L ast posse Twiisiirce tack a copy of:vour Phone: (540)667-2139 Acreage: 19 f z Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Parks Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665 -5678 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: HAGGERTY REZONING Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation Gilbert W. Clifford Assoc. c/o C. E. Maddox. Jr., P.E., VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation Co. Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540)667 -2139 Location of Property: Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Opequon WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Current Zoning: RA Dept. of Parks Recreation Continents: Zoning Requested: RP See Attached Acreage: 111.56 Ac Parks Signature Date: Notice to Dept. of Parks Recreation Please Return This Form to the Applicant 13 Request for Rezoning Comments Haggerty Property Department of Parks and Recreation's Comments: Plan appears to offer an appropriate proffer to offset the impact this development will have on the parks and recreational services provided by the county. Plan also indicates adequate open space and recreational units will be provided. However, detailed information regarding open space and proposed recreational units (including trails) will be required later in the review process. Signature and Date: bra) %'u ��O i� Winchester Regional Airport's Comments C AP �Q .t X or unnA muct I b 3 DY Winchester Regional Airport Signature Date: an IL Notice to Winchester Regional Airport Please Return This Form to the Applicant I S Rezoning Comments Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Current Zoning: RA Winchester Regional Airport Gilbert W. Clifford Assoc. Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street. Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 HAGGERTY REZONING rate. a s e x nformatron`tas accurateLy rn or asses a5 f a =.mv ^3 9P!�"n x: r., wa t ,a-a.. review Attach a copy a licatio of gyour: ppn #form ai4 f ,raga mss a 'it fib: ialvsi "s.:anil.anv other dertmentanfonmation w Phone: (540)667 -2139 Location of Property: Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Opequon.WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 111.56 Ac 17 JUL,12,2004 8:05RM FRED. CO. PUBLIC SCH F i -fir. 6 .6,..®5 County u esa I d d a o m i; w to ensure all students an excellent education Assistant Superiniendonn A 4mdndf For Administration orndortardifrederick.k12,va.us Ti Pri Gilbert W. C Assoc., Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Haggerty Rezoning Dear Mr. Price: July 0, 2004 This letter is in response to your request for comments s.urrl.cr ling the rezoning application for the proposed Haggerty Property project Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the.proposed 150 single family homes, 102 townhouses, and 48 multi-family units will yield 39 high school students, 35 middle school students, and 97 elementary school .students for a total of 171 new students upon buiid -out. This does not tae into consideration any. age restricted units since the application did not provide any specific numbers for those units. the J' r .i thi Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools scrv:::g n.= having. student enrollments _ti y ity The cumulative area naVing Student enrt)IlmerlID nCtlnllg_ Vr exceeding their _practical capacity. :.ti:avla�lvc impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, _undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enroiiments. school needs L The impact of this rezoning on current and future scnwr noeua siiuuiV ould during the approval process. Respectfully Yours, fs .ten L./ l 0114,091451. Arctr A d For Administration 1 Copy: William C. Dean Ph. D., Superintendent of Schools Steve Kapocsi, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent 1415 Amherst Street P.O: Box 3508 Winchester. Virginia 22604.254s mm,frods tck.k12,ve:us 110.317 P.1 540 86296119 ext. 112 540545 -2439 540-667 -1='90 fax April 27, 2004 Mr. Chuck Maddox Gilbert W. Clifford Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Haggerty Property Rezoning Dear Mr. Maddox: 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. As you have indicated in your impact statement, the Rural Landmarks Survey and the Comprehensive Policy Plan do not identify any significant historic structures or battlefields located on or adjacent to the property. 'Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call ifyou have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, a� (ity1 Candice E. Mills Planner I CEM/bhd 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 May 13, 2004 G. W. Clifford Associates Charles E. Maddox 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Master Development Plan Warrior Center Cpequon Magisterial District Dear Mr. Maddox: The above referenced Master Plan has been reviewed and it appears that it should not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. The proposed site does lie within the airport's air space, however it falls outside of the airport's Part 77 surface. Thank you for your cooperation and allowing us the opportunity to review these plans to ensure the safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662 -2422 CLARKE COUNTY 6 December 2004 Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Clifford Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Haggerty Property Rezoning Frederick County Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced request. I distributed the first few pages of your materials to the Clarke County Planning Commission and the matter was discussed at their December 3` regular meeting. They requested me to forward a complete copy of your materials to the County's engineer for review and requested a committee of the Commission to review a complete copy. By copy of the letter I am distributing these materials. By what date would you like comments? We will make every effort to respond quickly and again appreciate this opportunity. Charles Johnston Planning Administrator Copy: Mike Ruddy, Frederick County County Planning Commission Policy Committee Rick Travers, View Engineers 102 North Church Street Voice (540) 955 -5132 Berryville, VA 22611 www.co.clarke.va.us Fax (540) 955 -4002 11/26/2004 17:41 5406656395 WNWLIR.. G_. HALL.( ISA2.1872) THOMAS V, MONAHAN 17824.1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE 0. LELAND MAHAN R0803T Tr MITCHELL JR. JAHES KLENKAR-. STOVER F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MOLouoHLIN. JR. Dear Mi.ke: FRED CO PLANNING DEP PAGE 02/03 -HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, -MAHAN MITCHELL 4 MRINERSM' Or f rOrESSIONAL CORWR4nout.. ATTORNEK9 AT LAW 1 s 7 F.A5T PARR STREET--, LEE98URG. v(RGJN4 TELEPHONE 70J Mr. Michael -T. Ruddy,- MCP, Deputy Director Frederick-County Department of Planning "and Development 1027 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 9 En9T DosCNW!N ]TREET WINCMCGTOR, v1R0iNIA TELEPHONE T,tO ^!ZCt' C FAY.Sao- ectr3Oa C -MML i.,.ynrsphallmonsh•n.com November 23, 2004 PLEBE RCe1.Y 701 P O. Box 248 ■hMCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 -RAND DELIVERED Re: The Canyon, LC (Haggerty. Property) Proposer1 Proffer Statement I have reviewed: the above referenced. Proposed.Proffer It is my opinion that the Statement is _ins forrn.io meet the requirements of ty Zoning Oldivauceand the Code ofVirginia, subject to the following: 1. In Proffer No. 11.2, it: should .be stated when the and easements wilrbe provided; for example, within thirty (30) days of a written request by the FCSA. In Proffer No. 13.1, in,the Transportation section, the statement is made that rt is the Applicant's intent to privately fund the work require&af this prolPet f I cannntdetermine the purpose of this statement the proffer. as the rerrraii?ing proffers in the Transportation section state that the Applicant ?shall provide" the various transportation improvements Riffled; 3.- In Proffer No: 1 3:6; it ;should be-expressly stated, that the Applicant wilt- survey-and plat way for VA Route 37, if that is the case. 11/28/2004 17:41 5406656395 HALL MONAHAN,- ENGLE,- MAHAN MITCHELL Mr. Michael -T, Ruddy Frederick County Department of Planning and Development November 23, 2004 Page 2 FRED CO PLANNING DEP PAGE 03/03 I have not -reviewedthe_substance. of the proffers as to-whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the property, as it is my understanding that that review will bedone staff and Commission. RTM /glh If there are questions coneerrling:the- foregoing, please contact me. Robert T. Mitchell, P H IA CORPORATE: Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Chantilly ,ridgewater Fredericksburg Leesburg Richmond Virginia Beach Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES: Chants Hy Fredericksburg MARCLANE OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 1 -17 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 gilbert w. clifford associates a division of Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Pla n nets. Landscape Arch itects. December 2, 2004 Mr. Michael Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development Frederick County; Virginia 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Subject Dear Mike: Haggerty and Cbadweli. Rezoning Proposals Response to Additional Preliminary Comments This correspondence is in response to your letter dated November 22, 2004, wherein you offer several pages of comments concerning the Haggerty and Chadwell rezoning applications, which we are currently preparing for submission. These comments were offered in addition to the initial staff review, which was issued on July 12, 2004. Each issue raised through your analysis is summarized below and organized according to the outline of your letter. I have provided a response to each comment provided in your letter. It is requested that this document be included in the official record of the Haggetly and Chadwell applications. The issues and responses are as follows. 1. Preliminary Matters Staff Issue: PHR-FA Response: Application form included reference to "multi- family" in proposed use description. Also, development program assumed by TIA includes multi- family and different single family attached and detached totals that described in LAS_ Staff recommends amending all application components that reference multi-family units, to include TEA. (1) Application form wil be wended to state "mired residential," rather than specifically referencing housing types. (2) Remainder of IAS consistently speaks to "mired residential" and uses 200 single family PHA b) Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 2of16 Staff Issue: attached and 100 single family detached units as basis for impact projections. There should be no confusion about land use vision. In fact single family detached units represent the most intensive residential use visa vis impact generation, and the proposed proffer statement accordingly limits the total number of such units to no more than 150 (minimum of 60 to ensure mix) Tangible impacts are adequately controlled by this restriction, and it ensures the validity of the TLA, which assumes 180 single family detached units. Thus, all transportation planning for this project was based on a more intensive land use scenario than is proposed by proffer thereby ensuring that whatever the ultimate housing mix, impacts will be mitigated effectively. (3) Due to the fact that the assumptions used in the TIA capture the scope and impacts of the proposed development program, there is no reasonable basis for amending the TIA. To require modification of the TLA. when it is not fundamentally flawed fails to satisfy any reasonable purpose. The TIA is a technical document provided to ensure that VDOT is able to accurately assess impacts to its public road network and properly evaluate proposed improvements. It is noted that VDOT has not questioned the validity of the TIA following revision of the development program, and appears satisfied with the assumptions and scope of the analysis. The TEA is therefore sufficient in its present faith and will continue to be used in support of this application. The project adjoins Clarke County. Adjoining property in Clarke County should be included with the application for the purposes of legal notification. It was further noted that the Code of Virginia requires that notice be provided to the chief operating officer of any locality within 'f� mile of a rezoning in an adjoining jurisdiction. Staff suggested that the planning director in Clarke County should comment as a component of the rezoning exercise. Also, staff astutely pointed out that two properties P -Z A Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 3 of 16 that are not adjacent were erroneously identified as such on the application form. PHIL -FA Response: (1) Section 152- 2204.C. of the Code of Virginia requires that notice be provided to the chief administrative officer of any locality situated within one half mile of a proposed rezoning in an adjoining jurisdiction. Responsibility for such notification falls clearly on the locality wherein the rezoning is proposed, and specifically on the local commission or its designated representative. The applicant has no legal responsibility to inform the adjoining jurisdiction of their land use proposal, and should therefore not be compelled to modify or delay an otherwise complete application to accommodate -the review or commentary of an adjoining locality. In deference to the wishes of staff, a copy of the application package was sent to Chuck Johnston, Clarke County Planning Administrator, on November 23, 2004; as a courtesy to facilitate awareness of the proposal. However, the applicant has no intention of indefinitely postponing submission of the application for the purposes of either receiving comment or addressing concerns voiced by Mr. Johnston on behalf of Clarke County. The public process is arguably the appropriate venue for resolution of inter jurisdictional land use issues, especially since this proposal conforms with the Frederick County Comprehensive PIan. (2) While staff suggests that two parcels are erroneously identified as adjoining properties on the application form, they fail to specifically identify these parcels for confirmation of this claim. Regardless, there is no harm in "over- notifying" by providing public h acing notices to properties in the vicinity of a proposed rezoning that are not clearly adjacent to the subject parcel: As the county is responsible for providing legal notice to adjoining property owners, it is certainly the prerogative of staff to eliminate parcels from the "adjoiner" list provided `by the applicant if such properties are ultimately deemed to not be adjacent P H RA Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Plan ning Comments 12/3/200A Page 4 of 16 c) d) Staff Issue: The managing members of The Canyon, LC must be identified on the application form as they have ownership interest in the propel, y. PHR +A Response: The application form will be amended to specify the managing members of The Canyon, LC. Staff Issue: Staff suggests that the Chadwell and Haggef E rezoning petitions should be consolidated as a single application. Also, it is recommended that the timing of improvements associated with each should be more clearly identified. PHR +A Response: (1) The Chadwell and Haggerty rezoning proposals involve different property owners and are intended to develop independently. Given the coincidental timing of the proposals, it was determined that traffic analysis efforts should occur in a coordinated fashion to ensure an equitable transportation improvement strategy for the area. The coordinated impact analysis resulted in an initial proposal for the respective applicants to share the cost of signalization at the intersection of Route 7 and Route 659. However, outside of transportation issues, the two projects are not intended to be integrated, particularly with regard to project and /or unit phasing. The county's most notable experience with the consolidation of otherwise independent projects under a single rezoning is the Charming Drive project The implementation of the development plan for Channing Drive has been anything but integrated, and has instead been plagued by controversy and litigation that has proven costly to all parties involved, to include the county. It is not advisable for either applicant in this case to subjugate their unique interests and requirements to a collective development scheme. (2) The phasing of unit occupancy and site improvements is clearly delineated by proffer. Staff did not specify which elements of the proposed development program caused confusion or uncertainty. The applicant has attempted to be PH Haggetly Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 32/3/2604 Page 5 of 16 2. Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement a) precise in defining triggers for unit phasing and site improvements, and is comfortable that the current approach is sufficient to ensure. completion of the project in a phased and reasonable manner. Staff Issue: Staff recommends providing specific design and /or layout concepts intended to achieve housing choice and the vibrancy referenced in the Statement of Justification section of the LAS. Staff also notes that Route 37 will ultimately create two neighborhoods on the site, and requests that the application demonstrate how these neighborhoods would relate to each other before and after construction of the road (how each maintain its identity). PHR +A Response: (1) As noted in the IAS, the layout of the site is dictated by the future path of Route 37, as well as the planned collector road system that will extend from the project The distinct neighborhoods referenced by staff will in fact be formed at the outset of the project. The neighborhoods will be Linked together by an internal collector road system complemented by the proffered trail network- These connections will remain in place following actual construction of Route 37 through the site. As such, it is difficult to envision a discernable change in the physical identity of the project or its constituent neighborhoods that would demand a specific design response in the application. (2) By including single family attached and detached housing types within a unified development scheme, this project will offer an alternative to the homogeneity of the single family detached neighborhoods that dominate the UDA. The combination of such units in a walkable setting will enhance the potential for interaction amongst residents of varying social and economic backgrounds. Such interaction is the essence of a vibrant, interesting, and healthy living environment. P Haggett) Chadwell Rezoning Respon 12/3/2004 Page 6of16 b) c) Staff Issue• PHR +A Response Staff Issue: st o Planning Comments (3) Simri arly, by delivering a range of product types within a single project, there will inherently be greater choice for prospective homebuyers. A more diverse selection of housing types will be accompanied by a. broader array of price points from which to choose thereby promoting affordability. The proffers proposed with this rezoning effectively codify housing choice, as the applicant has proffered to limit single family detached units to no more than 150 (minimum of 6), or 50 of the project total. (4) Housing choice and neighborhood vibrancy are not mere matters of design as implied by staff, but rather are fundamental characteristics of positive, well managed growth for a community_ This application is structured to deliver these outcomes and contribute to an improved living environment within the UDA Site background indicates that site is unimproved, but references the presence of the original farmhouse (Haggerty House) on a parcel included in the rezoning. This inconsistency should be addressed. The LAS will be amended to note that the site is largely unimproved, with the exception of the original farmhouse. The proposed collector road linking the project directly to Route 7 is the preferred transportation concept for the area, and should be implemented through this application to the ea[ent feasible. Staff contends that the Route 820 Route 659 connection to Route 7 is not an acceptable arrangement for primary project access without "substantial" improvements to these roadways. PHR +A Response: (1) The transportation network serving the Haggerty project has been re- designed to de- emphasize the referenced access arrangement. The central "spine" road proffered by the applicant will be extended through the FWSA property to connect with Route 7, which will serve as the principal Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 7oft6 project access. The Haggerty project will not have a direct entrance on Eddys Lane through this approach thereby alleviating the concerns expressed by staff. Future land development proposals for properties west of Eddys Lane will be responsible for improving an east -west collector that will enable their residents to access Route 7 via the spine road. (2) As per the staff comment, the re- designed access arrangement is the preferred transportation concept for the Haggerty project and the easternmost portion of the UDA as a whole. It is therefore expected that county staff and VDOT will support efforts to negotiate with the FWSA to obtain the necessary right of way for the proposed collector road. The transportation system originally proposed with this application was based upon a collector road traversing the FWSA proper In December 2003, the Planning Department questioned the appropriateness of this arrangement in the midst of the applicant's discussions with the FWSA, which negatively influenced negotiations resulting in the abandonment of the collector road concept. This action prompted a costly design exercise aimed at establishing a mutually acceptable alternative access and transportation scheme, a process that has continued to the present. It is ironic that the proposal originally discouraged by staff is now the preferred alternative, suggesting that the applicant has been forced to endure a circular evaluation process that did nothing more than impede public review of the rezoning petition. (3) It is important to note that the location of the proposed collector road across the FWSA property is further west from the operable units of the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility (ORWF) than the original collector road concept. This shift in alignment will ensure that the road will not impede or otherwise compromise the expansion and long- term viability of ORWF operations. Staff Issue: Provide opportunities for connectivity with parcels to the west of the site. P HA Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning,Comments 12/3/2004 Page S of 16 PHR +A Response: (1) The GDP included with the proposed proffer statement provides for connections with parcels to the west and southwest for both vehicles and pedestrians. The IAS further describes how the proposed transportation program will facilitate inter parcel connection. Specifically, the IAS indicates that an east west connector road will ultimately link properties to the west with the Haggerty site and the proposed "spine" road. This combination of collector roads will provide access to the project(s) from Route 7 as well as Senseny Road in the future. Thus, the suggestion by staff that inter- connectivity remains an unresolved or unexplored concept is simply inaccurate. (2) The GDP shows a potential connection point with the Fu -Shep project for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It is understood that an extensive trail system is planned with the Fu -Shep MDF, which is oriented around. the prominent lake feature. At present, it is unclear whether county staff ensured that the design of this trail system provided for connectivity with adjoining sites, particularly the Haggerty tract. Consistent with the current GDP, the applicant is willing to link the respective trail systems in order to both promote recreational opportunities and establish a true multi-modal transportation system within the easternmost portion of the UDA. As such, the potential connection points will be maintained on the GDP, although actual connectivity will depend on the status of the Fu -Shep design process and the willingness of its developer(s) Nto establish links with the Haggerty project. Staff Issue: Staff has requested that the rezoning application include detailed design information concerning the project's internal connecting road that will ultimately be bridged by Route 37. Also, concern was raised that impacts to the one -lane bridge on Route 659 had not been adequately addressed by the IAS. PHR +A Response: (1) As noted above, the transportation program has been re- designed to effectively eliminate the use of Eddps Lane and Route 659 for project access. PHRA Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 9of16 Staff Issue: The issue of impacts to the one lane bridge is therefore moot. (2) Detailed design information for all internal roads will be provided during the master development plan (MDP) process, as required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The connecting road -will be located and constructed pursuant to VDOT standards, with particular attention to its relationship to the future construction of VA Route 37. The information requested by staff exceeds the level of detail that is either necessary or appropriate for evaluation of a rezoning proposal. Comfort with the transportation concept and its ability to adequately mitigate projected impacts is of principal importance at this stage of the design process. As per discussions with planning staff and VDOT on November 22, 2004, all parties appear satisfied with the transportation concept with the clear understanding that its successful implementation will depend upon accommodation of future VA Route 37. (3) A follow -up meeting was held with VDOT on November 29, 2004 to discuss the design of the "spine" collector road, and general agreement was reached concerning the preferred location for the road and its intersection with VA Route 7. This alignment has been submitted to the FWSA for concurrence. Attached with this letter is an exhibit depicting the proposed road alignment. Staff suggests that the proffer language stating that the project will be developed as one single and unified development is incorrect.- It is further suggested that the phasing of certain project elements contradicts this statement. PHR +A Response: (1) The Haggerty project will ultimately be developed pursuant to a single unified master development plan (MDP). The transportation improvements required to serve particular sections of the project will be clearly delineated on the MDP, and access to these sections will be dependant upon construction of these improvements. If PHA Staff Issue: PHR +A Response: Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Cot,au 12/3/2004 Page 10 of 16 transportation improvements shown on the MDP and subsequent subdivision design plans are not complete, the county will not issue occupancy permits for impacted dwellings. Given that project access will be dependant upon the collector "spine" road, it is reasonable to conclude that this most essential transportation component will be completed prior to the issuance of the project's first occupancy permit (2) The proposed proffer statement clearly specifies triggers for all other transportation improvements, which ensure an effective link between the construction and occupancy of dwellings and the initiation and completion of the project's transportation network. (3) The contradictions suggested by staff are not evident in the structure and content of the proposed proffer statement or when the proffered development program is considered in the context of the county's established land development process. Throughout the comments provided by staff, it appears that details consistent with a preliminary MDP are desired as part of the rezoning application. It is important to note that current ordinance provisions only require an MDP at the time of rezoning with R4 (Planned Residential Community) proposals. Clarification of the plan's multi-modal elements is needed. (1) The proposed proffer statement provides for the installation of a. public pedestrian and bicycle trail network constructed to Parks and Recreation standards. As such, the trail system will be developed pursuant to prevailing AASI3TO standards, which call for 10 -foot wide trail seasons constructed with an asphalt surface. These standards are explicitly stated in the proposed proffer statement and are adequate to support both pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The proffer statement further indicates that these trails will link internal components of the project as generally shown on the PHA Staff Issue: Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 11 of 16 GDP. The trail system is depicted as a thin solid line that follows the project's road system. It is important to note that the MDP for the project will provide greater detail concerning the trail system, and is likely to outline a more extensive system than what is shown on the GDP as product types and layouts are finalized_ The GDP provides the fundamental framework upon which the overall system articulated through the IvIDP will be based. The current proffer statement and GDP arguably provide sufficient information concerning the planned trail network for this stage of the development review process. (2) The current development concept for the Haggerty property does not include disturbance of the riparian areas associated with Opequon Creek for recreational purposes. Installation of 10 -foot wide asphalt trails adjacent to the creek is arguably inconsistent with the important goal of protecting the natural value of the riparian areas Should the applicant ultimately choose to provide a lineal trail element near the creek, it is likely to be located outside of the riparian buffer area, comprised of pervious materials, and reserved for the passive use of the project's residents. Decisions concerning such amenities will be made during the MDP process. Project design should account for road efficiency buffers required adjacent to major collector and arterial roadways. Proffered screening of the .Route 37 corridor appears to involve a lesser standard than what is required by ordinance through the road efficiency buffer requirements. PHR +A Response: (1) Preliminary project design has indeed provided for the inclusion of buffers on the site where required by the Zoning Ordinance. Such buffers will be depicted on the MDP for the project pursuant to final project design. (2) The referenced evergreen screen is proffered as an enhancement to standard ordinance provisions, and is neither intended nor proposed as an PH A Haggerty Chadwel] Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 12of16 d) alternative to otherwise required buffers. The relationship of the enhanced screening to the required buffers will be detailed on the MDP. Staff Issue: Staff claims that the LAS provides contradictory information concerning site suitability, as it states that no conditions exist that will preclude or substantially hinder development despite the presence of slopes and riparian features. PHR +A Response: (1) The assessment of the site suitability section of the LAS stating that the .site is developable is accurate. The soil type of the Haggerty property is generally consistent with Martinsburg shale, which contains some areas of steeply eroded slopes, especially adjacent to streams and natural drainage ways. As such, the soils comprising the Haggerty site are similar to those found on the majority of land located east of Interstate 81 within the UDA. It is noted that although moderate slopes are prevalent on the site, no steep slopes as defined by the Zoning Ordinance have been identified. (2) The LAS appropriately acknowledges that the preliminary project design has deliberately accommodated the unique natural characteristics of the site. Such accommodation is the signature of contextually sensitive design, and ensures that the most valuable atabutes of a site are included in the ultimate development program. To that end, certain areas of the site are'inherently more or less favorable and /or desirable for particular product types and Layouts, resulting in some being deemed "unsuitable" through the design process_ The natural features of the site represent discernable challenges to project design, but do not constitute constraints that would preclude or otherwise hinder site development. (3) The principal constraint to site development identified by the IAS is the planned path of VA Route 37, and, more specifically, the substantial right of way proffered by the applicant to facilitate its eventual construction. The preliminary design for the project demonstrates that the site remains Haggerty Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 13 of 16 Staff Issue: PHR +A Response: (1) Relevant components of the application have been modified to eliminate the proposed land dedication for public use. This area will be reserved to allow flexibility in project design at the applicant's discretion The ult use of this area may include a portion of the proffered residential program and /or open space and recreational amenities for project residents, the exact design of which will be established through the required MDP. Additional comments from Frederick County Public Schools and Parks and Recreation are therefore unnecessary. Staff Issue: developable despite the significant impacts of this future roadway. The proposed land dedication for public use(s) requires the analysis and approval of those agencies that are identified as potential users of the site, namely Frederick County Public Schools and Parks and Recreation. Such comments should be submitted as components of the formal application. The proposed proffer language governing the timing of the right of way dedication for VA Route 37 should be re- evaluated. Specifically, staff recommends eliminating the third sentence of the condition, which specifies that if the right of way is not requested by the county within 10 years of rezoning approval, the dedication agreement will become null and void. The proffered condition further stipulates that the acreage reserved for dedication may be used at the applicant's discretion without restriction should the 10 year period elapse without the request for dedication. PHR +A Response: (1) The right of way dedication offered by the applicant is made willingly to advance regional transportation objectives despite its discernable impact on the use of the site. The proposed language contested by staff is intended to provide assurance to the applicant that the county will utilize the land as intended within a reasonable period of time. This provision offers a mutually beneficial P III g) Hagget Ly Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planting Comments 12/3/2004 Page 14 of 16 arrangement whereby the applicant's responsibility for the acreage will be limited and certain, while the county will be provided time to move forward with planning for the road without assuming immediate liability for the properly. The proposed proffer further codifies that accountability for the availability and use of the dedicated acreage is shared between the applicant and county. This is arguably an appropriate proposal befitting the significance of the proffered dedication to both the applicant and the community as a whole. (2) It is important to reiterate that the proffered dedication of the VA Route 37 right of way is a voluntary offer to the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County. The applicant is willing to dedicate the right of way to further transportation objectives of the county's Comprehensive Plan. The property owner retains the option of by right RA (Rural Areas) development on the site, which could occur without any provision for the planned path of VA Route 37. Furthermore, the construction of VA Route 37 is fundamentally a public road improvement project which entitles the property owner to compensation for acquisition of the required right of way. The proffered dedication therefore represents a tangible savings to the taxpayers of Frederick County. In the contest of the rezoning, the suburban residential use of the Haggerty and Chadwell sites is supported by adopted land use policy, which implies the appropriateness of RP zoning assuming effective impact mitigation. It is reasonably debatable whether the rezoning could legally be rejected on the basis of dissatisfaction with the parameters stipulated by the applicant governing a voluntary dedication, or due to other issues related purely to VA Route 37. Staff Issue: Consideration should be given to the preservation and incorporation of the Haggerty House in the project's design. PHR-I -A Response: (1) As reported in the IAS, the Haggeily I -Iouse is not identified as a potentially historic structure by Haggerty ChadwelI Rezoning Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 15of16 the Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County. The ARAB comment received from planning staff reflects the relative insignificance of this structure by noting that "the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule formal review of the rezoning by the ARAB" (see letter from Candice E. Mills to Chuck Maddox, dated Aprii 27, 2004). As such, there is no compelling rationale for retaining the house on the site and incurring the cost of its renovation for public or community use. h) p Staff Issue: The applicant has proffered to extend water lines to the boundary of the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility (ORWF)_ Staff has suggested that the applicant proffer to increase the length of this extension to connect with the existing lines already in place on the ORWF property. PHR +A Response: (1) The applicant has proffered the water line extension to the ORWF property as per discussions with FWSA representatives. This proffer has been welcomed and accepted by FWSA and FCSA_ (2) The comment provided by staff concerning the redundancy of the dedicated ORWF water tank and the need to pursue discussions with the FCSA and the FWSA to replace this tank with a "community" water storage tank appears inappropriate. Planning staff does not possess responsibility for the design, construction, and/or maintenance of the public water conveyance or treatment facilities in Frederick County, nor does it possess the expertise to assume such responsibility or offer comment on related matters. Moreover, the current FCSA long range water facilities improvement plan does not include or identify the need for an elevated "community" water tank anywhere near the ORWF. Nevertheless, the applicant will work with the FCSA and the FWSA as required to ensure adequate water and sewer service to the project, to include any related facility enhancements. Hagget Cy Chadwell Rezoning Response to Planning Co invents 12/3/2004 Page 16of16 (3) It is noted that neither the FCSA nor the FWSA offered any objection to the proposed rezoning of the Haggerty property. I look forward to submitting the Haggerty and Chadwell applications for formal review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in the very near future. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding the content of this correspondence. Sincerely. PATTON HARRIS UST SSOCIATES, pc Maddox, Jr., P. CEM /kf Attachment for Vice President cc: Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT Mr. Lloyd Ingram, VDOT Mr. Eric Lawrence, AICP, Frederick County Planning Director 0 HAGGERTY PROPERTY SENSENY ROAD ROUTE 7 CONNECTOR PROPOSED ALIGNMENT FREDERICK CO(/MY. VBWINI4 gilbert w. Clifford associates 0dKSunof Patton, Harris, Rust Associates, pc 117E Reef R try Walla 77601 WCE (540) 667 -2139 Fht (540) 665 -0493 July 12, 2004 Dear Chuck: Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. P:E, VP G.W. Clifford Associates. Inc., A Division of PHR &A 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Preliminary Comments Haggerty Property Rezoning Proposal A. Impact Analysis Statement 1. Traffic COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 This correspondence is intended to identify issues of concern regarding the preliminary application materials for the Haggerty Property rezoning proposal. The preliminary application package consists of the following principal components: (1) Impact Analysis Statement, to include A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property, dated March 29, 2004, prepared by Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC; (2) Proposed Proffer Statement dated March 29, 2004; and (3) Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated March 19, 2004. It is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The following comments are offered for your records: a. A future transportation phase is included in the Impact Analysis Statement that depicts a collector roadway extending from Route 820 (Eddys Lane) to Channing Drive. As you are aware, the viability of this roadway is dependant upon its inclusion with other development plans, most notably the Fieldstone project, within which the connection with Charming Drive would occur. It is noted that the revised master development plan for Fieldstone does not provide for this connection. The future transportation phase shown in the Impact Analysis Statement is therefore impossible and should be amended accordingly. b. The feasibility of closing Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) immediately west of the one lane bridge would arguably depend upon the availability of an alternative path to Route 7 for eastbound traffic. In the absence ofa new collector roadway, an effective alternative would be possible only through the realignment of Route 659 to move traffic around the one -lane bridge. However, no provisions for the realignment of 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 1. Land Use Page 2 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Haggerty Property Rezoning Proposal July 12, 2004 Route 659 are included with this application. It is therefore recommended that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) be revised to assume the continued use of the one -lane bridge and the impact of this feature on level of service conditions both on Route 659 and Route 820. c. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application does not address impacts to Route 820 (Eddys Lane), which is the principal means of access to the subject site. h is noted that this roadway will not be used exclusively by development of the Haggerty Property, as it is planned to provide access to Phase 10 of the Charming Drive project (Fu -Shep tract) and will further be used to carry trips generated by the future development of parcels located west of the Haggerty Property. As such, it is recommended that the TIA be revised to specifically address projected conditions on Route 820. B. Proposed Proffer Statement 1.2 Unless otherwise addressed by the proffered conditions proposed by the applicant, development of the subject site will be permitted pursuant to the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and, in particular, the requirements of the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. If the rezoning is ultimately approved, the proposed proffer statement will be adopted as an ordinance unique to the subject site. the provisions of which should exceed or complement those enumerated by county ordinances. It is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary to include or repeat the requirements of county ordinances in the proposed proffer statement. As such, the statement indicating that the mix of uses will be allowed in accord with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance is not necessary and should be deleted from the proposed proffer statement. 1.4 The Zoning Ordinance allows up to 40% of RP developments greater than 50 acres in size to consist of multi family housing types (Section 165- 62.I.C.). The proposed proffer statement repeats this standard by stipulating that no more than 120 multi- family units will be developed on the subject site, which equals 40% of the total number of dwelling units proffered for the project. As noted above, it is inappropriate and unnecessary to include or repeat requirements of county ordinances in the proposed proffer statement. The proffered condition limiting the number of multi- family units is therefore not necessary and should be deleted from the proposed proffer statement. Page 3 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Haggerty,Property Rezoning Proposal July 12, 2004 2. Conditions Precedent to the Issuance of Permits and Plan Approval Recommended Clarificalron: It is recommended that the proposed proffer statement clearly articulate the number and composition of land use phases for the development. While it is assumed that each phase consists of 100 dwelling units, no language is provided that confirms this assumption for the purposes of implementing the remainder of the proposed proffer statement. 2.2 The proposed proffer statement stipulates that building permits for no more than 100 dwelling units will be issued within any twelve (12) month period beginning on the date of final master development plan approval. It is noted that building permits are not issued for individual multi family units. Indeed, the building pen for a single multi family building provides for the development of multiple units, a fact that could confuse implementation of the proffered phasing schedule. Indeed, as currently written, the subject proffered condition arguably does not guarantee that a maximum of 100 units will be constructed in any given twelve month period. It is recommended that the language of this proffered condition be clarified. 2.3 The proposed proffer statement provides for the phasing of dwelling units over a thirty (36) month period beginning on the date of final master development plan (MDP) approval. In the event that the actual development cycle extends beyond or begins after this three year period, no phasing of dwelling units would be required. Indeed, given the variables affecting site development activities following MDP approval, it is highly possible that a substantial number of allowable units may remain undeveloped at the conclusion of the thirty six month phasing period and would therefore be exempt from phasing. To ensure the graduated introduction of new dwelling units and their associated impacts to the community, it would be advisable to either lengthen the phasing period or simply commit to a set number of units per year, regardless of the passage of time. 3. Pedestrian Trail System and Recreation Areas 3.1 The trail system is difficult to follow on the proposed Generalized Development Plan (GDP). It is recommended that the scale of the GDP be adjusted to more clearly depict the trail system and other development features, or that an additional GDP sheet be used to delineate the trail system relative to the remainder of the project. Page 4 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Haggerty Property Rezoning Proposal July 12, 2004 4. Schools 5.3 The proffered monetary contribution for public school purposes includes an exception for designated "age restricted" housing. Such housing is neither discussed nor proposed in the Impact Analysis Statement, and there is no reference to such housing in preceding sections of the proposed proffer statement. The application should be clarified to address the possibility of "age restricted" units within the proposed development, and highlight any implications to the development program (phasing, etc.) should such housing be introduced as either a portion of the mix or as the predominant product type. 5. 'Transportation 13.1 through 13.5 Several issues concerning the scope and assumptions applied in the draft Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) have been identified in this correspondence. Until these issues are resolved, it is difficult to conclusively evaluate the content of the transportation proffers proposed by the applicant. Specifically. the TIA must be modified to include assessment of impacts to Route 820 (Eddys Lane) and provide analysis of road conditions under the assumption that Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) will not be closed at the one lane bridge. This information will assist in determining the effectiveness of the transportation proffers proposed with the application thereby enabling final comment by both planning staff and VDOT. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence. Sincerely, CMM/bhd Christopher M. Mohn, AICP Deputy Planning Director cc: Jerry Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation Ben Lineberry, Virginia Department of Transportation Lloyd Ingram, Virginia Department of Transportation November 22, 2004 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. P.E., VP Patton 1- larris Rust Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street. Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Additional Preliminary Comments Haggerty Rezoning. Dear Chuck: Thank you for forwarding to this office the revised Haggerty rezoning application materials for our review. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to address the issues associated with this rezoning application. These comments are provided in addition to those previously offered by this department. 1t is my understanding that VDOT has also been provided with the revised rezoning application materials and has provided you with their comments. As customary, it is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 1) Preliminary Matters 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 a) Item 6.B) of the Rezoning Application identifies the proposed use of the property as Single Family and Multi Family Residential. This should be revised to reflect the mix of housing types proposed in the revised rezoning package. In addition, the materials accompanying this rezoning application maintain several references to multifamily housing unit types that are no longer proposed with this particular application. Attention should be paid to ensuring that the Impact Statement, Proffer Statement and TIA accurately reflect the desired Unix of housing types and that they avoid any redundant and potentially confusing language or inaccurate trip generation figures pertaining to housing unit types that are no longer proposed. b) Item 7. of the Rezoning Application requires that a listing of all adjoining property owners is provided. This appears to be the first rezoning proposal that Frederick County has entertained that directly adjoins Clarke County. The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204.C. requires that adjoining property owners in Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 2 di adjacent jurisdictions of the Commonwealth are notified of the proposed zoning change. Please ensure that property owners in Clarke County who adjoin the Haggerty property via the Opequon Creek are included in the adjoining property listing. The Code also requires that written notice is also provided to the CEO of the adjacent locality if the property is within 1/2 mile of the boundary of the adjoining locality. Recognizing this requirement, it is critical that this application is provided to the County Administrator and Planning Director of Clarke County as soon as possible for their review. It is expected that their review comments will be part of any rezoning application that is officially submitted for this project. In addition to the above, it appears as though two properties that do not adjoin this project have been erroneously included in the listing. c) Item 5. of the Rezoning Application requires full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please ensure that the managing members of The Canyon, LC are identified in the final application. d) Throughout the rezoning application materials, there is a connection between the Haggerty property application and the proposed Chadwell rezoning application. This is particularly evident with the proposed access and transportation program. The relationship between the two applications could be strengthened with the consolidation of the two applications into one package and, ideally, one rezoning application. This would greatly simplify the evaluation of the rezoning requests and aid in the future administration of the rezoning commitments and development of the projects. At a minimum, the connection and timing of commitments in the proffer statements should be strongly associated between the two projects. 2) Impact Analvsis and Proffer Statement a) The Summary and Justification statement envisions a mixed residential land use that will promote housing choice and result in a vibrant neighborhood. It would be helpful if any specific design or layout elements and neighborhood concepts that may have been formulated to affect this vision could be explained and incorporated into the application. The initial appearance of the project is that at the outset of the project, the Route 37 right -of -way, and ultimately Route 37, would create two distinct neighborhoods. Effort should be made and concepts incorporated into the application that would clarify how the two neighborhoods would relate to each other prior to the construction of Route 37 and how they relate to and/or maintain their own identity and function upon the completion of Route 37. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 3 b) The Site Background and History narrative identifies the subject site as being unimproved, yet recognizes the historic farmhouse as still existing on a separate lot of record that is part of this application. Please clarify in the narrative that the separate parcel of record containing the historic farmhouse is part of the subject site for which the rezoning is being sought and that the subject site is improved. It is recognized that parcel 55-A-212 is unimproved. c) Transportation. i) Frederick County recognizes that the section of Route 37 that will ultimately pass through this project will establish a critical connection between Route 7 and Route 657. The incorporation of this transportation element into the project is critical. To further the concept of a direct connection between the Haggerty site and Route 7 and ultimately between Route 7 and Route 659, it is strongly recommended that the concept described in the text of the statement and identified on Figure 3 as a future extension (by others), be revisited. This concept identifies a major collector road parallel to the Route 37 right -of -way with a direct extension north to Route 7 and provisions for a continuation of the road to the southern property line of the Haggerty property. At this time, this would be the preferred transportation concept of the County, provided there are no additional impacts to the present and future function of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility and that the ultimate construction of Route 37 is not negatively impacted. Such a collector road connection has merit both as a solution to the projects transportation needs before and after the construction of Route 37, and the broader transportation needs of the County. It is recognized that this is a short term solution when compared to the completion of Route 37. However, a collector road making a direct connection is an important short term solution to Eastern Frederick County's transportation needs. The opportunity may then exist to continue this collector road concept to Route 657 in conjunction with future plans for the adjoining property to the south of the Haggerty property. Preliminary discussions with VDOT indicate merit may be given to an at -grade intersection further west of the existing median crossover on Route 7. This could be in direct alignment with the proposed eastern -most access to Route 37. ii) Regarding the applicants desire to use Valley Mill Road via Eddys Lane as the means of site access from Route 7, it is a continued concern that without substantial improvements to Eddys Lane, Route 659, and Route 7, the feasibility of this option as a means of addressing the access to the project is not acceptable. Further, the feasibility of this route as a viable collector road connection from Route 7 to Route 657 is questionable. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 4 iii) In addition to preserving inter parcel connectivity to the adjacent property to the south, please ensure that connectivity in appropriate locations is provided to the other surrounding properties to the west. It may behoove this application to work closely with the adjacent properties to ensure the implementation of a workable local transportation program. iv) The roadway connection linking the west and east sides of the development should be designed to recognize the ultimate construction of Route 37. In designing the connection, consideration should be given to minimizing future construction costs associated with Route 37 and inconvenience to the future residents of the project. It may he helpful to describe the details of this connection, including the location, grading, and future public costs of the connection, in more detail in the application and potentially in the proffer statement. This may provide the County with some assurances that the future impacts of Route 37 on this connection are acceptable. v) Regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). It is recognized that by distributing the trips associated with this development wholly to Route 7 via Route 659 the greatest potential impact to this section of the road network can be evaluated. However, recognition should be given to the continued use of the one- lane bridge by some portion of the traffic generated by this project. Any impacts to the level of service of the road segment and one lane bridge feature should be addressed. The TIA does not appear to address the full impact of the project, and the latest modifications to the access plan, on Route 820 Eddy's Lane. Also, the TIA does not accurately represent the proposed and proffered housing mix and should be modified accordingly. It is important that the initial public submission is as accurate as possible. vi) It would be desirable to ensure that the ultimate transportation improvements associated with this project are implemented as early as possible in the development of this project, preferably prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. The Proffer statement commits to the property being developed as one single and unified development. However, there appears to be several contradictions to this approach. The Proffer Statement identifies a phased approach to the project with several commitments tied into the phasing of the project. It would be helpful to provide further clarification of the commitments and phasing within the Generalized Development Plan and Proffer Statement. The phased approach may need to be reevaluated to ensure the necessary initial road improvements are completed and the phasing is logical with the design of the development. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2 004 Page 5 vii) Please provide further clarification on the multi -modal elements of the plan. In recognition of the proposed public dedication associated with this application, it would be helpful to clarify the multi -modal elements of this plan, including their location and connectivity to the various elements of the project. As previously requested, this could be done as a separate exhibit for clarity. Opportunities appear to exist to connect such elements to adjacent properties and development projects. In particular, consideration should be given to coordination with the open space and trail system of the FU- Shep /Channing Drive project. Further consideration could be given to a lineal element along the Opequon Creek connecting the proposed public dedication area to the adjacent properties to the north and south. Additional riparian benefits may be realized with such a concept. Recognizing recent State and local efforts to incorporate bicycling elements into road improvement projects, an evaluation of bicycle improvements within the right -of -way would also be appropriate. viii) Road efficiency buffers associated with Route 37 and any collector road element incorporated into the plan should be recognized in the design of the project. Special attention should be given in the application to the design of these elements. It is recognized that a landscaped buffer area adjacent to Route 37 is proffered by the applicant. However, it is important to point out that proffer conditions offered by the applicant should be limited to identifying conunitments that enhance and exceed those that are required by the Zoning Ordinance. As previously noted, it is inappropriate and unnecessary to include or repeat the requirements of County ordinances in the proffer statement. Further discussion may be warranted regarding the potential north south collector road and its relationship to the future Route 37 road efficiency buffer. Special consideration of this feature and improvement may be appropriate. d) The Site Suitability Analysis indicates that the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. However, it is indicated that the site is typical for the Martinsburg shale region with steeply eroded side slopes and reasonably level plain areas. Further, that area unsuitable for development has been appropriately set aside for environmental and open space purposes and that clustering techniques have been employed to accommodate site constraints. The environmental table is helpful in identifying the conditions of the site. It is requested that a similar table is provided specifically for the twenty acre parcel proposed to be dedicated for public purposes. This will be of assistance to the County Agencies in their review of this recent proposed dedication. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 6 e) Land dedication in the amount of approximately twenty acres has been proffered by the applicant for public use. As the applicant has also identified that this would be for the placement of parks and recreation and /or public school facilities, it is important that the two agencies responsible for such public uses are provided the opportunity to review this proposal. Please ensure that their review comments on this recent modification to the rezoning application are provided as part of the official submission of the rezoning package. As previously noted, opportunities may exist to incorporate such a dedication into a larger program of public improvements that could benefit the project and surrounding area. f) The proposed language regarding the land dedication of the Route 37 right -of- way and the timing of the dedication should be reevaluated. It is recommended that the third sentence be eliminated and that language similar to that used for the proposed dedication of the twenty acres for public use be substituted in its place. g) The Haggerty House is identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County. Please comment on the potential of incorporation of the house into the projects design. It would appear as though with some imagination, consideration could be given to maintaining the house on its own lot and central to the project, to the use of the house as a community facility and part of the recreational compliment of the project, or to the relocation of the house to an alternate part of the site as a core element of the public space of the project. The house could be particularly valuable if the Small Lot Single Family housing unit option which would require a community center is ultimately part of the vision for the project. h) The provision of water service to the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility is desirable and should be facilitated to provide a connection to the existing lines within the Opequon facility's property. This would be beyond what is currently proffered to the property line. Ultimately, the water tank providing service and fire suppression to the Opequon facility may become redundant. Discussion may be appropriate at this time between the County, FCSA, FWSA, and the applicant regarding the use of this elevated site as a future community water tank location. If it is determined that this concept has merit, accommodations to facilitate this concept could be incorporated into this application. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 7 Please feel free to contact me at any time regarding the above comments or the application in general. As I have identified in this letter, further coordination of the review with Clarke County, the Frederick County Director of Parks and Recreation. and the Frederick County School System is of primary importance at this time. I look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this application. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director, MTR/bhd