The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-14 CommentsCOUNTY of FREDERICK, a" Department of Planning and Deyelopment 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 =6395 1738 October 2; 2014 Thomas Moore Lawson, E"sq 120 :Exeter Drive, Suite 20U P.a., Box;27.46 . Winchester, VA':22604 i RE: Revenue Sharing bn the Ru"01.1'50 Property Dear Mr. Lawson: Mr. Riley has a "sked_that I provide you with a, summary of revenue sharing match that would be required,'w construct the proffered. roadways, within 'the Russell 150 development. I must note that; the estimates used are planning level cost, estimates and are fairly .conservative. While unlikely due, to' the- fact that they are conservative, they could* increase depending upon conditions that` arise °during the design `andz construction process. Of :co.urse, they could also decrease:depending upon other variables %as well.. ,For' reference; please see the attached graphic from, the existing Russell 1,50 rezoning. While I understand a new GDP ,is .being_-proposed'tyhch alters'the road layout (which could also alter the cost) this is whatis currentl`.y -in force. The current expected costs to. roadways proffered by Russell 150 if a revenue sharing: agreement 41 is made between "the�_owners and Frederick County are :as follows: Please note there is currently nod revenue; sharing awards ;applied �to. the Warrior Drive connection to the south`, though we would be4eager.to establish such an arrangement. A. The bridge over I- 8"1•to the City of Winchester.. Current expeeted' total cost approximately $4.5 Million,;: Revenue sharing match $2.;25'Million.. 13: Tevis. connection across Russell 150 from the bridge to the Glaize property:= Current expected total cost approximately $1 0`Million. Revenue sharing match $0,5'° Million. C: Airporf .Road; "extension' from _Route 522 to future Warrior Drive, intersection of :same,, and Warrior Drive; koin that :intersection to Tevis: ' Current expected total cost approximately $5.6° Million. Revenue sharing match'$2.8 Million. 107 Norio Kent. Street , :Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Page 2' Re Revenue Sharing- Russell- 1,50 Property Qctober2;,` 2'014 This amounts :to a total estimated revenue sharing match requirement of'$5;.55 Million in order to allow Frederick County to use state fund's to aid Russell 150' yin meeting its proffered obligations. I believe this - information is fairly consistent with what 'was relayed °to:- you when we met with John Riley in .his office in the summer of 2013. Please do not hesitate to contact me with additional' questions or concerns.. - ' S�ineerely, John,A. Bishop, AICP Deputy Director- Transportation JAB /pd " cc: John R: Riley Jr„ Frederick County Administrator Joseph Wilder; Deputy Director Public Works ' ✓Eric R. Lawrence, Director of Planning and Developm'ent a �v Eel r-, ®m r r `- m � w I AN o so f+0 D "� V o = a A �l �� y f�Z to to O � °❑ U co P C3 I imp ` `14 f �1tr��r 0 C� a� a O ,� Cl GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 nwTE 'MvrslON RUSSELL 150 s GREENW SHAIINEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT r � l � AY ENGINEERING ®_ 161 w1edY Hlil Lne FREDERICK COUNTY, VA C� ° 'r•.'rr �` �n� e°°h"ne*r. Nrl" � ` YLN men IAX 6 9-= _4186 �una� ��' °wNnieem 'WE'MORANDUM TO, Eric R. Lawrence,. AICP, Director Candice Perkins, AICP,- Senior Planner Frederick County -Department of Planning & Development FROM: Thomas Moore Lawson, 'Esquire DATE:, March f, 1 2015 RE: Heritage Commons Enclosed please find' the signed :revised proffers for the Heritage Commons rezoning.. Also, enclosed please find a. disc. with our presentation for the Board of'Supervisors meeting this evening. RECEIVED'BY: DCC[EUV ^ S (Seal) (Date,) 'MAR 1 1 2015 �'_,j FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNINGaAND. DEVtf —LO 1__! 1 . rKCn _ r'� V II 11 1 September 19, 2014 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 Mr. Thomas Moore Lawson Lawson and Silek, PLC 120 Exeter Drive, Suite 200 P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, Virginia 22604 RE: Rezoning Request for Heritage Commons Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Lawson: A cursory review of the revised proffer statement (September 1.8, 2014) for the proposed Heritage Commons project revealed that the referenced Generalized. Development Plan Exhibit . A. and Design Modification Exhibit B were omitted from the review package. We cannot proceed with our review until these documents are provided. We will await-your- response. Sincerely, 41cs �. Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES /rls cc: Planning and Development V11Z file 1.07 North Kent Street, Second Floor, Suite 200 o Winchester, Virginia 22'601 -5000 i Rezoning Comments ;Frederick County Fire Marshal -Mail to: Band deliver' to: Frederi ck County Fire'Marshal Frederick County. Fire &,Rescue Dept._ 1800 Coverstone:Drive Attn: Fire Marshal Winchester, Virginia 22602 Public Safety Bililding (540) '665 -6350 1800 Coverstone Drive Winchester, Virginia Applicant; °Please. -fill out "tho nfohn tionas:accurately'asTossible in.order to assist the Frederick, County Fire Marshal with-his revieW Attach a copy of your applicatiionform, location map, proffer statement, imtiact analysis, and any other heniffifornia tito� Applicant's Name: countycenter, �c Telephone: (54o) 665 -0050 Mailing Address- c% Lawson and Silek; P,.L.C. P.O. Box 2740 Winchester,' VA 22604 Location of property: West side of Front Royal: Pike `(Route1522)opposite,Airport Road, (R6ute.645), and has:frontage on the east side of Interstate 81 Current zoning: RA and B2/RP Zoning requested`. R4 Acreage: 150.59 + - Fire, Marshal's •Comments'. PLANS APRISOVE-9 FIRE MASSU 4L, FREDERICK COUNqT F ire-Marsha l's Signature & Date: Notice to`Fir.e.Marshal : Please Return This Form to; the'.Applicant 22 . FIROPY w COUNTY - =FREDERICK e Department of Planning and Development ' 540/665 -5651 1738 FAX: 540/665-6395 August 29, 2014 IV ( Thomas Moore Lawson Lawson and'Silek, P.L.C. P.O.' Box 2740 Winchester, Virginia 22604 -REc Market and Fiscal ftpacts ?Analysis (MFIA) of the Heritage Commons Project Dear Mr. Lawson: Staff ',has received comments concerning the submitted, Market' and Fiscal Impacts Analyses dated October 2013 for.the Heritage Commons project from the-Fred . erick County Treasurer's, Office and the Commissioner of the_Revenue. l'naccuracies °with the data are as follows: • PPTRA was - .capped_ jri 2009 at 2007 levels.. Monies for `PP.T.RA are, included in' the Personal Property Tax FY 2.014 amount ($41,143,379). There are no additional monies for PPTRA from the State ,of Virginia for vehicles added. to the tax rolls. (Attached is a corrected amount° for additional personal, property tax„ revenue, based on the applicant's calculations, With-only the PPTRA a "mount corrected). o Page 45 PPTRA is NOT in addition to the personal propert y. tax rate. of $4:83 but a payment toward , that for the qualifying taxpayer. This error makes all future calculations of personal property tax revenue. in ,this presentation INCORRECT if they use these numbers.,. • Page 46- Wejih4 thatjownhouses and apartments do NOT have 2:3' vehicles average per ,household. Many are one or two individuals or small childre "a per dwelling and often only one vehicle -. An.esti_mate of 1.6 would be high. • Page 47 - This'(Table 7) does show a better number for vehicles per unit but has a tax value calculated earlier in the document using 'incorrect information (see P age 45 above). • Page 48' - Personal property ' FF &:E as shown is much higher on offices than we experienced.. Plus our value calculation /depreciation rate o,n. FF &E is`30% not 40 %. • , Page 50 - Error in ,tax rate - $0.58/$100 BP.OL tax 'ONLY" applies to professional •classifications .(doctors; architects, lawyers, and realtors) - our BPOL -rate, on most offices is $0.3.6/$100. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 `Additional Concerns:. • Page 36 "- iU,nder`office space. They admit °that medical office space is unlikely in their- project.. (Applies,later °to;my comments on the incorrect Busin "ass License figure used fortheir comrnercial,sites.`) • Page 37 13 %vacancy rate admitted,o.n existing offices -4(my comments - some stood empty for many months in the city ar d at the airport) - ' • Page 37'('and elsewhere)' - assumption'is made that�the county office building will. be on site and therefore emp_q.y .and companies/ businesses dealingw,ith the;courity will ;be interested and av_a`ilable,fo - lr_entaIs�andf or employee:;purchases of. lunches etc. i (undetermiined)'..- _ • Page 38 = °Based' -on their!household income (disposable.or pre tax? ??)`t.hey have _ _ calculated - VERY h'igh'expenditure, rate�on- site (20 %,of the,1' -_5% convenience; . Page °38 : Theirl,b.us ness, discussions incl'udeethe: page 17 assumption of a county office . ;. building "on -site:; • Pagp,39 - ,Assumption of'aunches:ypurchased at site is Very high: Pagej_39 = They,ad- mif,that'the projected ;l5 year build out is "speculative at best ": Yet they contihue,t'o use.speculative °calculations.to make their,case:, Page 43 Townh e probably ok if''quality'is maintained':as° projected'. Apartment'values appear'high: . += Page 44 - Values on this page appear'good,on commercial buf high on offices given our. _ sales - aria lysis m the county: 4 • - Pager49 Table 9 - ..Restaurant sales is higher than we experience�onf`small locations if all are to beaar a scale full meal.establishments or ver g y popular fast`food chains this -,figure MAY °be -,closer.. ' Pa`ge 50 zQez urant gross ,'`would only'average these numbers if higi traffic-and high, end" establi'shrnents'are located in the complex. : ®r . Page 53 — Recordation /ownershipr.:ollover appears high. Page„3 Mr. ThomA*IMoore Lawson, RE Heritage Commons: August 29;,2014, Please °feel free to ;contact meyw;ithguestions regarding,th is application: Sin'cer Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner Attachment _ �& A-C7 August 29,, 2014 Department of Planning °and �Deve(opment 540 %665 -5651- FAX: 5:40[ 6.65 -6395, r Mr Thornas.IVtoore Lawson; Lawson and SiI.e. ..L C. P.O. Box 27,40 V1/inChester; Virgiriiai2,2604, RE: Market and• Fiscal "frno is Analysis (MFIA) of'the:Heritage.Commons.Project Dear Mr. L••a'wson: Staff ':has, received comments concerning the- submitted :Market and Fiscal Impacts Analyses dated October, 2013' °for the Heritage` Commons project-from the . Frederick County Treasurer's Office and the:TCommissioner of the Revenue, Inaccuracies with the data are as follows; • PPTRA was eap 'ped in 2809• ,at` 2007'. levels. Monies for PPTRA are included ;in the =" Personal Property Tax` FY 2014 amount,($41,143,3;7,9),. There are no add'ifional monies for .PPTRA;frorn fhe -State 'of`Virginia for vehicles ::added.to the',tax- 'rolls. (Attached''is •a corrected' arnount;_for additiona "I" personal. property :tax- revenue, based ;on: the applicant's' calculatlons,,wiih•only -the PPTRA,amount °corrected). • Page 45; , P-,PTRA is, NOT -An' addition to the, personas property taz rate of $4:83 but a payment toward, that W the ,qualifying- - azpayer: TF 's error makes all future calculations 'of personal property tax (revenue ;in this presentation. INCQRRECT if they use.these numbers. • Page; 46 We find tha - 'Ipwnhouses. and apa(trnehts;:do. NOT have 2.3 vehicles average; per household: QIMany' are one nor two individuals or small children per dwelling and often °only one vehicle An estirnate of .6 -would be = high:, • Pa'ge; 4:7. = This (Table 7) does'show a ,better •riu.mber ;fo.r \ 2g icles' per unit but ha's -a taz, value calculated earlier' in .the document using' incorrect, '_information (see Page 45 • Page 48 ;Personal property FF, &E as ,shown is much, t'igher' o,n offices Than .we experienced. Plus,our value calculation /depr,.eciafion rate on `FF &E,is:3.0 %:slot 40: ®.._ Er,6.ij tx _ate $58100 POL tax, OPagel, 50 NLY ,applies to professional - classifications; (doctors; arcFiitects, laWyersi and rea'Itors) o VOL OL rate, .on most 107 North Kent StreeC Suite;202 P, Winchester, Viirginia 22601 -5000 Page; 2 Mr. Thomas`Moore Lawson- RE Heritage Commons " August 29 „2014 Additional Concerns- 0 Page 36,7, Under office..space. Theyadmit that medical office space is unlikely, in their project. (Applieslater to my comments'o.n the incorrect; Business License figure used for their-,commercial sites.) • Page 37 13% vacancy rate admitted on existing offices - (my comments - some stood empty' for many m0nths.'n the.city and at the airport) i • Page 37 (and elsewhere) - assumption is made that the county office building will be on site; and'therefore employees-and companies /businesses dealing with the county -will be i interested and available for rentals'and.for employee purchases,of lunches; etc. (undetermined). I - • Page 38 - Based on their household income (disposable or pre-tax ? ? ?) they have calculated:a VERY high expenditure rate on -site (20o.of the 15% convenience purchases) • Page a8 - ,Thei'r; business discussions include the page 17 ;assumption. of a county. office . building,on.site. • Page.39 Assumption of lunchesL purchased at site is very, high, • Page 39 - They admit that the projected,15 year build. out is- "speculative at best ". Yet they continue to use speculative calculations °to make,their case: •. Page 43 - Towrihouse values are probably ok if quality is ma:inta_inecl as projected. Apartment values appear high`. • Pbge 44 Values ;on °this page appear good on commercial but high on offices given our sales.anal.ysis inthe,county. 0 Page 49 = Table i91 Restaurant sales is; higher than we,experience on small locations - ifr all are to be large scale full meal establishments or very popular "fast food chains this figure MAY4be closer, • 'Page,,50 - k6staurant gross, wouid only average these numbers if high traffic'and high. -,end-establishments,are located in the complex. • Page 53,.,. R. ecordation /ownership,rollover.appears high. taxable personal "use value - tax/ vehicle new value new tax lawson $ 42,015,619.00: $ 864518,909:47 $ 12,529.26 $ 23,392,127.59 $ 1,136,857.40 corrected'pptra, $ 28,388,93,2.0 $ 584,13,4,403:29 $ 8,465:72 $ 15,805,491.75 $ 768,146.90 difference $ 368;710:50 Y August 29, 2014 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and. Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665.6395 Mr. Thomas,Md re: Lawson Lawson and. Silek,,P.L -:C. P- O0 Box 2740 Winchester; Virginia 22604 RE: Market 'and Fiscal Impacts Analysis (MFIA) of the Heritage- tommons Proiect Dear Mr:.Lawson: Staff has received comments concerning the submitted Market and Fiscal Impacts Analyses dated. October 2013, for_ the Heritage; Commons project from the Frederick County Treasurer's Office, and the.Commissioner of the Revenue. Inaccuracies9with the data are as follows: o PPTRA was- capped in 2009 at 2007 levels;. Monies for PPTRA are 'included in the Personal- Property Tax, FY 2014 amount ($41,143;379). There are no additional monies for PPTRA from the State of Virginia for vehicles added to th e. tax rolls. (Attached is a corrected amount for additional personal property tax revenue, based, on the applicant`s�calculation "s;'with only the PPTRA a "riiount•corrected). • Page 45 PPTRA -is NOT in addition to the personal property rate of $4.83 but a payment toward that for the qualifying taxpayer. This error makes all future calculatioris of personal property tax revenue in this presentation INCORRECT if they use these;nurnbers, • Page 46 -, We find'that townhouses and apartments do NOT have -2.3 vehicles; average per household. Many are one or two individuals or small, children per dwelling and oftenonly, one`vehicle. An =estimate of 1.6 would be high. • Page -47 - This (Table 7) does show a better number for vehicles per unit but has a tax value calculated' earlier 'in the document using incorrect. 'information (see Page 45 above),. e Page 48 - Personal property FF &E as shown is much higher on offices, than we - experienced. Plus our value calculation /depreciation rate on FF &E;is 30% not 40 %. • Page 50 "Error ,in tax rate ,$0:58/$100 BPOL tax, ONLY applies. "to professional: classifications (doctors, . architects, lawyers, and .realtors) - our BPOL rate. on most. offices is $036%$100. 107 North Kent Street; Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Page.2. Mr. Thomas Moore Lawson RE: Heritage.Commons August 29 1',201'4 Additional Concerns: • Page 36 -'Under office space: They admit that medical office space is unlikely in their project. (Applies later to mycomments.orithe incorrect Business License figure.used for their commercial sites:) • 'Page 37 - 13% vacancy rate,admitted on existing offices -•(my comments -some stood empty for many 'months'in'the city,and at the airport). • Pa e.37' and elsewhere. ` g ( ) = wassumption is made that'the countyoffice building °will be on site and therefore employees and companies /businesses dealing with the,county will be interested,and available for rentals and for•employee purchases of lunches. etc. (undetermined). • Page 38 - Based on their household = income (disposable or pre tax?, ? ?) they have calculated a VERY high expenditure'rate on= -site (20% of the:15% convenience purchases) • Page 38 Their business discussions include the page 17 assumption of a county office building on site. • Page 39 - Assumption of,Wnches purchased at;site is very high. • Page 39 They admit'that the. projected 15 year build out is "speculative at best ". Yet they continue to use �specUlative'calculationsto make their case. • Page 43: Townhouse values`are probably ok if °quality is maintained as projected. Apartment vaIuesappear high. Page 44 7 Values on this page appear good on commercial but high on offices given our sales analysis in'thelcounty. • Page 49�- Table 9,:,Restaurant.sales is higher than,we experie,nce;on small: locations -'if' all are to be large�scale'full meal establishments or very popular:fast food chains..this' figure MAY be closer; • Page 50 Restaurantgross would only .average these numbers if high traffic=and high end establishments are located in -the complex. •. Page 53 - ;Recordation /ownership rollover °appears high: Page;3' N r: ThomasMoore Lawson REr Heritage Commons August.29,.20.14 Please,feel free to contact me with, questions regarding ttis•application. Sincer Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior "Planner Attachment CEP /pd bcc: John Riley Board of Supervisors Planning. Commissioners :Diane Walsh from: Diane` Walsh Senti! Friday, August 29,.;20144 3:36, PM To: Candice Perkins Cc Eric Lawrence. Subject: Market and Fiscal Impacts Analysis (MFIA) of the Heritage Commons Project Attachments: August 29; 20'14 Letter to Ty Lawson.pdf .Please find - attached the above- referenced letter regarding, the'ma"ketand fiscal impacts of the Heritage Commons Rezoning Project if you have any questions, please: do not hesitate-to contact-.Candice. Diane L. Walsh Frederick County Planning, Department 1.01 North,Kent Street, Suite.202 Winchester, VA 22601 50-.665- 5651 Fax: 540-665-6395 dwalshgfin/a.us E -mail was sent to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commissioners Also to Mr. ,R ley. 1 Diane Walsh From: Microsoft Outlook To; Eric Lawrence;_.Candice Perkins Sent: Friday, August,29; 2014 3:36'PM Subject: Delivered; Market and Fiscal Impacts Analysis (MFIA) of the Heritage Commons Project Your.message has.beendel vexed to the follow ng' recipients: Eric Lawrence (elawrenc6Ifcva.us) !Candice Perkins.(cperkins @ fcva.us) Subject: Market and Fiscal Impacts.Analysis (MFIA) of the Heritage Commons Project ,Diane Walsh From:, Mail Delivery Sy "stem [MAILER- DAEMON @AOL.com] 'To: oatesgr @aol:cocn Sent: Friday, August.19, •2014, 3:57 PM Subject: Relayed: Market and Fiscal Impacts ;Analysis (MF;IA) of the: Heritage Commons Project De.livery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification, was sent.by the destination server: Jafesgr @aolxom Subject: Market and Fiscal Impacts Analysis (MFIA) of the Heritage Commons Project Diane _Walsh From:` Microsoft Outlook To Chris Collins- John Riley Sent: Friday August 29,;,,2014 336.PM- Subject: Delivered: Market;and Fiscal Impacts Analysis (MFIA) of the Heritage Commons Project Your message has-been, delivered ,to the following 'recipients;: ichris,Collins (ccollins @fcva.us) L Riley jrileyCa�fcva.us) Subject: Market "and Fiscal Impacts- Analysis (MFIA) of the Heritage Commons Project . 1 s Diane Walsli From: MAI,LER'- DAEMON @admin.nni:corn To:; , cdehaven @crosslink.net Sent Friday, August.29', 2014 3:_51 PM Subject: Delivered: Market and Fiscal Impacts Analysis (MFIA) of the Heritage Commons Project Your message has been delivered to the following recipients p(!lehavenC&crosslink.net Subject: Market and Fiscal Impacts Analysis (MFIA) of the Heritage Commons Project 1 i Diane Walsh Frorb.- Mail Delivery System [M, 1,CEP,'DAEMON@co.frederick.Va.us] To: hpman,uei@comcast.nbt;lr6b6rtwell's946@cbrhcast.net, cmohn@b6wmantq.com; cdehaven(@cross - link.ne'f* gary@garylofth.o.rg; kbge.r.L.,-rKomas@u-�ace.'�irrhy.mil, June .wilrn I ot@Verizon.net; jrm marston@g mail. com,; kkenneybuildings@gmail.corn; lawbriog i@g mail. corn;;' rshickle@gmail-ppm; greglungeT@yahoo.com, g'fisher@yisuallink.com-, scrockettavit-or ;,ctriplet.,fr6doogovpc,@,iciciud.com; molden.f-redcogovpc@icloud.co-m- chuc ' k(a)cfdcoInsJultihgllc.cbm Sep-t-- rriday Aug'ust29,2014.3.5.1 PM -SU4iedt* Relayed, M-4rket and Fiscal, Impacts An,alysis .(MFIA) of the Heritag-e Commons Project .':Delivery to these recipients or groups is completq,but no delivery notification -Was sent by-the destination server: /hvmanuelLacomcast. net 1 \.,?obertwells946(&comost. net ,/tmohn@bowmancg.com Aehaven@cr(issrink.net /gft@ga ry I o�fton. o �r ,/Roger; L.Thomas((3) usace,.,a rMy-. m i I Ine,wilmot(&ve . rizon.ne •,,,/Lrmm6rston@gmail.com i-kenneybuildinq,s(a)qmail,.corh ,/Iawbroc0(g-bqmail.com r§hickle@gmailxom -JgLish�ervis�ualli�k�.cgm Ac rockett_(&Vii:ora triDlet.fredcoqovpcCai)icioud.com h-olden:fr6dcoqovpc(-gbiclbud-.com ,Idck(LIdaconsUlti'h4llc.com Subject:, Market and Fika-I Impacts Analysis (M.FIA) of the Heritage Commons Project a Can,dice,Perkins Fromr Eric Lawrenc,2, Sent: Monday; October 061, 2014.2:56 PM To: Candice Perkins Subject' FW: Heritage ;Commons - Amended VDOT "Comments to Revised Proffers Attachments: Ingram Itr 1.0:6.14.pdf From: Thomas Lawson [mailtoalawson @:lsplc.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 10:15 AM To: 'Ingram,, Lloyd (VDOT)' Cc: Eric Lawrence; Admin.; Admin. 1 Subject: RE: Heritage Commons --Amended VOOT Comments to Revised Proffers ;Please see the attached. Thank you. Ty Lawson i From: Funkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT) [mailio Rhonda. Funkhouser(&VDOT.Virginia.gov] On Behalf Of Ingram, Lloyd (VDOT) Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 8:50 AM To: tlawson °(!J)lsplc.com Cc:. John Bishop; Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT); Short, Terry (VDOT); Lineberry, Jeff, PE (VDOT) Subject: Heritage Commons - Amended VDOT Comments to .Revised 'Proffers Amendmen�hi hte1_iri ellow`) The documentation within the applieati'on, to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 522. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is NOT satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Frederick County Center, 'LLC Rezoning Application dated September 5, 20,13, revised ,September 18, 2014 address transportation concerns associated, with this request. The lack of deta'i'l in this, ;rezoning. request raises numerous questions that will need to be addressed prior to VDOT supportof this rezoning request: le The previous August; 2014, review comment #,1'has not been addressed'bythe revised_ proffers, There is :still no indication of the level of commercial / office development to be proposed on the property. Proffer 44 has been revised. to includejustification for notupdating the previous traffic study comp! eted_on the project, with the argument theft the current-proposed .uses will reduce the amount of traffic generated from;the site (compared to the iriftial'2005 Russell 150, LC'rezoning). The'updated proffer also states that VDOT has confirmed that the, proposed road network indentified. on the GOP is sufficient to address the traffic,gerierated by the Heritage Commons development and additional volume resulting from the Tevis Drive extension. ,However, the current proposed internal road network was developed utilizing the .prev iouslyknown development ntensity associated with the property. In order�to co.n'firm the adequacy of`the current road design, the proposed development intensity for the co.rrmmercial, component of the rezoning is, required: 2 Proffer #.4" has;been revised,:to includelanguage that he "Ap,plicantdoes agree to enter into an agreement, ` with Frederi`ck..Mii t to provide; for the:payment o.f Frederick County's portion: ofithe Revenue Sharing, Agreementuith VDOT' for`the road improvements associated with the property (including Warrior ) rive) However, it is unclear why the proffer sfill.indicates that the applicant will only,be' dedicating a. portion ofthe)Warrior Drive right -of=way W'e;reeornmend,that the proffer is updated;to include dedication an'd construction reimbursement of th'e en`tirelength of Warrior- Drive to the southern property line. 3. Proffer #,8; Phasing, has been up.dated.to`provide an initial construction phasing schedule for the multifamily residential and cominercia'l uses. We °recornmend.that thisproffer is updated to also incor- porate the timing of the transportation improvements related to devefopment construction. This wilFensure that the necessary roadwayinfrastructure is in place to accommodate the development- ph`a'sing. An updated Generalized Development Plan. addressing the previous August.2.014 review comment #3 was not included with.the revisionproffer'.subrnission. PI-easeprovide. 5. The:revised proffers and current Generalized Development Plan, do not . addtress ° the, previous .Septernber .20:13 VDOT review comments. Please update :the documents accordingly or provide comment responses: f , 6. Th:e rpzoningapplication proposesto rezone the 150.59 acre p.ropertyfrom $2 - Genera-1 Bus-i;ness District and RP - Residenti'al'.Performance District to R4 - Residential Planned Community District: The, 'proffers provide a cap on residential development at a maximum,, of LNG, units, of which 150 -184 will be Itownh'omes and', the remaining units'deyeloped as multifamily. However; 'hei proffers do not provide a cap for commercial / office, develo ;pme L ,Based ,on the Land Bay Breakdown table provided in the` ,proffers, the commercial / office componvent will consist of 53 "to 70 acresof the ;overall development. ,Taking into considetationthe F.A.R. modification tHatas being requested with fhe application to increase ;the permittedT.A R. to 2.0 (82 zoning permits a max F.A.R.-of-1.0), the,development could hypothetically permit up to 6,,million square; feet of,commerei'al / office use, In order to evaluate: the project's potential. i'm"pact o .thelocal and regional,road�hetwork, max�i'inum floor areas need to be provided for commercial / office use in each of the proposed,land bays, 7. The proffers do notp,rovide,a clear description .ofthepropertyowne_r's / developer's responsibilities in providing the necessary transportation improvements ass_o,ciated with the property. VDOT recommends add'i'tional proffers beadded -to the:app'l'icationthat describes the individual`transportation improvements (sim'ila'r °to the original 20.0,5 Russell 150; LC rezoning) and states that the owner,/ developer shall. constructrsa d irnprovements,prior'to, fhe issuance of'a building, (or occupancy). permit, for the proposed use's'.with,in`theproperty or determine a percentage of construction cost for 'each transportation improvement to be4esceowed by the; owner / develop.er:for tis`e, by the county in ,a revenue sharing, agreement prr'or to the approval of a site plan on the property.. 8. VD:OT re:cominends, that the Generalized Development Plan included in the rezoning application be revised asfollo;ws: -, Provide.the maxirnuin commercia'1' retail, and office floor area `and residential` unit types, in, each land bay. • Provide th'e ngh't =of _way'width. and typ'ical.cross- section for the proposed ,roadways; within the developmtent,in accord'ancoiwith the county Comprehensive Plan. Extend GVarnor`,D.ri-ve to the,"s:outh'ern property fine. 2 Update, alLAcc Oss,ar ow'labelsitoxead "Potent,"i*al.Access,Poi'ht"' 'The loCdtioftand -type of access to be perm-i-ttedwiflbe-4n accordance with VDOT's Aec`egs, Management Design Standards; and Will be reviewed Plan n submissi -on., AW ,SrIngIhe"it�e Indicate _i,ntersecjj-,'oq, im: - as required per _.-prwemerits�al'ong Ro.ate 522 the proposed trip generation of the development: The'requestfails to mention how the" proposed development trip genofdti ion compares to the previou's Russell 150 TIA 10. There, i's'not a cleaf detail f trip counts or approved site pfans, etc.) as to when road,- facilities are to be constructed.. '11.3h,&'proposed bridge over Interstate 81�;,$ignal's� as well as other on�site/,off , sit-e traffil.cfalcililties are not I . I clearly identified as being a re-s-pon's"ibilitybf the developer. 42'.,Are,theroadway typical cross-,secfi-qns right-Of7Way Widths to remain as deta'de in the original Russ-ell J50 MDP?, 3. Constructed Warrior- Drive needs to ho -,shown extended all the wayto the southern property line., iWarri , o r Drive is'A critical part dflthb Frederick. County Trarfsp-ortation 'Plan. The developer could build it !in phases, but its a requirement for the, streets to he eligible for acceptance into th;e,S.econdary System. 14. The lo-cation showritih Exhibit- "A" for W-ar ri'or Drive wotfl'd cause the'rhost damage, to the Buffalo Lick. Run, iwe,dan0s; when the• road is extended, as, if.irs,,shown crossing-the Wid-est s,e_ction, of the Wetlands. 15. Land Bay 7 The previous TIA addressed thirs ]and'bdyas being served by a constructed Warrior Drive in place and therefore the bulk ofland bay traffi,c'.wou'l"d. utilize. Warrior' Drive as? access to: destinations into the city of Wiach,,ester. With,mfta current T . IA the previous "distribution of traffic" )p-ercm'tagps are no longer valid, -And thus levels of service have not been. corrected. There was a . proposed entrance to -Route 522 (Which due: to new Access Management regulations may'-no Joilger'beviable) froffiland Bay 7 that,:even with only 2046 ADT Was a:'Iteadyat,a level service,. -T,4e, eastern inter' parcel ,access point between, ;Land Bay 7and 5 does °rfot appear to align With an 'I d&iitifibd -roadway system. are the thresholdstwh'ere add` .poinrtS' v if will be required? And Will the developer be resp d YS ible,f6rtons tr adhi 91 `theffi?' • e',W�'SAR!'S� ',Regulati on's, may apply to . this devotopmotit. 16. -Should, you, have any qu"es feel. free to contact m-"O. LIOydAJhgam,, Engineer V,7wP#a-_ Department. of Trayispqrta,,ti6n- 3 14031 Old VdlleyPike Edinburg; Virginia 22824 Phone #(540) 984- 5611 Ed: , #(540) 984 -5607 No.Vifus found in this message. Checked by AVG wAw.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Vitus Database: 4037/8315 - Release Dater f 0/02/14 4 • @3. IF,- I Ot T 6 2014 N1 LkWSON AND, 11 LE to ExETER'Dmv.E,_ SUITE 200, f OST qrncF B76v - 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE (540) 065-0050 FAc SIN - I C--E- : Q)'7Z_;-4Q11 'rIlONIAS'MOORFJAWSON rl,%WS(NnI.SitC.CO%I Octoher:6, 20.14 .Lloyd A. lfigTam, Trahsp'6ktati0rf.Direct_0r Vi'rgihia Depaftffient of Transportation Ed:inbutg,,Re§idehc'y' 14031 61d.Valleyj_ ike Edinburg, VA112,2924 . Commons Re'- ning Application Re 17 1 zo Our V*fe,No. L650.00,4' _ - U_ X ?T A V i,k A TV Ejedr, Lloyd: I am in receipt of y dur`c.omffiefi.ts, of October 1, 204 4 to the revised proffets,irclating to the above- referenced matter. With regard 'to' the 'first' ' fWq.,unnumbered paragraphs 'by way of a'sbriim ry, but to the extent A response is required, the ApplTe n t d esa gree that, t he H`&rI tagp: Ccfffiphs development 'will have. a s sitive,me surb-1 c im pact not .only' on the 'area' ,around Rte. 5212 but on. the'region as amhole., VIAOT's. guffirtiary' e6ts that it ! 1 - s� not satisfied vthat the traiisportation fs �ie and knowledge I 46h concerns p, V - W proff& essi ranspor a- to on,a, lack of re ofthe tot a lity of'theJtah5gqrtafibfi improvements whida, are being V 1 dod as a,restlt of revenue; sharing' f 6jits. betw&n:-,'Fq&qe�jck County., and VROTT _which, for two four-lane h g, i4g,�em. provide divided roads which' will - connect -to Rte -.522, come into. t he H eritage Co mon§ property' where the will be merged into a, dduble4ane traffic c'i -r(!e and,then connect via, a newly designed h ster?,s. Tevis ,Street: Those iffi 'is are :being -brjidgeacross3 14J. to the City of Wift.de Prolvemen _y �,g t' _11--Courityand VDOT. 6' directed y,,pKiva e.�,engin jrms wh a Frvderick hj6JI have' been �eh&ged.'K� as a result I t of traffic- Studies commissioned �y the, prior -pf Oper-iy 'S & - occurred- -- - - d h have determiaed that, the -road network is tiiof.e than hyl DOTAself'and whic owner, al�,o adequate t'o ;adcr'ess 1q.t -o traffik generated by '-the Heritage Commons 'si!6,but togibidl traffic ,in.Redefi&lEbun )0_ a . tfi6 City, of Winchester. ff 1�, therefore. submitted that, if VDOT: would,. herreview A`§,tecofds.,ad its..dimi-"i ' I o ns which' are par of thi's si9, nificant road pfojdc '(it4ill,be' -ablblto report to Frederick, County. that, there are_ no transportation impacts, that are not addressed respll`,Qfjhe proposed f&6hirfg-. 14 ivspqqse to your numbered comments I provide the f6llbWing. FRON T , R-OVALAM)RESS: P.O. BOX 602, FRONTIROVAIVlw�kA 22630,,TELEPHONE; (5 0)635-.9415-F,%CSINIILE:'(SiO)6j5- 2C.&WIC JS 5�4 , _I . J!,MQL:AWSONANDS1LEK.CONf Lloyd A. Ingrafn,Transportation Director October. 6, 2014 ',Page 2 L This 'comment is correct- in that it points out that there will be, a blend of commercial /office and residential with a. maximum placed on the 'residential. Of course the commercial density is li'mited'by ordinance: As stated above; after examination of VDOT and `Frederick County's studies,, as well.'as .prior traffic studies commissioned. for this property, it is submitted thai the proposed road network is more than adequate to address any impacts generated by this proposed rezoning.., 2. With regard to Warrior Drives the current revenue sharing projects (there are two) are for the ;road. networks :depicted on the GDP. There have been d„scussion`s about the possibility of a third revenue .Baring program that would provide for the design and construction of Warrior 'Drive to the southern, property ;line.- At this point in time, however, there is no revenue sharing agreement in place;. therefore; the Applicant has proffered to dedicate Warrior Drive in a location which is agreeabe .to ,not only the Applicant but also Frederick County and VDOT at,such time, as either the,remainder of property is developed or there is a connection to a. developed Warrior Drive on,the southern'boundary of the Heritage Commons property. 3. This .comment appears to address the timing of the road construction which is depicted on the GDP. As stated `above, the timing. of the road construction is depicted by revenue sharing agreements by arid' between Frederick` County and VDOT. The Applicant /Owner is not a'party to said agreements and, therefore,, does not control the timing of such. It is believed based `on representations made by Frederick County and VDOT that the road network is being desigried'and in' fact will be submitted for bid within the, next couple of months with a proposed deliver -y date of all'depicted road improvements, including the bridge over I -81, in the summer of 2016. That timetables is such that it is believed', that the development of the road and 'bridge network will occur before occupancy permits are, issued for any of the proposed development on the Heritage Commons site,. 4. The GDP that has becn,subrnitted is the one has been provided to the Applicant by the engineering firm working:.for Frederick County and VDOT. As the Applicant receives further, updates with -more specifics. it, will provide therm to Frederick, County and all review agencies,� . 5., With regard to comments generated by VDOT on September' 18; .2013; the Applicant submits that said comments' are included as updated comments' by VDOT and are, therefore responded to' with this correspondence. To the extent VDOT believes after review of this comment that further detailed responses are required then the undersigned requests thathe'be contacted immediately and a fo'l'low =up reply will be forthcoming. 6., The Applicant ;submits that the hypothetical calculations of commercial appear to be correct and-, that it has previously > responded to the potential impacts to the transportation network. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation: Director. October 6;2014 Page: 3 7. With regard to this comment, VDOT is recommending that proffers be added to describe individual' transportation improvements and that the Applicant. shall provide for the installation and delivery bf said :improvements by means other than the revenue sharing agreements. In point of fact, the'roa,d and bridge network is part of revenue sharing agreements by and between Frederick County and VDOT; is under the control of Frederick County and VDOT' and, is most" decidedly' not under the control of the Applicant. other. than the need at some point for the approval of the Applicant of a road network to be .installed on its property. The Applicant anticipates working with Frederick,, ounty and VDOT to facilitate. the. development of the transportation network provided the rezoning which is currently pending is approved. Said rezoning, if approved, will. allow for the necessary funding to allow the Applicant to pay for Frederick County's share' of the revenue sharing- agreements:, These projects are very clearly- ,intertwined, and connected.and for the Applicant to propose anything separate from that would be inconsistent and in conflict with: said agreements and would not :aid in; 'the, delivery of this .significant transportation network:- 8. Comments to the GDP: by VDDOT should be directed to ,Frederick 'County, its ,engineer and,, ironically, VDOT which is 'in control of all layout and - design aspects and indeed the construction' project as a whole for :the major transportation :network across the Heritage Commons .pro.perty and adjoining properties. To the extent VDOT believes that there needs to be additiohaL description and ,detail inserted into the GDP then. ,those, comments should be directed' to the 'parties who are designing and controlling the design _of said road and bridge network, namely Frederick County, its independent engineers and VDOT. 9. References to Warrior Drive have been previously addressed. To reiterate, the Applicant is proffering :to dedicate said road at such time as there; is a connection to Warrior Drive on the southern end of the property and development on 'the Heritage Commons site warrants the. installation of Warrior Drive Until such events occur, any build out of Warrior Drive is building a road to nowhere which,will not have or provide any- Aransportation benefit. 10. With regard to these �coffinent's; there is `intentionally no detail or references to approved site plans, because, they have not yet been: generated and to the extent any detailed' plans exist with, regard o- the: road: they ,are,,; as, referenced above, beiiag controlled_, designed 'and everituallywill, be' constructed by Frederick County and VDOT. 1' 1. With regard to, these comments, the revenue.sharing agreements clearly provide for the', road installation and the bridge. as well as related 'features to include traffic lights, etc: Those; are being,directed and controlled by Frederick County and VDOT. 12.. With xegard to these comments, the typical right -of- 'ways /,cross - sections; etc. are being drawivby Frederick County, and VDOT as part of the revenue sharing ag -reements. Iris is believed that,cross= sections exist as, of the writing of, this letter. If it - is helpful we would suggest -that across- section be included, in the proffer submission. 1'1 . Please see prior comments to reference's to Warrior Drive., y Lloyd k1 graa Tiar s:portati'on Director ' Octo'ber 6,'20'14 . Page 4, ,_ 1?4: The, corn nent4hade, iri tliis: paragraph, is °noted, and the Applicant is sure it will be taken into corisid'eration when Warrior D "rives is "f pally: designed:. -' 15. The Applicant cappreeiates:the c6imnierits �to any. potential future development in Laird Bay 7. .A's stated above there. are. .no site, plans available at 4he, ti -pie of the filing of this I_ zrezoning. Certainly all of`the comments .fl at are addressed will be'tl e subject of site plan and ' other development at "suchaime. as Land Bay Z is submitted "for speci`fc use[sj.. 16.. Finally; with',regard to this comment, the,Applicantsubmits that in addition to the traffic study, submitted. wrth the; rezoning approvea'in.2005, V D:OT' has conimrss or ed and has in hand seyeral. additional and updated' traffic, studies which. ,conf rrn the, adequacy of the transportation system. 'beilig °proposed by the "GDP.. To. the::extent' VDOT and %or Frederick. County, lids any questions 'or fcoricerns about said lraffic'.,studies they "should d'i on them to themselves as the parties' m:coritrol�of "the design; and construction.of the transportation network. Further still, the Applicant is� aware! hat at �least,portions of the. road ;and 'bridge layout depicted On the GDP are anti'cipatedto 'be submitted for bid,' for construction within the next few months. The Applicant subiriits -that rf h._fact;, VD..OT and /or Frederick :County truly believe, that another traffic study 'is necessary then; the ,Applicant does not, understand why final design has. been ow'' wed to occur and the road, section has been sub_ nutted for ,6d for construction. It would seem- hat `the time to redesign or come ,up with an alternative: would, be before one starts and cominences`to construct a road. Again, however, any questions or.concerns related to said'traffic studies ,should be directed ,to, the, parties 'in charge of and ;managing the road and bridge construction project, namely Frederick, County VDOT and their engineers. Thank you, for your continued assistance and cooperation." If after: you have reviewed this fetter you Have any other comments or,concerns, please do not hesitate: to contact me. Ver y yours, ,Lawson ` Herif' eCommons - Amended VDOT IGomrnents to Reed Proffers _a9. __..,. _ ,. . .. , _ hn Llpyd (VDOT) -<Lloyd`:Ingrami @VD6T virginia..gov> To: Clawson @Isp1c.com _ Cc.� Jp;hn. Bishop <jbisho,p;@fcva.us'; >., Sm;ith, Ma`tthe,w;, P::,E. (VDOT);. <M:atthe.w.S Shp,rt, Terry'( VDO T) <Terry.Sh'ort]R! @UDOT:Virgmfa ,gov >.;. Linebe',rry,,Jeff; (VDOT) - Jeff .Lineberry @UDOTrVirginia:gov, >+ Date Fr'da.y",, O'ctober-403,.2014 08;50 ahn Subject.: Herita;ge ,Commo`ns'•- Amended VDOT• comments to Re.v,ised P'roffers kttachmenfs: G � V 0 GT & 2014 (Amendment high'lighted inyellow).. The documentation within the aphcation to .rezone: this. property ;appears to have significant measurable- impact on Route 522, 'This route is the VDOT.roadway'which has heen considered as the access to 'the'. property refer °enced. UDOT is NOT sati fled °that, the - transportation proffers - offered `in the; Frederick - County Center, LLC Rezoning Application dated September 5,, 2;013, .revised September 18, 2014 address transportation concerns associated with this. ,roclaost:: `The lack of detail in this rezoning request raises numerous questions that will need to be 'add'resse'd prior to MOT ' support of'th'is rezoning request.. "' €, n i .. S E.: 1. The previo,u_s °A, ugust, 2;014 review'pQjnme.nt # >1 has not bneen addressed by the: `revised ptbffers.. T_ e -fs still no . indication of the level of commercial / office devel'opmenuto be proposed, on the; property-. Proffer #4;has been revised to include justificatib;n, for notupdati , th e pr traffic study completed an the project, with, the argurnentth,at the current; proiposed uses will reduce the amount of traffic generated from.the site (compared to the initial 2,00`5 Russell 1:50, LC rezo, -ing). The update °d profferalso,states'thatVD :OT 'has confir=med thattM pr:opo'sed road network indentified, on 'the GR -4s- sufficiont, to, address the traffic gener -ated by the Heritage Co.mm'orrs development 4nd;additiona':l volume resulting :from the Tevis Drive extensioin. Ho :wever;,the current proposed internal road networkmas developed utili'zing-the previously, known devel'6pment.ii tensity'associ'ated,with the,property. In. orde=r to confirm the adrequacy;of the current road 'desigp,,the, proposed development intensity for the commercial component of the,r,ezo- ping- is : require d . 1C Pro:ffe_r 44, hasl b`O'en revised fo 'includ'e language that the= "Applicant'.does agree to e,nter;nto an ag_reernent with Freder>ck'County to provide for�tthe payment of FrederickC'ounty "s p.orti - o,f h`e Revenue Sharing Agreement with• VDOT'' for the road improvements associated, with,`the'prp.j) ty (including Vllarrio_r DrIVe)`. However, it' is unclear, why the proffer still. indicates that the ;app'hcarit,will. only b °e dedicating;a.portion'of th&War,rio;r Drive r.igh;t- of'way. We recommend that the proffer is� update :d to include dedication and construction reimburse -me "nt of the'.entre length of Warrior Drive`to `the southern property lime. 3'. Proffer # 8;, Phasin laas been u dated g� 'm I? n ial and comme n, initial co.nstructi 'on;phasmg _.. y o rovide rcialuses We;recomrnend that; schedule for the,,rnulhfamil ,reside._ t, = this proffer is upd=ated to also incorporate the timing of'the transportatio:.n .. improvements related to development construction. Th> will:en`sure that the necessary roadway infrastructure'is in place to accommodate the development 11lft binMe`vrtiail,.e> did= 01285fdfk5ed3] cf6f5578cf3811fc34a6 &thread'id =H, 409851512634920 &sl = preview:. 1'/4' 10/3/2b14 Heritage Commons - Amended VDOT Comments to *e,,s4Pr6ff6rs phasing. 4. An updated Generalized Development Plan addressing the previous August 2014 review comment #3 was not included with the revision proffersubmission. Please provide. 5. The revised proffers -and current Generalized: Development Plan do not address the previous September 2'013 VDOT review comments. Please update the documents accordingly or provide comment responses. 6. The rezoning lication : ro uses to rezone the 15'0.59 `acre property from B2 = g ,pp p p General Business District and RP = Residential Per formance.bistrict to R4 Residential'Planr`ed Community District. The proffers provide ;a cap on residential development at a,, maxin um of ,1;200' units,, of which„ 150 -184 will be townhomes and the remaining unftsi developed as multifamily.. However, the proffers do not, provide a cap "for commercial,/ office ,development. Based ,on the Land Bay Breakdown table provided in the proffers,. the commercial. / office component will consist of 53 to 70 acres of the overall. development. 'Taking into consideration the F.A.R. modification that is' being requested with'the application to increase the permitted F.A.R.:fo ,2.0 (132 zoning permits a max'"F.A.R. of 1.0); the development could hypotheticallypermitup to 6 million, square feet of commercial / office use: 'In order" to evaluate the project's potential impact on the local and regional road network; maximum floor areas need to,-be provided for commercial / office use in, each of the proposed land bays. 7'. The proffers do not provide a clear description of the property owner',s / developer's responsibilities in providing-the necessary transportation improvements associated with the property. VOT.recommends additional'proffers be added to,the application that describes the individual transportation improverhents: (similar to, the original ,2005 Russell 15Q,`LC rezoning) and states that the' owner / developer shall construct said improvements prior to the, issuance of a - building (or occupancy) permit for the proposed uses within the property or determine ,a percentage of construction cost for each transportation improvement to be escrowed 'by the owner / developer for use by the county.in `a revenue "sharing agreement.prior to the approval of a site plan on the property. 8. VDOT recommends that the Generalized Development-Plan included' in, the rezoning application be revised as follows:1 • :Provide the,xrmaximum commercial retail and office floor area and-residential unit types in, each ;land bay. Provid:e,the rightgf -way width and typical cross- section °for the proposed roadways within the development'in; accordance with the .county Cbmprehensive Plan. ; • Extend War,-r,iot Drive to the southern propertyline. Update.all a;cces& arrow labels to read "Potential Access Point ". The location and type of access to be permitted will be in accordance with VDOT's Access `Manage ment'Design Standards and will be reviewed during the Site_ Plan https / A& ebrim6ii. ribtworlsolutionseniaii .conVedged6 Wcgi- bin /NAewn ail. e)�a? id= 01285fdf9c5ed3lcf6f5578cf3811fc34b6& threadid= H409851512634920 &)sl= Ore\'bw.... 2/4 10/3/2b14 Heritage Commons - Amended VDOT CommentsJo Rued Proffers• <submission. Indicate the necessary.fr.ontage and,entr:ance. intersection improvements along. Route 522 as. required. per the proposed trip gener`atio'n of the development 9. The request fails to mention how the proposed development, trip generation compares to the previous Russell 150 TIA. 10. There is 'not a clear detail (trip counts oar approved site, plans, etc.) as to when road facilities are to be constructed. 11. The proposed bridge over Interstate 81, signals, as well as other on site/off-site traffic facilitiesare not clearly identified as being a responsibility of the developer. :1.2. Are the roadway`typica °l cross- sections /right -of -way widths to remain as detailed in the original Russell 150 MD;P.? 13. Constructed Warrior Drive needs to be shown extended all- the way to the southern property line. Warrior Drive.. is a, critical part of'the Frederick'Co'.unty Transportation Plan. The developer could build:it in phases, but it is.a requirement for the streets to be eligible for' acceptance: into the'Secondary System. 14. The .location shown in Exhibit ''A" for Warrior Drive would cause, the most damage; to the Buffalo Lick Run wetlan'd's when the road is extended °as° it is shown crossing the Widest ,section of the wetlands. 15. Land Bay 7 • The previous TIA addressed this land bay as, being served, by a constructed Warrior Drive in place and therefore the bulk of land bay traffic would utilize Warrior prive 'as access to destinations into the city of Winchester. Without a current TIA the. previous "distribution of- traffic' percentages are no longer valid and thus 'levels of "service have not been corrected, • There was a proposed, entrance to ;Route 522 (which due to new Access Management regulations may no longer be viable) from `L:and Bay 7 that even with only 2046 A'DT Wasi already aVa level "C' service. • The eastern inter parcel access po'int.between Land Bay 7 and -5 does not appear -to align, with an `identified roadway system: What are the thresholds where additional access points will b`e required? And; will the developer be responsible for constructing them? • Ne . `W SARS Regulations may apply to this development: 16. 'Based on the above mentioned concerns, the dynamics of the. potential project traffic generation and .the age df the previous TIA, VDOTr concurs with, Frederick County Planning that "these, combined issues exceeds the threshold. requirements for a "527" traffic impact study. ;Should yda have any questions, feel free to contact me. https:/ Moebm- ail .networl6olutionsemail:com /edg edeswcg i- bin /yewmail.exe ?id= 01285fdf9c5ed31 cf6f5578cf381. 1fc34a6& ttireadid= H409851512634920 &�sl= pre%iew.... 3/4 1013/2014' Heritage Commons :,Amended VDOT Comments to A.Proff4s Lloyd A. Ingram, Trans;porta ion Engineer. Virginia Department of Transportgtion E'r'linbzirg Residency — Land Development 24031 Old Valley Pike - Edinburg, Virginia 22824. Phone #0540),984-5611 Fqx 4040) 984- 5607 https;// webmaiLnetJYwl6olutiohsemail :corrdedg edesWeg i -bi n%�iewrriail .ems ?id =01285fdf9c5ed31 cf6f55Z8cf3819 fc34a6 &threadid= H409851512634920 &)sl= preview.... 414 "Cand de. Perk ins From:. Eric, Lawrence Sent: Thursd ay, .October 02, 20148:2,,,4' : AM; To :" Candice Perkins; John Bishop Subject: Fwd: Heritage'Comrnons - UD,OT Comments to Revised Proffers Sent froir►: iPhone :Begin forwarded message:, Froin: Thomas Lawson <tlawson(alsplc,com> Date: October 1F, 2014 °at 5:3Q 41' PM EDT To:; Eric Lawrence <elawrenc@fcva u's> Ce: Admin. <adow(cr�lsplc,com >, `,'Adrnin, l;" <jkittlaus cr,lspl`c.com> S'ubjeet: FW: Heritage Commons - VDOT Comments to Revised Proffers Here is VDOT's comments l will se,nd:,reply,inthe. morning, Please.confirm°w;e are still scheduled for October :l5 _and if not cite the.ordinance that gives the authority todelay the hearing of. this application. Also-I believe we need to have a meeting with VDOTand the County about the transportation comments. Thankyou, Ty Lawson Frorn: Funkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT) [mailto: Rhonda. Funkhouser ( -@,y ,Virciihia:gov]'0n Behalf Of' Ingram,.Lloyd (VDOT) Sent: Wednesday; October 01, 2014-3.. -27 PM To: tlawson @Isplc.com Cc:.John Bishop; Smith; Matthew, P;E, (VDOT); Short; Terry,(VDOT); Lineberry•, Jeff; PE (VDOT) Subject:-Heritage-Commons -VDOT Comments to Revised Proffers The docu.me;ntati_on within the application to rezone this' property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 522: This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT" is NOT satisfied that 'the. transportation 'proffers offered in the Frederick County Center; LLC, Rezoning Application, dated September .5,- 2013, revised. September 18; 2014 address transportation concerns associated with this request. The lack of detail in this rezoning request, raises numerous•,questions that will need to be addressed prior to VDOT sup,port,of thi'srezoni'ng;request 1.. The °previous August, 2014 "review comment #:1 has not Veen addressed-by-the revised pr offers.'•There.is sfill no'indication,ofthe level ofcommercial / office developmeritto be proposed on the property. Proffer• #4 has beer, revised t6 include justification, for _not. updating. the previous traffic study completed on. thelproject-, with the argument thefuhe current proposed uses, reduce,the amount, of traffic generated'from the site (compared tothelinitial 2005'Russe11.15'O, LC rezoning): The updated,proffer also states that`VDOT`has confirmed thafthe proposed ro'a'd.'network indentified on`the GDP is sufficient to address °the traffi'cgenerated- by the Heritage Commons developmentarrd' additronatvolume restilting .,fr6m.the,T.eVis Drive extension. However, the.current;proposed internal road 1 1 y network -:was d'e-veloped utiliz�ri'g the previously known develop .ment;:intensty - associated. W, ith the property. I_n order to confirm fhe adegiaacyof'th`e current r..oad design; the, ro . osed devel`o meet intensit for t µ. p , . p p y: he commercial, component of�the :rezonmg'is required. Proffer #4 h'as�been revised "to m_clude l�angu:a'ge that the' "'Applicant.does agree taenter'into Lf ff E p' p .Y y, ao tion of tlie- Revenue Shar nC A n e ment width UDOT ;for the road'improuementst s g Y p • g ,g.. ;associated with "the property (in'cluding Warrior Drive)` However; it "is unclear why the prOffer'still indicates ' that )the'ap,pl�icant'will'onlyb.e d.edicatingaportion of'the Warrior Drive rigl t.of =way: We re'comrnend that th'e proffer °is updatedzto .inckfde,dedicationan °d, construction reiinburseinent, o` f. the.entire;len'gth.o'f`Warrio.r D,ri've to 'the. southernpioperty line:' . 3. Proffer ## +8P ps ' has been upd'a "ted to provide an; miti'a'1'constructi'on,p :hasing schedule for the multifamily resid.ent'al and commercial uses_ We recommend that this proffer is updated`to a iso;�incorporate,,the ti "ming of"the transportation'improvements related to development egnstructron, This °will:emsure thatth&necessa "fy ro'a'dway infrastructure is.in 1 place to accof modate the :d`evelQp,ment phasing. 4. An- updated Genera_'lized- Development Plan addressing theprevous'August 20`14 review ' comment #3` was not included `with the revision roffer submission. - Please S..Th'e`revised proffersoand current G'enerali�zed Development Plan do, not- address the t -r ; prevaous,Sep.tember'2;013,VD.OT °review comments. Please update th`e documents accordijigly, or °p- rovi'd'e comment,responses: 0,. The rezon= ingFappl�ication,proposes -to "rezone the 150.59 acre p,r„operty from :B2 - General Busin,esspistriet.and.RP - ResidentiA Performance Disfr ctto R4 Re- sidential Planned: Community District. 'The °.proffers�provi,'de�a capon, residential development at a maximum of 1 200 units; of w hic h _ 150:` -184 wit} b.e towrih'oines ;and the remammg.un is developed:as multifami'l'`, However.,, the;proffers do n'ot provide. a cap for "commerd al' %office ;development.. `Based:on the Lan`d`Bay Bereakdown tabj'e;provided �n,the.proffers; the commercial./ office:comp:onentwill consist of53,to -90 acres of`the overall development. ' ' ngreqetewithihe Takingirito considers ionthe FA R modtfication•that.is b'ei application:to increase th_e permitted F: °A R. to, 2':0 (02 zoning perrnits:a•ma-xF.A.R. of�1.0,),. the development coul:d'hypotheti"cally permitup to 6 mill`ion.square feet of commercial office use: -In order to•eval fate the proi'eat's' potential mp"act on the local, and regional road network;, maximum floor areas -need toabe,provided for commercial /`offi`ce use iri,each of 'th'e proposed land bays: The proffers do.,not:prouid`e a clear description ofthe property owners , developer-',s. r- espons bY�lities'm..providing:;the necessar,.y, transp.ortatron imDrovements,associatedwhh the,,property VDOT,recomme ids ,addit onal proffers,b,e added to the, application thaf: describes" the individual ,tr,.ansportationm,provements ( similar'to:the;ongina1,200'S.Ru sell 15';0; LC',rezoning) anal states that °the owner:/ developer shall. construct sad improvements - • pri "or to,tle �ssuanceofsa b`ulding`(or occupa_ncy)perrnit for <th'e;proposed'uses wifhm the property or determine a`percentage of `coristr,uction cost;for each trarispo_rtation, improverrient�to'be escrowed by -the owner. / developer for use.by the;;county in a revenue sha'nng'agreenien'V no "r to thel approval of a site ,plan on -the property: 8'. MOT recommends thatfhe Generalized Development Pl'an'in'cluded;in the'rezoni'ng application be revised as `fo'llows . each land b y.aximum commercial retail office floor ar-ea.and residential unittyp'es in • Provide'the- right -of =way, width and typical cross; se'ction,_for the proposed roadways within : the development in accordance .with the county Comprehensive Plan. Extend Warrior Drive to'the,southern property,li'ne; • . U :pdate all access arrow:labels td,read "- 'Potential - Access Point".-.. The, location and type of .,access to be permitted will be in accordance with VDQT's. Access Management Design Standard's and will be reviewed durin'gthe Site Plan submission: • -Indicate the necessary frontage and entrance intersection improvements along Route 52'2 as required perthe proposed trip generation of'th'e development. 9. The request fails to mention. how °the proposed..development trip generation compares to the previous Russell ,15.0 TIA. 10. There is'not a= clear detail (trip counts or approved site plain'etc.) as to when road facilities are to be constructed. ' 11... Th'e pro;posed''bridge over Interstate'81,-signal_s,_as wel] as other on =site /'off -site traffic facilities are not clearly=identified as being a responsibility of the developer. 12: Are3the roadway typical ', cross - sections/ right -of- way- widths'to remain as detailed, in the original:Russe11:15 1, MDPT - 13. Constructed Warrior Drive needs :to.,be shown extended:all the way.'.to the, southern pr,opertyl.ine: Warri,or:D:rive is axtitical part of-the Frederick County Transportation Plan. The'developer could build it,in phases; but it is a req "uirement for the'streets to be eligible 'for acceptance intathe Sec'on'dary,•- System. 14. T.,.he .location shown in, Exh'ib'it "A."-,for Warrior Drive would cause the: most. damage to the Buffalo Lick Run wetlands when the .bad is extended as it is shown crossing the widest section of the�wetlands: . 15. Land. Bay 7 • The, previ'ous-T.IA addressed; thi's,land hay ; s'be'ing•served Eby a;con tructed- Warrior Drive in place and therefore the bulk Of . land bay'-traffic would utilize Warrior Drive as access to destinations into the city of Wincheste'r. Without a •currerit TIA the previo.us''distribution of traffic`' percentages,are no longer valid -and thus, levels of service have norbeen corrected. There was a pxoposed.entrancetoRoute 522 (which due to new Access Management regulations inay ho longer-, he viable) .from Land Bay 7 that even with gnly 204.6.ADT was already 'a level ".0 service. The °eastern, inter parcel access point between Land Bay 7 and 5 does n'ot:appear °to align . with,- an`iden'tifi'ed.roa' wa,y'5ystem. ` at are`ahe.;thresholds= where additional access,points will b.e regbi'red? And will the developer be.resp,onsble' for constructing them? 3 •' New SARS Regulations =may apply to this development. `Should you have any questions,'feel free to contact me. Lloyd A. Ingram„ Transportation Tngineer Virginia Department °of Transportation Edh&urg:Residency — Ladd Development 1:4031 ld "Valley'Pike Edinburg,. Virginia 22824. Phone #(540).984 -5611 Fax 4(540) 984 =5607 No virus found in this message. . 'Checked by AVG ww.w.avg_com Version: 20f4.0.4165,/ Virus Database: 4025 /.8305 - Release Dater 1,0/01/14 LAWSON AND SILEK, P'.L.0 320;Ekb DRIVE, SUlre'2OO " -.POST OI?EICE 60X12740 ' WINCHESTER;,VA,22604 TEI:EPHONE-' (540) 665 -0050 . I ACSIMILE;;(540) 722 4051 , 7 IION1i1S.NIODRFI .;AWSON •,TiLAWSON a LSPLC.COM. October 6, 201.4 ;Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Director Virginia Department 6f Transportation' Edinburg Residency 1<4031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA, 22824: 'Re: Heritage Commons Rezoning Application Our'File No. 1050:00` VIA E -MAIL Dear Lloyd: I -arn in- receipt:of your,comments of'October,1,.2014 to'the revised proffers relating to the. above referenced matter: With regard to the. fi'rk two •unnumbered paragraphs by way, of a summary; but to the extent a responses is required, the; Applicant does agree that 'the'Heritage Commons development will have a significant posltive measurable in p aet not only'on, the area around Rte. 522 but on the region as 'a whole. VDOT's,summary comments t hat,it:is not satisfied that:the °transportation proffers address transportation. concerns appears to .be based.on a „lack of review and knowledge of�the totality of the transportation. improvements which' are being proided..as; a result 'of revenue y p - ane sharing agreements between 'Frederick Count and �VOOT- which.' "rovide for two four -1 divided roads which; will connect', to Rte, .522, come, into the Heritage Commons pr operty where they,,' will be merged .into - double =lane traffic .circle and then connect u a a newly designed bridge across I 841 to 'tlie City of Winchester's �Tevi's Street, Those• improvements are being directed by private engineering,,firmsz-w ich "have been engaged`by Frederick:Courity and VDOT. Said designs :have oceurred. as. a' result of traffc: studies commissioned by the: prior property owner and` also y VDOT ,itsel`f and: which: have determined, that the':road network is more than adequate to address ., not only.traffid;generated by ihe�Heritage C.otrimons site °but regioiial traffic- to Frederick County and the Gity of Winchester. It is; #herefore, suhiiitted that'if VDOT would, further review its :records..and'. its dlvislonsrwhich are,g —of tl i "s significant road "proi eetk it'will'be able to report to °Frederick County that there are no transportation, impacts that: are not.addressed P5, 4, result' of the. proposed rezoning.. jn,response to your.nurnbered comments'11 rovide the following: - __.. FRONT. ROYAL ADDRESS; P.O. BOX 604'FRONT, ROYA4 �VIRCINIA 22670;::TELEPHONE: (540)635 9415 •:FACSIMILE:(540I635.9i11;• E AfAIL: JSILEK(irt, LAwSONANDSILEK.COAI' I . This, comment is correct in °that it points out that there will be a blend, of commercial /office and r iden tial. vwith., a ,maximum placed ,on, the residential. Of course the commercial density i's4im ted, by ordinance. As stated above, after ;examination of VDOT and .Frederick Co.uiity's °studies,;:as °4well' as prior traffic studies commissioned -for this property, it is sulrritted that the pfoposed :road, network ;is more than adequate to :address any impacts, generated 'by this proposed <rezoring. 2 _%th,regar'd to Warrior Drive, the current; revenue sh °aring projects (there are two) are for :the, road networks depicted on the GDP. There; have 'been'. discussions about the possibility, of a=third revenue sharing, program, that would provide for the design and construction of Warrior Dr'iVe7 to the southern, property fine. At this ;point in, time, however, there is no revenue sharing, agreement'ifi place; therefore the Applicant`has=proffered to dedicate Warrior. VDDOT at suocii time as her the remain der of property , spdeve`loped orlther its a co meet on `to a developed VJ,arri'or Drive on " "the.southern.boundary Of the Heritage Common's property. 3 This comment appears to address the t,rnulg',o "f the; road construction whiel is depicted on the° GDP`. As ,stated' , above, the :timing of the road. construction is depicted by revenue sharing �agreerrrerits by and 'between Frederick County and VD-OT., The Applicant /Owner is not a party to said, agreements and, the "refore; ,does not control °the timing of such, It pis believed based on representations made by Frederick Courity and; VDOT hat; the road network is biro : de'si` ned and. o fact will be , submitted for bid .within the next couple- of months. ` g g with ,a proposed, delivery date of all depicted °road. improvements, includi'ng'the. bridge over in the summer.of 201.6. That timetable is such that rt.is believed'that the d'eveloprnent of the road and' bridge network, will occur, before= occupancy pei•inits are issued for any of the proposed development on the Heritage +,Commons site. 4. The GDP that has been 'submitted is the; one;has been provided to `the Applicant by the engineering firm working ,for Frederick County'and. V' ,,DOT:: As the Applicant receives further updates with more specifics, it, will provide them to Frederick County and all review agencie§ 5: With °regard to comrents: generated by VDOT ori! 'Septem`ber- '18, ,'2 I. the Applicant' sub rri is hat said: corrrmenfs are included as updated comments by VDOT ,,and +are, thereforerespon'ded. to. with this correspondence. To the extent VDOT believes after review of this :com,mentjhat further, detailed responses are:required then the undersignedl requests "that°he.be, contac dir #gdWe_l yand a.follow -up reply will be forthcoming. 6' The Applicant submts'that the hypothetical calculations of commercial appear to be, correct and that it has previously responded to the potential impacts to the; transportation. network., . . tioydA. ,Ingram, Transportation' Director October 6, 20,14 Page 3" 7. With regard to this comment,'VDOT is recommending that proffers be added "to -describe individual transportation improvements and that the Applicant shall provide for the installation and delivery of said improvements by means other than, the revenue sharing agreements. In point of fact; the road and bridge network is part. of revenue sharing agreements by and 'between Frederick County, and VDOT, is under the control of Frederick 'County and VDOT and is most decidedly not �under'the control of the,Applicant other than the need at some point for the approval of the Applicant of a road network to be- installed on `its property. The Applicant anticipates working with Frederick County and VDOT to facilitate the development of the transportation network Provided' The rezoning which is currently pending is approved. Said. rezoning, if approved, will allow for the necessary funding to -allow the Applicant to pay for Frederick County's share, of the revenue sharing agreements. These projects are very clearly intertwined and connected and for the Applicant to propose anything'separate from that would be inconsistent and in� °conflict with said .agreements and` would not aid in the delivery of this 'significant transportation network., 8. Comments 'to. the GDP by VDOT should be directed "to" Frederick County, its engineer and, ironically:, VDOT which is in control of.all.layout,and design aspects acid indeed the construction project as a. whole for the major transportation network across the Heritage Commons property and adjoining properties. To the extent VDOT believes that there .needs to be "additional description and detail inserted into the 'GDP then those comments should be directed to the parties who" are designing and controlling the. design of-said road and bridge network,, namely Frederick County,, its independent engineers and VIOT.. 9. References to Warrior Drive have 'been previously addressed. To reiterate, the Applicant is proffering -to dedicate said road at, such time as them is a connection to Warrior Drive on the southern end of the ;property and, development on, the Heritage Commons site warrants; the install'ation',of Warrior Drive. Until such events occur, any' :build out of Warrior Drive is buildinga,road to nowhere which -will not have or provide any transportation benefit. 10. With regard to these comments, there is intentionally 'no detail or references to approved site plans because they "have not yet been generated and to the extent any detailed plans- exist with regard to the road they, are,, as referenced above; being controlled, designed and eventually will. be, constructed by Frederick. County and VOOT. 11.. 'With "regard to these comments, the revenue sharing agreements .clearly provide for the road 'installation and the. bridge as well as related features to include traffic' lights, etc. Those are:being.directed and controlled'by.Frederick County and VDOT t2,. With regard to these comments, the typical right -of -ways /cross- sections, etc. are being drawn by FredericktCounty, and VDOT as part of the revenue. sharing agreements:, It. is believed that.cf6ss- 'sections exist" as.of the writing of this letter: If it °is helpful wewoul'd suggest that a cross- section' be included in the proffer submission. 13. Please see prior comments to references to Warrior Drive. Lloyd,A, Ingram, Transportation,Oirectgr October 6, 26414 Page 4 14. The comment made in this paragraph, is noted,, and the' Applicant is sure it will be taken into consideration when Warrior`Drive is finally designed. 15. 'The Applicant appreciates the comments to any ,potential future development in Land Bay 7. As stated above there are, no site plans available at the time of the filing of this rezoning. Certainly all of the comments that are,addressed will be the subject of'site plan and other development at „such time as. Land Bay 7 is subi-nitted for specific use[s]. 16. Finally, with regard to this comment,: the Applicant submits that in addition to the traffic study submitted with the rezoning approved 'in 2005, VDOT 'has commissioned and.has .in hAnd several additional acid updated traffic studies which confirm the adequacy of the transportation system .being `proposed 'by the GDP. To the extent ,VDOT and/or Frederick County has any questions or concerns :about said traffic studies they should. direct them to themselves as the parties in control of the design and construction of the .transportation network. Further still, the Applicant is "aware that.at least portions of the road and bridge layout depicted on the GDP are anticipated to be submitted for b;id for construction within the next few months. The Applicant submits that if, in_fact, VDOT and /or Frederick County truly believe that another traffic study is necessary then the Applicant does not understand why final design has been allowed to occur and the road section has been submitted for bid for construction. It would seem -that the time- to redesign or come *'up with an alternative would be before one starts and commences to construct a road. Again; however, any -questions or concerns related to said traffic studies should be directed, to the parties in charge of and managing. 'the road and bridge construction project, namely Frederick County, VDOT and their engineers.. Thank you'fot your continued: assistance_ and cooperation. If, after you have reviewed u this letter you have any other comments or concerns,, please do not. hesilateto. contact me. TML; jk cc R 1.50: SP.E; LLC Heritage Commons, LLC urs, r Lawson Ell LAWSON AND SILEK P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVF, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE -`BOX 3740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540)665 -0050 FACSIMILE:(540)722 -4051 Roderick B. Williams, Esquire° County Attorney .107 "North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 O.CT - '1 2014 THOMAS MOORE LAWSON ',TLAWSONna LSPLC.COM October 1 2014 Re:. VIA &MAI-L AND HAND-DELIVERY Dear Rod: Heritage Commons Rezoning Application Our File No. 105`0:.001' Thank you for your letters of September 20, .2013 and Septembef30`, 2014, commenting to: the proffers. As a follow -up to your 201:3 comments, this is to confirm that in the interim you have received revised proffers and Generalized Development. Plan ( "GDP"). As I understand your correspondence of September 30,., :201.4, it is the response' to, the most recent proffer amendment and also takes into the account the revisions that were -made by the Owner and Applicant ('hereinafter collectively referred to as the ".Applicant ") as part.,of its revised proffers dated September 18, 2014. , To your specific numbered paragraph comments, I provide the following. L. We understand that - Frederick County does sometimes .request that a Power of Attorney .be, °subrn�itte& w, .hen an owner /applicant has failed 'to .execute any submittals. You will note that the proffers have- been executed by both the property owner, R 150 SPE, LLC, as well asthe'developer,,Who is the confraa purchaser of the property, Heritage Commons, LLC, and so, ,that,.Frederi.ck County is assured that any obligations that run with the land shall be properly binding upon the property owner. 2. In response: to your comment, we will make sure that both rezoriings are referenced in;the. proffer:sfatement so:1it is clear that the current rezoning RZ #02 -14 is modifying RZ #01 -05. 3. In response to your comment, we believe, 'if is important that the reader of the new proffer- statement RZ 402 -14 has a clean understanding- of the history of the zoning of this FRONT: ROYALADDREWTOSTOFFICE BOX 602, FRONT IOYAL, VIRGINIA 22610, TELEPHONE: (540) 635- 9415'!- FACSIMILE:J( 40635 -9421 :!E -. MAIL: JSILFK(a11.AWSONANDSILEK.COM i Roderick B. Williams, Esquire Octobef:4 „2014 Page ;2 property and the effect` of the approval of the .201.4 rezoning which. will replace the 2005 rezoning in its, entirety. 4. In response to your comment, to the extent:required the; Applicant will meet with' Planning Staff to come up with such language as may be more appropriate to effect the clear inient,of this paragraph. 5. Likewise, in response to your comment, to the extent. required the Applicant will meet with Planning Staff"to confirm the language in the proffer is to their satisfaction as it relates to and confirms , design modifications forthe property. In response to Paragraph #5's bullet - point comments, we provide the following: * With regard to the comment, to Modification . #l, the Applicant would submit that the GDP is of sufficient specificity to allo-w'for development to proceed directly, to site plan and' not require a master- plan. The Applicant is aware that Frederick County has recently modified its Master Development. Plan ordinance to allow for a true administrative ;review of an applicant,'.s .submission. In this case the ,Applicant would expect that after rezoning the next administrative step would be for the; submittal of a, site plan. * With regard to the, comment to Modification #2, we will revise the documents to confirmthat MI uses can be permitted as is consistent-with the Zoning Ordinance. * With, regard °to the comment to Modification #5, again, we will make revisions to the texVto allow for industrial, * With regard to the comment to Mbdif cation #9; as' stated in response to comments to other agencies, it is clear that the Appticant',s °intent is to confirm that it shall- deIi`ver a minimum of 50,000 square 'feet of commercial space with the delivery of `the 300"' multi- family residential unit . and a minimum total .of 100,000 square feet of commercial with the delivery of the 600t' multi- family residential unit. If an adjustment to the wording is required to confirm same then the Applicant" has no objection to said alternative wording. The Applicant ` would agree the `Frederick County Code. `requires that a reasonable balance ,shall be maintained between residential And non - residential units, and this reasonable balance. is exactly what, is being proposed in this rezoning, * With regard. to, the comment to Modification #10, we believe the comment is a. correct interpretation of the language stated in said Modification.. With. regard to architectural screening•features there should riot be an objection to allowing those to be'installed without limitation because they are., after all, d'es'igned to screen and, therefore, protect- the viewshed. Antenna structures, and in particular cell towers, are governed by other ordinances, and we would expect that 'if such an antenna were proposed then said ordinances would be applied. Roderick B. Williams,EEsquire. October :1;, 2014 ;Page•. 3f _ _ * With regard to the comment to -Modif cation : #`t 1, .the design of a mixed- - used building will be subject to the' design standards -for the entire Heritage Commons ? community. `It is correct that said design standards have`yet to be implemented` but, again, as re.quired.by the proffer, they will be implemented for the entire Heritage Commons property prior to commencement of "development. 6. In response. to your comment, the language that, is 'used to describe the different unit types is language that is typically used in the development community, "to describe specific types of properties. The -Applicant will be pleased to work with Frederick County Planning Staff 'to arrive_at other language if it, is•preferred and which serves the same purpose to describe :said units. Further, the County Attorney is correct that there is not an intent in this proffer to restrict other units that may .exist now or which .,maybe developed or created in the future. The -purpose of this proffer is to build flexibility into-the design and not to -unnecessarily, restrict the same. 7. The purpose of proffer 2(C) is to confirm a residential unit cap tandulso to restrict the location of townhouses, if any The Applicant submits that the `remainder. of said paragraph is :self, - explanatory and appropriate. 8. Thi paragraph appears ' to raise questions . about capital facility impacts and' also the fact that the County .has received, but apparently not yet reviewed, the most recent impact analysis statement. Both. the impact analysis stateinent(s) submitted by -the Applicant confirm there is" no net negative fiscal. impact that is created as a result of the development of the Heritage Commons community as proffered. As a result, the clear and only interpretation of said analysis is that there is no negative, capital, .facility impact and, therefore, there 'is no need and /or requirement.for the Applicant to make, a payment toward capital facility impacts. 9. Paragraph 99 requests that the "Owner agrees to participate in. one or more VDOT 'revenue sharing agreements for the funding of the design, and the funding of the installation of the.road network, which shall berm substantial conformance with the designs set forth in Exhibit A "' The Applicant understands that the VDOT revenue sharing agreements can only be entered into by and. between VDOT and a municipality (Frederick County). W, .hat.is being proffered in this rezoning application is that the. Applicant shall enter into a separate_ agreement with Frederick County;to 'pay :Frederick County's share of the VDOT revenue sharing agreement The Applicant understands. that 'it cannot be made a party of the VDOT agreement; therefore, there; should not bean attempt to, direct, same. lO;an41 L- In response to your comments, Warrior Drive has! not' "yet been defined and; therefore, it. cannot be dedicated. Accordingly, the .Applicant has proffered to dedicate the Warrior "Drive right of= °way,at such time as its location has been tied down to some degree of certainty.. Frederick County Deputy= Director of Transportation has suggested, ,there may be a future VDJOT revenue sharing agreement that relates to the construction of Warrior Drive and it will perhaps be, at that point :in time and; at the direction of Frederick County and its engineer that the Warrior Drive location will be defined to a certain location and, at that point, it can be dedicated. Roderick B'.,Will`iarns; Esquire October 1, 2014 Page 4 12. The comment to Para rah # 12 does not g p appear to have an obj`ecti`on to what is b6ing,p16posed by way- oftrail systems. The Applicant believes' it'is�important,that the reference to the xecreational amenities be, included so Frederick County fully understands and appreciates what is being proposed by °way of recreational amenities as part of the proposed rezoning. 13. Paragraph. #13 appears to have a question about ;trails and whether or not they are defined to a sufficient specificity. If is very difficult, if not impossible, for the Applicant to confirm the locations of trails, that are believed to be apart of the .road and bridge system. being designed under the VDOT revenue sharing agreement. The Applicant would incorporate its replies to comments of a similar nature received from other -Frederick County agencies and submit that once Frederick County -and its engineer have fully. designed the, transportation network that it will be clear at that point. in time the -exact locations of trails, sidewalks, multi - modal- systems, 'etc. 14. In responsel to, your comment, the Applicant will be pleased to work with Frederick County Planning StafUin -the event. that it believes the phrasing; of a particular,proffer is unclear. We would note, however, that given the most recent revision of the ,proffers that perhaps proffer 8(A) ought to be reviewed and possibly be considered as unnecessary given. the fact there is a current proffer io ;provide for installation- of 50,000 square: feet of commercial. for every 300 multi - family residential- units. It would .seem that limitation of construction of residential would, therefore, :not be, especially desirable because itwould `unnecessarily restrict development of commercial. 15. As stated.above, in response to the comment to Modification #9, the commitment 'to deliver,a minimum of 50,000 square feet of commercial development for every 300- multi- family residential units is clear. If-there is ,a desire tore- phrase this language #o Frederick County Planning Staff's and the Applicant.'s ;satisfaction, the Applicant is pleased to work with Frederick County Planning Staff to develop said ;language. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. .If after you have reviewed this letter -you have any other comments or concerns, please do not lesitate to contact me. Ver truly. yours, Thomas Moore Lawson TMLjk, cc:; R 150 SPE, LLC Heritage "Commons, LLC LAWSON AND SILEKI P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITF 200 POST OFFICE rBo 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540),665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 722 -4051 Roderick B. Williams, Esquire County,Attomey 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 TllOMASMOORF'LANSON •'TLn%VS0Nn.LS11LC.00n1 October 1, 2014 Re: VIA E -MAIL AND HAND - DELIVERY Dear Rod: Heritage Commons Rezoriirig Application Our File No. 1050.0,01 Thank you for your letters of September 20, 2013 and September. 3.0, 2014, commenting to the proffers. As a follow, =.up to..your 2013 comments, this is to confirm that in the interim you have received revised proffers, and, Generalized Development °Plan ('`GDP''). As I understand your correspondence of September 30; 2014, it is the response to the most recent proffer amendment and also: takes into the account the revisions that were made by the Owner and Applicant (hereinafter collectively 'referred to as the "Applicant ") as .part of its revised proffers dated September 18, 2014. To your specific numbered paragraph comments, I provide the following. 1. We understand that Frederick. County does sometimes; request that a Power of Attorney be; submitted when an owner /applicant has failed to execute any submittals: You `will note that the proffers have been executed by both the property, owner, R:150 SPE, LLC, as well as the' developer; who is the contract purchases• of the property, Heritage. Commons, LLC, and ,so than Frederick County is assured that, any obligations that run with the land shall be :properly binding upon the property owner. ' 2. In responses to your comment, we will make sure that both rezonings are referenced in the proffer statement so_ it is clear that the current°rezoning RZ #02 -14 is modifying RZ #01 -05. 3. In response to your comment, we believe. it Js important that the reader -of ;the new proffer statement RZ #02 -14 has a clear understanding, of the history of the zoning of this F'Iton'n RO1„v:Annfusti Pos6,OrrfCE BOS 602, FROST RoYnI,VfBCLNfn 22630, Th11.FY110SF;: (546)67$- 9415•.FACSI \711.e: ( 540) 6; 5- 9421 oE- Pfau: rfsu .r:Ar!IAeSUSnsnsfi.t:K.Cf1mf Roderick B, Williams;. Esquire October 1., 2014 Page 2 property and the' effect of the approval .of. the 2014 rezoning, which will: replace the 2005 rezoning in its entirety. 4. lnresponse to your comment,, to the extent required the Applicant will meet with Planning Staff to come up with such .language as may be more appropriate to effect the clear intent of-this paragraph,. 5. Likewise, in response to,your comment, to the extent required the Applicant will meet. with Planning Staff to confirmthe language in.the proffer is to their satisfaction as it relates to and confirms design modifications for• the property. In response. to Paragraph #5's bullet -point cornments;.we provide the following;_ * With_ regard to the comment: to Modification #1„ the Applicant would submit that `the GDP is of :sufficient' specif city to allow. for development' to proceed dir=ectly to site, plan and not require a .master plan. The Applicant is aware that Frederick County has recently modified 'its Master Development Plan ordinance to allow for a true administrative review of an-applicant's submission. In.thi -s case the ,Appficant, would . expect that after rezoning the, next admiristrative'step would be for the submittal of a site plan. With ,regar"d to the comment to Modification #2, we will revise the .documents to confinn'that M1 u"ses can be pehnitted as is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.. With regard to the connnent. to Modification #5; again, we will make revisions to the text to allow'£or industrial. * With regard to: the comment to Modification #9, as stated in response to comments to other agencies, it is clear, that the Applicant`s intent Is to confirm that it shall deliver a minimum of 150,000 square feet of commercial space with the delivery of the 300`x' multi - family residential unit, and a. minimum total of '100,00.0 square Teet of commercial with the delivery of the 600`x' multi - family residential unit. If an adjustment to the wording 'is required to confirm same then the Applicant:-has no objection to said alternative wording., The Applicant would agree the Frederick County Code. requires that a reasonable balance shall be maintained between residential .and:non- residential units, and this reasonable balance, is exactly what is being proposed in this rezoning, * With regard. to the comment to Modification #.10, we believe the comment is a correct -interpretation of the language 'stated in said 'iVlodi'ficafon. With _regard ° to. architectural screening features there should not be, an objection to allowing those to b.e'installed without `limitation because 'they .are, after all, designed to screen " and, therefore, protect the viewshed. Antenna structures, and 'in particular cell' "towers, are.,governed by� other. ordinances, and we would expect "that if such an antenna, were proposed then said, ordinances would be applied -: Roderick B. Williams, Esquire October 1, 2014 Page 3 * With regard to the comment to Modification #;11; the design of a mixed - used. building will be subject to the design standards for the entire Heritage Commons community. It is correct that said design standards have, yet to be ;implemented but, again, as required by the proffer, they will be 'implemented for the entire Heritage Commons property prior to coinmencementof,development. 0. In response to your continent, the language that is used to describe the different unit types is language that is typically used in the development community to describe specific types of properties.. The Applicant,will be:pleased to work`with Frederick. County Planning Staff to arrive at. other language ,if t is preferred and. which serves the same purpose to describe said units. Further, the County Attorney is Correct that there is .not an intent .in this proffer to restrict other units that may exist now or which,may be developed or created in the future. The purpose of this proffer is to build .flexibility into the) design and not to unnecessarily restrictthe same. y 7. The purpose of-proffer 2(C) is to confirm a residential. unit cap and also to restrict the location of townhouses, if any. The Applicant submits that the remainder of said paragraph M self- explanatory and appropriate. 8. This paragraph appears to raise questions about capital facility :impacts and also the fact that the County has received, but .apparently not yet; reviewed, the most recent impact analysis statement. Both the impact analysis statement(s) submitted by the Applicant confine there is no net negative 'fiscal .impact .that is created as a result of the: development of the Heritage: Commons community as proffered.. As a result,, the clear and only interpretation of said: analysis is that there is no negative capital facility impact and, therefore, there is no need and /or requirement for the Applicant to make a payment toward capital, facility. impacts. 9. Paragraph #9 requests that the "Owner agrees to participate in one. or more VDOT revenue sharing agreements for the funding, of the design and the funding of`the installation of the road network, which-shall be ,in substantial conformance with the designs set forth in Exhibit A" The Applicant understands that the VDOT revenue,sharing'agreements can only be entered into by .and between VDOT 'and a municipality (Frederick County). What is being proffered in this rezoning application as that thet Applicant shall .enter into a separate agreement with Frederick County- to pay Frederick County's share of the VDOT' revenue sharing agreement. The- .Applicant understands that it cannot be made a party of the VDOT agreement; therefore, there should not be an attempt to direct same. 1.0 and 11. In response to your. comments, Warrior Drive has not yet been. defined and therefore, it cannot be dedicated. Accordingly, the Applicant has proffered to dedicate the Warrior Drive right.. -of -way at such time as its location has been tied. down to some degree of certainty. 'Frederick County-Deputy-Director of Transportation has suggested there may be a future VDOT' revenue sharing agreement that .relates to the construction of Warrior, Drive and it will perhaps be at that point in time. and at the direction of Frederick. County and -its engineer that the Warrior Drive `location will, be defined to a certain location and, at that point, it can be dedicated.. Roderick. B;.. Williams, Esquire October 1,2G] 4 Page 4 12. The comment to Paragraph #`12 does not appear to have an objection to what is being proposed.by way of trail systems. The Applicant'believes it is important.thatthe reference to the recreational amenities be included so Frederick. County fully understands and appreciates what is,being proposed by way of recreational amenities as part of the proposed rezoning. 13. Paragraph # -13 appears to have a question about trails and. whether or not they are defined to a sufficient specificity.. It is `very difficult, if not impossible, for the Applicant to confirm the locations of trails that are believed to be a part -of the road and bridge system'.being designed under the VDOT revenue sharing agreement. The Applicant would incorporate its replies to comments of a similar nature received from other Frederick County agencies and submit that once. Frederick County and its engineer have fully designed the transportation network that it will be clear,-' at that .point in time the exact locations of trails, sidewalks, multi - modal systems, etc. 14. In response to your continent, the Applicant will be pleased to work with Frederick Co_.unty Planning Staff 'in the event that it believes the phrasing of _a particular proffer is unclear. We' would note,, however, -that given the most recent revision of the proffers that perhaps proffer 8(A) ought to be reviewed and' possibly be considered as unnecessary given the fact. there is a current proffer to provide for installation -.of 50,000 square feet of commercial for every 300 multi - family residential units. 'It would seem that, limitation of construction of residential would, therefore not lie: especially desirable, because it would unnecessarily restrict development of commercial. 15. As stated'above, in response to the comment to Modification #9, the commitment to deliver a minimum of 50,000 square feet of commercial development for every 300 multi- family -residential units is clear. If there is .a desire to re- phrase thi& language to Frederick County Planning Staffs and the. Applicant's satisfaction, the Applicant is pleased to work with Frederick County Planning Staff to develop said language. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. If, after you have reviewed this letter you have any other comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Ve truly ours, Thomas Moore Lawson TML: jk cc: R 150 SPE, LLC Heritage Commons, LLC LAWsON ANDSILEX, P.L.C. 120'ExETER,DjuviE, suiTE,200 POST- bmu Box 2740 WIN'CHESTER,'VA-2,2604 TEIf6HO,Nk-. @4Q)ffi5-8050 7 - FAdiMILI&: (540) 7224051 0 THOMAS MOORE LAwsoN a TLAWSONAMPLCCOM September 29, 2014 . Harvey E. Strawsny4er, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Work's Frederick County,Department,of Public Works 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Heritage Commons Rezoning Application Our File No. 1050.001 VIA E-MAIL AND HAND- DELIVERY Dear Ed: Thank you for your updated comments to the revised proffers for Heritage Commons. I din, -responding to your. y -comments 'b number as they appear in, your letters of September 20; � 2013 and, September 26,2014 . . September 20, 20113'comments: A!& comment app_ eamto refer to the road- network which will be installed on the 'Hentage Commons' site and as depicted on the Generalized Development Plan. As'lhe Frederick County'D dpartnient:of Public Works well knows, the road network is being desi'gned, by Pennoni Associates, Which. was engaged'.to do the work that is the subject of'ia cost sharing agreement between Frederick County and Virguna 'Department: of Transportation --rtati- (,TDbT") �for not only the road network which, runs .ranspo oil across Heritage Commons, but also connects to the City's ' Tevis,- Street . by bridge over 1-81 and also crosses property,dwhed by the neighbor, (Glaize) to conriddlo Rt. 522 at a traffic lighted intersection. The Applicant, does understand there will be multi-modal (pedestrian/bike) hmes,incorporded into this system; but the exact details are not yet known because the final design has, not yet been approved by Frederick County and VDOT. The Applicant and owner are not able to commit to, the ,exact details of said transportation system until such time as that design has been approved by Frederick County and VDOT. FX0FrrItCrYALA=R=: P.O. Baas 6MRWTRDYAI.VMMMAI*XTRLZPHONI9:(56D)6W94IS-FACMD&II z:(SO)LM-9421-9-MAH.JMAKSUW"NANDSpMLOOM Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. :September'29, 2014 Page ,2 2. This .comment raises a question about phasing. We believe that the • revised proffers do address 'in greater detail phasing and, 'in, particular, .a commitment to the delivery of 50,000 square feet.of commercial for every 300 multi- family residential units. The Applicant' further points out that according to the economic analysis Performed by S. Patz and Associates, Inc., the multi = family component as it�is proffered'as a market rate project will, ;in fact, have a net positive fiscal impact on Frederick County and, as such, phasing of same is not warranted. 3. With regard 'to the impact analysis for water,.. sewer; ° solid waste and transportation, the: application has received a positive comment on the availability of water and sewer services from the Frederick County Sanitation .Authority. With regard to solid waste, the Applicant has proffered to install dumpsters• as part of its development; which will through ;private service arrangements, dispose of any and all solid waste generated by the development on the °property. With, regard to transportation impacts,, it `is understood that a traffic study had been performed for'the .rezoning dated 2005 and provided that under the current zoning, the impacts of the proposed transportation system are more than sufficiently, addressed by the proposed Toad' improvements. The current rezoning'that= provides for a ;mix of uses and allows for an internal capture of trips is by definition a lesser impact to the transportation system than what had _previously been proposed. Further still, the Applicant is aware of traffic 'studies that have' been commissioned and performed at the direction of VDOT, which confirm that the transportation system being designed by:Frederick° County and 'VDOT is sufficient not only to address the trips being generated by the Heritage Commons rezoning, but also to accommodate significant through trips that are contemplated as a result of the installation of the two connections from Rt. 522 to Tevis Street. 4. The comment regarding the cap on residential units of 1,200 is correct. September 26, 2014 comments: 1. The comment correctly confirms that development 'of the site can commence after' rezoning is approved. It should, be noted, 'however, that road transportation improvements are on a construction schedule wherein all road and bridge improvements are anticipated, to' 'be completed and .installed by the, summer of 2016. The Applicant would very ,much like to commence construction and delivery of the improvements described by the rezoning, but as a practical matter, it is believed that under the aforementioned schedule the road and bridge improvements will be Harvey E. Stiawsnyder, Jr".,'P.E., :September 29;.20:14 'Page E3' completed efore the Applicant- receives certificates- of occupancy for the properties which would`be allowed vwith an approved rezoning. 2 Thin paragraph appears to address .questions about the, capital facility impacts: A copy of the, most, recent report" has been provided to the Depattinent of `Public Works.. The report; prepared by S. Fatz and Associates, Inc. confirmst -that the proposed commercial development and the multi - r , 'Harvey `E, Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. !September 29, 20,14 Page, 4 4. This paragraph appears to. correctly restate the limitation and delivery of- residential units as set- forth: in the pioffers. , As stated previously,. it should be noted, that the multi - family residential units are a net positive fiscal impact .to Frederick County and, therefore,, limiting ,same .does not seem to be in :Frederick County's` interest., With; regard to the comment about the proffer, to deliver commercial along with multi- family residential, the Applicant is, in fact, committing to deliver at` 'least 50;000 square feet of . commercial for every_ 300' multi= family units. To the extent Frederick County believes this is ambiguous„ the Applicant will be pleased to re- phrase the. proffer to confirm same. Thank you for ,your continued. assistance and cooperation. If, after, you have reviewed this letter you have any other comments or,concerns, please do not hesitate to contact'me. Very4lY° ._ Lawson TML:atd cc: R, 1.50 SPE,. LLC Heritage Commons, LLC — Cand.ice'.Perkins From: John Bishops Sent: Monday; September'29; 2014'1;0:24 AM ,To:, Candice Perkins; Eric Lawrence, Subject; FW: Heritage Commons Comment Below see Terry's- response on Chapter 527. I will'�forward the. original, email`to complete the loop. more clearly From: Short,,Ter y (,VDOT) [mailto: Terry .ShortJRCaVDOfi.Virginia.ggVv Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 10,26.AM To:;]ohn-Bishop U: Ingram; Lloyd (VDOT); Smith, Matthew, -F:E. (!/DOT) Subject: Re: Heritage Commons Comment John- j G'Ot your email Mohclay,;and we've ,been busy doi'ng:a review of the, new, revision. I agree'with your take of -the 527 threshold. We completed an-accelerated review of the revised proffer yesterday and sent that to the Residency this morning for theirreview. I'm sure you'll see the combined comments soon. Terry Sent from my i.Phone• On Sep,26.2014, at 9:25 AM, John Bishdop <'Obishop @.fcva.us >.wrote: Lloyd and Terry; Eric is asking me when we might have your comments. VDOT:is the, only, one we don't. have so far and we'd given Ty until today use eryth'ing.. °Also I haven't heard from' Terry on my 527 question. Thanks { John _John A. Bishop AICP Deputy Director.= Transportation. Frederick County Planning & Development 'bishop @co frederick.va.us,- 540 - 665 -5651 1 LAWSON ANDS LE P.L.C. 120EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200 1'OS °I OFFICErI30X <2740 wINC11ESTER', VA 22604 7 tasEPl16NE,' (540) 665 -00.50 'VxcSIMILF:�(540) 7224051 'rNONI, SO OORr•.'LAWSON TLAWSON(aftSPLC:COM September 26,; 2:014 Jon Turkel, Park and�Siewardship:Plantier Frederick County Parks; & Recreation' 1.0,7 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA`2260'1. Re:, Heritage`Commons Rezoning ;Application Our File No. 11050100,1 VIA V -MAIL AND HAND= DELI :VERY " F Dear Mr. Turkey: I am in receipt of,' ;your comments to the revised. proffers dated September `1:8, 2014 relating to the above= referenced matter lir response to your numbered .comments received by memo dated September 24„ 2014,1provide the following. L As stated in response, to prior comments, there; are no !monetary proffers because the community .proposed by Herltage Commons has a -net positive impact; to Frederick County, which. means there is' excess revenue over and above all anticipated expenses' to ' Frederick County, which Frederick County, can,use as itsees fit and for whichever agency it chooses: 2 T`.le Applicant is not in control of ;the design of. the transportation .networks across its property to ;include; th'e connection to' Tevis 'Street, ''the adjoining Glaize property. and the coniirieneement ,of Warrior `Driye The Applicant .does understand, 'however, that the- road sections being designed by Frederick, County and VDOT do,, in fact; 'include multi -modal (pedestrian, and bicycle) ,'lanes, and °would expect them to be of a sufficient width (tO feet) to `accommo°date. Parks &-RecreationY's comments and concerns. 1p l pe a rof `p roffers aridno es on g _is e 9 u1r d With to, 3b, the Applicant will measure the lengt h, . p of the proposed tra11 al0 - g, the.Buffalo Lick Stream Valley or probably.more� a - opriately define . where the-trall .will begin and end:, The trail'by'definition will meander along the strearn!so it is not nterided tb; a straight, line, and will, , connect the pedestrian right- of= way'on Route 522, to the, proposed ped'estr ari right =of =Way on Warrior. D`r-ive. FRONT;ROYAI:ADDRESS P.Oj. "BOX 602,FRONT,ROYAL,�VIRCINIA 2263U,^ 7' ELEPRONE:.( S40) 6359JI5: •;FACSIAIILE:,(SJO)G]S9i21'!E= MAIL :'JSILEKZLAWSONANDSII:EKCOM1/ P Jon T k d d urkel, ar an Stewar ship Planner September.26,''2014' Page 2 } 4., We understand Parks• &; Recreations comments and, ;as stated above, the Applicant does believe; that pedesti }tan/bieyclst accommodations are being ,mad e as part of the. design° of the transportation :network 5;. Tlie reason for ,the .design.:i icaizon is to allow for the construction of a mole compact mix of'uses. I is inteh' §ting`to note'fhat Frederick Country 'Planning's comments reflect they would like.°to see a cornmitmeiit to a town center concept whereas Parks & Recreation, would- seem to, prefer' that more traditional design standards. be ,applied. - The Comprehensive: Plan for this area' calls.,for higher :density uses, wliieh by definition, will provide for a mix of " residential` and cornnzercial, .and said uses will :be located close to one another, to :encourage a walkable community as ,opposed `to one where the. 'uses at .separated and discourage, this walkable aspect:: i Thank; yo.0 ,for `your continued - assistance and. cooperation., lf,; after you.'haye reviewed this 'letter, ,you aiave any otherFcoinments or conce_rris, please do nofhesitaie`to co_ntactmet. T.ML;jk cc: R° 150 `SPE ;.LIC LC Heritage Commons, t r -� Heritage Commons PAi- r_Revis on of, 9%18/14 - P &R Comore From: Cand'ice.Perkins <cperkins @fi va.us> To Tfiomas .Lawson <tlawson @Isplc.com> Cc: Eric Lawrence <elawrenc@fcva.us> 'Wednesday, September. 24, 2014 03;53 pm ' 9 _ - Subject: FW:,Herita e'Corrimons',Proffer',Revision of 9/ ^18/14; - P &R.Cornnients 'Attachments:. Ty, Please findbelow an updated'Parks,&.- 'Recreation comment. Candice Perkins;, AICP ;Senior Planner Fredenck.County Department of Planning &. D;evelopment, tO North Kent Street W,iribester, Virginia`22601 l (540):665= 5651 . (540) 665 = ;;6:395. (fax). cperkins @fcva.us www:fcva.us From Jonathan Turkel 'Sent: Wednesday::Sepfember 24, 20143'45 PM ii.i uo:; Candice. Perkins Cc: Jason Robertson, Eric:Lawrence . SO jectc Heritage Commons Proffer ,Revision of 9%18%14 - .P &R Comments . RE::Heritage Commons. proffer revislon,datedsept 18 „2014 Candice; The.updated.profferstatement does,not sufficiently „address,the concerns of” he Parks and Recreation Department. The 161 lowingoutlines o.ur, comments: 1. We,are not satisfied-that-monetary contributionsare�adequately addressed. Proffer,should, clearly i- that Airport Rd „Warrior -Dr.;, and Tevis�St, will have 10' bicycle/ Ir pedestrian accommodation,,('as iseclearly identifi'edin the Rassell 150 proffer)'. Cur.rent`language isvague'in. tatmg? "road`Wh`en presumably - #ferring torn roads;, and stating a, `'ten foot (10!), or such other appropriate width " "rather "than c' mmitfirig.to: a,10' width (as is reco,mrriended):. . 3: ;Beyond reference to ordinance requirements; The'Recreational„Amenities section rappear s to proffer a. , To; " construct }pedestrian trails and /or sidewalk systems;'which connect each recreation area tolthe4e'sidential; land uses within the Land gay." Comment Connecting recreatiomareas,to users-is;appropriate,, _ b., "to install a ten foot`(10') Wide asphalt or concrete trail :along fIi .Buffalo Lick'Run - -. Strearri;Valley" Comment Some indication of lengtf should be, provided-for this °proffer.. https. %lwelimail.networksolut orisemail.com/edgedeskk - bin/viewmail:exe ?id= 0.17206 ?'aa..: 9%3'0/20.14 Page 1 of 2 W;: Heritage Commons'P;Wr Revision of'9 /1.8%14 - P &R Cornmeft Page 2 of.2 a Bike /Pedestrian accommodation on the 1 -81 flyover bridge should, be provided This is greatly needed'. 5. DESI6N IVIODIFICAT,ION DOCUMENT— 'Modification #6 Parks and Recreation recommends denial ,of`thisimodification. This request significantly diminishes the, open space requirement and leaves open the potential to claim other environmentally sensitive areas (flood plain, wetlan&,,and. steep slopes) as open space. Please le't me'know'if you have, any questions on any of`the above. Thank you, Jon Jon Turkel Park and Stewardship Planner Frederick County Parks and,Recreation 107 N. Kent St. Winchester; VA 22601 iturkel @fcva.us 0:,(540)722 -8300 F(540)665 -9687 https:// Webmail. networksolutiohsethaii .com /.edgedesk/cgi- bin /viewma l exe ?id= 0172067aa... 9/30/2014 =e 1. LAWSON AND SILE'K, P.L.C. 120jEXErER,DRIVE, SuiTE 200 POST OFFICE Box 2740 �WINCIIESTEIi; VA 22604 TELEPHONE: -(540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 722 -4051 'i-noNms MooiiEi.AWSON • "fLAwson � IsPI.c.CO:w September 26, 2014 Jon Turkel, Park and Stewardship Planner: Frederick County Parks & Recreati'on 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 f i I Re:. VIA E -MAIL AND HAND - DELIV'ER'Y Dear'Mr. Turkel: Heritage Commons Rezoning, Application Our File No. 1050.001 I am in receipt of your commel t& to the revised- proffers ,d'ated: September 18, 2014 relating, to- the above - referenced matter.. 1h response to your numbered comments received by memo dated September 24, 2014, I provide the following. 1. As stated 'in response to. prior comments, there are no monetary proffers because the community proposed by' Heritage Commons has a net 'positive, impact to Frederick County., which means there is excess revenue over and above all anticipated expenses to Frederick County, which Frederick County can L196 as it sees ft and for'whichever,agenty it chooses. 2. The Applicant is riot in control of the design, of the transportation. networks across its property to include the connection to Tevie. Street, the adjoining Glaize property and. the commencement of Warrior Drive. , The .Applicant does understand, however, that the road sections being, designed by Frederick County and VDOT do, . in fact,, include multi -modal (pedestrians and bicycle) lanes and would expect them to be of a sufficient width (10 feet) to accommodate Parks & Recreation's comments and concerns. 3'.. I1',appears 'that 'Parks & Recreation's comment 3a ;is confirmation and acceptance of proffers;arid`n:6response is required. With regard to 3b, the:Applicant..vvill measure the length of the proposed trail along the °Buffalo Lick Stream Valley or probably more appropriately define °where theltrail will ,begin and end. The trail by definition will meander along:the stream:so it.is not, intended to, be a' straight line and wilt connect the pedestrian right -of -:way, on Route 522 to the proposed pedestrian right -of -way on Warrior Drive. FRONT ROYAL ADDRESS P.O. BOX 602, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630, TELEPRON'E: (540)635 -9415 • FACSIMILE: 1540)635- 9421'• E -MAIL: J.SILEKfaiLAWSONANDSI LEK CON1 Jon Turkel, Park and 'S.tewardship Planner September 26, 2014 Page 2 4: We understand Parks _& Recreation's comments and,, as stated above, the Applicant does believe that pedestrian/bicyclist accommodations are' being made as part of the, design of the transportation'network. 5. The reason for the design modification is to allow for the construction of a more compact mix of uses. It is .interesting to note that Frederick County Planning's comments reflect they would ,like to see a commitment to� a town ,center concept whereas .;Parks & Recreation would seem to prefer that more traditional design standards be applied'. The: Comprehensive Plan for this area calls for ;higher - density uses, which by definition, wilt provide for a mix of residential and commercial, ,and said .uses will be .located close to one another to encourage a walkable community as opposed to one where the uses. are separated .and discourage this i walkable aspect. Thank you for your continued assistance and c:oo"peration. lf,`after you have reviewed this letter, you have any other comments or concerns, please do not°liesitate -to contact me. Very trgly. yours, . Thom s 'Ode Lawson TML:jk cc: R 150 SPE, LLC Heritage-Commons, LLCA `r LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. . 120'ExE'rER DkivE, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE Box 2740' WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540)665 -0050 Rcsimiu:.(540) 722 -4051 • THOMAS MOORE;LAWSON • `rLAWSON4)I.SPLC:EOM September 26, 2014 K. Wayne Lee; Jr., LEED AP Coordinator of Planning, and Development Frederick County Public Schools 1,415 Amherst Street', P.O. Box 3508 Winchester, VA. 226.04 Re:. VIA E -MAIL AND HAND - DELIVERY Dear Mr. Lee: Heritage Commons Rezoning Application Our File No. 1050:001 I am in receipt of your comments to the revised proffers dated September 18, 2014 i relating to' the above- referenced matter: In response- to your numbered comments received by letter °datedSep"tember'25, 2014, l provide the following. 1 and 2. You are correct that there are no cash proffers and that the Impacts Analyses: conducted by Stu Patz and Associates use calculations that are different from Frederick County's Development Impact Model. 'Specifically, Mr. Patz; noted that Frederick County's Development Impact Model, uses .student generation calculations that are based on actual numbers from' existing apartment projects within Frederick County.' The developers of the Impact Model very forthrightly pointed' out this fact and by doing so ;acknowledge that market rate apartment projects; whie.h. are proffered as part of the Heritage Comrhbhs• rezoning; cannot be used as a comparable for trying to estimate anticipated .students coming from a project. p p ily. Further still ',.Mr: Patz in his:re .ort,;has, ointed out that he has examined market, multl -fam projects and that the, students generated from those projects are minimal and far fewer than what .is: projected,in, the Frederick County model. Mr. Patz goes into further detail in his report to, explain the' reasons 'why, including, but not limited to, the rents that are charged at the market rate projects are, .such that if a family would have school age children; .it would be more economical for them to own a single- family detached residence with a yard, more living space and bedrooms, etc. Simply put, and as Mr. Patz states in his ,report, the: market rate multifamily projects have tenants who are younger or older professionals with a higher than :average household income who do not have school children., As a result of the same, the school impact FRONT ROYAL ADDRESS: P.O.60X602, FRONT ,ROVAI., VIRGINIA 22630.'TELEPHONE: (540)635 - 9215, •FACSIMILf:(520)635.9221•E•MAIL: JSILEKCiUW50NAND5ILEN.COM c, K. Wayne Lee, Jr.; ILEED AP September 26,2044- Page 2 models that have been, generated from actual students liv,ing ,in, existing apartment stock in Frederick County have no application to the Heritage Commons; proposed rezoning. Indeed, surveys. of actual occupants' of. market. rate apartments in the immediate region and other locations within the Commonwealth result in student ratios significantly less than what is modeled even in'Mr.'Patz's analysis'. Further still, and as Mr. Patz has noted, in his report, the mix proposed by the Heritage Commons rezoning; generates a net positive tax generation, to Frederick County taking into account all expenses iricluding„ but not .limited•to, the,school expenses iiicuned by Frederick County. Using actual market data, as opposed, to the intentionally conservative estimates by Mr. Patz', results in: an add] tionat$5;00.0,000 in benefits over t6n years to- Frederick County. Looking at Mt. Patz's economic analysi Heritage Commons,.,LLCRezoning- -VDOT Proffer Review"Corriments September 25; 2014 . Revised ;,proffersfor the, He'ritage Commons, LLC:rezoning, dated September18,2014' have been submitted for review following VDOT's review and comment_;of the prey 'ous�proffers iaAugust 2014.. VDOToffersthe'followingad 'ditional comments! 1. The previous August 2014: review comment #1,has not.been addressed by the revised proffers. There is still,no:indication of'theaevel of commercial. /office developm'ent.io be proposed on the property. Proffer #4has,been.revisedto.include just-if ic ation ,for`notupdating the previous trafficstudy�completed o:nthe .,project; with the argumentthat;the current proposed uses will reduce ihe;amc)unt of'traffic"ne.rated fromtbe site (compared;tothe initial 2005 RusseI1150, LC rezoning)., The updated profferalso states that V DOT 'has confirmed "that'theproposed "road network indentified'onthe GDP is' sufficienttoaddressthe'trafficgenerated by the Heritage Commons development and additionafvolume resulti'ng,from the Tevis Drive extension. However :,the current °proposed internal road'hetworkwasdeveloped utilizingthe previously known;d eve lopment inte;nsityassociated with the pro pert y., In,order.to confirm the adequacy of thecurrent.road, design; the'proposed development intensityforthe commercial component of the`rezoni'ng,is required. 2. Proffer #4 hasbeen; revisedio` includelanguageAhatthe "Applicant does agree to.enterintoan agreement with. Fre,de;rick,Countyto provi'de'forthe,payment of Frederick County's portion of theReSenueSharing :AgreernentwithVDOT "forthe,road impro verrients:associated.withthe p: roperty ,(including.WarriorDrive). However, itisuncle-ar.why °the profferstill indicates'that.the applicant -.will only be dedicati "ng,a portion oftho Wirr.ior Drive,ri'ght -of =way. We recommend that the profferisupdated to include dedication and construction reimb�ursementof the 'entire length of Warrior Drivetto:the southern property line. 3. Proffer #8, Phasing,,has been updated to provide:,an initial constructionrphasing schedulefor the, multifamily reside ntial'and commercial uses. We recommend thatthis proffer is updated to also incorporatelhe timing'of-the transportation improvements related to development construction:' This,will`ensure thatthe necessary'roadway infrastructure is i -n place to accommodate theAevelopment phasing. 4. An updated Generalized Development Plan add.ressingthepreviousAugust 2014 review comment #3 was' not' included -with the °revision proffer su'brriission. Please provide: 5. . The`re -vised proffersand current Generalized Deveiopment,Plan do,not,addressthe'.previous September2013V DOT re viewcomments: PIeaseupd ate the documents- accordi;ngly'or prow de commentfesponses. August 29, 2014 . 'In _additiontothe-Septem'ber.2013 VDOT re,view,comments provided b. elowjswecl followingAhe review of the F'rederick;County Center, LLC rezoning submission of the property, VDOT'offersthe following add iti ona'I' comme nts: 1.. The rezoningapplicatioh ,proposestore onethe '150.59.aereproperttVfrom132 -- General Busines.s.Districtand:RP— Residential Performance Districtto R4 Residential Planned 'Community District. The proffers provide a cap on reside ntW.development;at a maximum of 1,200 units, of which 150 - 184• wdIbel ownhomesandth `eremaining0hits.deve loped as multifamily. ,Howeyer, the proffers:do not provide a cap for commercial / office development. Based 'on the Land Ba,y,Breakdowntable provided i'n.the proffe,rs,the,commercial /office component will consistof53'to,70 acres ofthe overall development Taking into consideration the F.A.R. modificati'on'that i's _bpi'ng requested wifh the,applicatio.n to,increase,.the, permitted FAR. to2:0 (132 zoningpermitsa max F.A.R. of 10), the development!could hypothetically permit upto 6 mialionsquare feet of commercial /'officeuse. 'In orde rto evaluate the project's potentialimpact on the local and regional road network, maximum floorareas need to be 'p,rovided forcommemial % off ice•use ineach of the proposed land,:bays, 2. The, p;roffe:rs °do;notprovi;de a clear description ofthe propertyowner.'s/developer's responsibilities in providingthe necessary transportation improvements' ociated with the property. VDOTredommends,additiOnal proffersbeaddedtothea •p:plication that describes the indi'viduaftransportation improvements'(similarto'the or ginai 2005Russell 150, LC rezoning) and statesthat;the owner/ de,velopershall construct said improvements priortothe issuance of a building (or occupancyj perm tforthe. proposeduses, within.the,oroperty,ordetermine a pe`rce riiage of.construction cost`,foreach transportation improve`ment:to be escrowed by the ow: ner/ devel,o.perforusebythecountyina revenue shari'ngagreementpriorto the approval of a site plan onthe.property, 3. VDOT recommends•thatth'e Generalized Development Plan included imthe rezoning application be revised as',follows: - Provideth;i �maxi'mum commercial retail and office `floor "area.and'residential unit types.in'each;land'bay. Provide the right -of- way "width and'typical'cross section:forthe proposed roadways within thedevelopment in.accorda,nce with the - county Comprehensive Plan. = °' Eztend'Warrior Driyeto the southern propefty line.. U.plate all access arrow labels to read "Potential Access Point" Thetype of °access to;be,permitted ' ill'be in accordance with VDOT's,Access Manage ment, Design ;Standards and Will be reviewed during -the Site PI'an submission. Indicate the:necessaryfrontageand entrance intersection'improvements along Route 522 as required perthe proposed trip generation°oftheAevelopment. „ . September201IVDQTreview .comments The pp property pP significant measu rable impact on Route S22., .Thisi rotite is the VDOT� roadway which has been considered as _red as 'the,access to the pro perty'referenced, VDOT is NOT satisfied,'that the °transportation pro ffers'offe-red'in.the: Frederick County Center,'LLC Rezoning. Application dated' September 5, 2013 address transportation concerns associated with this request. The lack of detail.,in this -rezoning request raises numerouslquestions that w ll,need to be-addressed prior to VDOT, support of this rezoning request: 1: The request.fails.to mention ho'W the proposed devel6' _' nt'trip'generation compares to the,previous,R'ussell 150 TIA. 2. There, is'hot a &liar detail; (,trip count ,or approved site plans, etc) as to °when road facilities are to be °constructed: - 3. The proposed' bridge over Interstate 81, signals, as well as other: on =site /off -site traffic facilities'are not clearlyidentified as being;a responsibility, of the developer. 4. Are the roadwayiypical cross- sections /right- of- way widths :to remainas detailed inthe original Russell 150 MOP? 5. Constructed Warrior DriVeneeds'to be sliown,extended'all.th'e; way,to the southern property"line; Warrior Drive is a critical part of,the . Frederick County Transportation. Plan. The developer could build' itin phases,, but it _is a requirement fo "r, the streets to be eligible for.-acceptancelinto the:Sec'ondary System. 6. The location shown in.Exhibit, "A ":for Warrior Drive would cause themost damage to the :Buffalo =Lick Run wetlands when the road is: extended, as t.is: shown crossing the,widest section of the wetlands. 7. The current Exhibit "A" Jacks the details of how Land' Bay'VI1,& VII l are to access -a public highway. 8. There�is _. no mention of inter= parcetcohnections wrtl ahe adjacent property owners /developments. Thank you forth& opportunity comment: Should you have any question"s,.feel free to contact.me.. Hentage`Commons' LLC:Iteioning —UDOT Proffer Re iew:Gomments. September`°2S 2014 Revisedprcffers; forthe;: HeritageCommons;, LLCYezoning ,,d'atedSeptember18;;2014 havebeen %t ngVDOT 'sreview- andcorrimentofthe'p e,Viodsproffersi'nAugust2014_.; submitted for review followi - VDOT'offersthe.f6lmloWinga,d itror °al comments:, Th` eprevious Aug usf2014. reviewcomment'# lhasnotbe' e; naddressed�bythe ,,revi'sed`proffers..- T, he: re' is' stilinoi- ndication•of`the�le,vel of commercial ,ciff,ice•developm;entao be proposed on;the, property. Proffer.# 4' hasbeen< revrsedtoincludejustificationfor `riotupd'ating.theprevi`ous traffi'c'study completed on the project,.with the'argument' that "fh:e current proposed use-swill 'reduce,, s arr ount of trafficgdperated fromthe site (comparedtothe,i "nitia1`:2005 Russell. 150, LC rezoning) -jhhe updated p;rofferalso s`tatesthat'VDOThas corifirmed that,the proposed road - network indentifled °onithe GDP is s ufficientto ,address•the:trafficge,nerated by'the Heritage Co morons- developrrientand `additionalvolume• esultingfromthe�T evis;Dri'veextension. However; the,curr -enf proposed internal road network was developed,utjli'iing,tbg previously ` kno.wn,deve,lo p meat'intensityassot-i'at`ed With the; property„ Inordert0 c0nfirm th:e;adequacyof the currentroad design, the proposed deve,lopmerifinter sityforthecommercial compone_nt;of J '•the rezoning i'sr equired.. 2 Proffer,#4has; beenrevisedto" incfud; e. languagethatthe," Applicantdoes -agreeto,enterintoAn agree me nt.with `Fre;de rickCounty to provide for'the pa.y;me nt of Frede rick County's portion'of the Revenue Sharing- Agreeme'ntwith VDOT"fo;rthe'rded improvement`sassoci'ated with,fhe "property (in clading- Warr io r - Drive). 'Howe,, it:isunclearwhythe profferstill indicatesthattl be pp ' g p ior!Drive -right of.wway. We recommend a (acantwill only be d'edicat'in &a _ortio.n ofthe Vl/arr that the,profferisuplated to `include dedication:andcon "struction reim'bursemerit;of'the entire I`ength;of Warrior Drive toth :e.southern,property- ine. 3i Proffer# 8,;Phasing,'has been updated to provide an construction. phasing chedule "for - I e;multifarriily res de'htial an:d commercial:,uses. We recommend thatthis p"roffer,is'updated to, also ineorporateahetimingoft' fie, transportation ,improvementstrela ed to- development const°...uction -. Thiswfl ensu_ re& thatthene_ cessaryroadway 'infrastructureasirrplaceto accorrimodatethe :d eve lopment :phasirig. 4: uAn updated Generalized D`e "uelopment,Pl'an addressingth "e previousAugust2014 review comment #3 wasinot;lncluded with,ahe revision proffer submission. Please rovide: 5. 'The revised proffers and car..rentGeneralized Development•Plan do notadd'ressthe previous September '2013VDOTr.,e,view,comments.. P- leaseupdateahedoeumentsat- dinglyorprovi:ae. ` ccirrime "nt response`s: , A ;ugusf 29; 2014 In'additiontotheSepte.mbe;r2013 VDOT reVilewcomments, provided 'below; "issuedfollo.wing,fhe review of`the Frederi'ckCounty,,Center, LLC rezoning ,,submission of`the property; VDOToffersit`he following: ! additibnai[comments: 1. The rezoning;applicat•ion proposesto rezone the 15059.acre propertyfrom B2 »— General Business Distii'ctand_RP Res`,dentialPerformance; District °to R4 =Res dential,l?fanned Cornmu"R Di'stn -t The pro,,ffe•rs provi'd'e a:cap on residential,de:velopment at,a maxi'rhLim of 1,200 units, ofwhich;150 184:011 be "town1wmesand the remaining,unitsdeveloped as multifamily. However, the proffersdo not 'provided cap for com "rnercia %office development, Based on the,Land Bay Breakdown table prodded, in the;•proffe,rs,,the co;rpmercial, , office compahe, twillconsi' sfof53fo70, acresof'theoveral,ldeveloprnent Ta_kingiritoconside ratio n'. 1 theF.Al.,R modificatlon,that- isbei'n requested with'the�qp p l icationtoincreasethe.permitted to•2 0 (.B2 zonicig pet ms isfa.m_ax F.A.R: of1.0);,,the deuelopment�could hypoth etically permit upto6, millionsq' uarefeet afco'mme'rcial /:ciffitOUse lha derto,evafuate "the ^;project's { p ovdedforpommercall /office,useneach.ofthework maximum floor {areasmeedto be p r proposed land bays. J. The proffers do not;.0 dera °cleardescription of`the proprerfy owne,r's� (developer's, responsibiHties n prow dingthe necessarytran• sportationa _mprovements:associated withthe p,operfy , DOT-recommends' .. r additional proffers beadded tatke ap plicationthat describesthe indiv.idd' lfranspbrfation i "mpro ements`(similartothe or'igina1.2005,Russell 15©, LC rezoning) and statesthat he owner/ develope 4sha l constructsa,id improvements prior•toth`e'i'ssuance of a,buildi'ng,(or,occupancy) pe"rmitfor,,, e pYopo "se`d useswithmthe;propertyor'determ. ine a percentage of °constructioncostfor, ;e`acfi transportation irrio' Lmentto'be eserowed'bythe ow6er4 /, aevel:operfor;use bythe countyin a revenue sharing agre.ernenVorior'tothe� pproval of a site P on the property 1; "VD.OT recommendsthatthe ,Generalized,Development?P(an included in`th'e•,rezoningrapplication be,sr61 se&asfollows: Provide;the maximumcommercial retailand office,flo'orarea,andresidential unit types in each land +,Fiat'' - P;rovid'e1he right- of= waywidth and .'typicalaBross.secton forthe proposed rgadways° wthrn th:e de ,velopmentn accordance with.the county;Com pre hensive Plan. Extend Warnor'On" to the southern propertyline. Update all'liaccess arrow, labels to read' "Poteriti'al Access Point" The type of access to. be permitt AwiIj be _in accordance Wit h, VDOT 'sAccess:IVlanagement.Design Standards °and'wi,l,l be reuiewed durmgtheSSite Plan submission.. In 'cate the,necessa s fronta a and eritrance," . • . -- `d intersection im rove';meantsal'ong; rY g p Routei522,' as regui'red pe "rthe propose, dtripgenerationofahedevelopment. 3 September 2013 VDOT review comments The documentation within the . apphcaff :to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 522.. This,route is the: VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access.to,the- property refenenced. VDOT' is NOT satisfied. that:the tr,.ansportatiOn proffers;offered in .'the ;Frederick County Center; LLC Rezon ng- Appli'cation dated September 5; 2013 address transportation concerns associated with this request. The lwk:,of detail, in thi`s.lrezoning request raises numerous questions that will need to be addressed prior to VDOT�support'of this rezoning request:' 1. 'The request fails -tb mention how 'the proposed d'evelopment'trip generation compares to'' the previous Russell 150 TIA. 2. There i&not a clear detail (;trip counts -or approved'site plans; etc.) as tawhen road facilities j are to be constructed: 3: The proposed bridge over. Interstate 81, signals; aswell .another on- s" te /off-site traffic facilities are: not clearly identified as ,being a responsibility of the developer. 4. Are the roadway typical'cross- sections/ right -of. =way widthsto rema_n'asdetailed in•the original Russell 150 MEP? 5: Constructed Warrior Driv&needs to be shown.extended all the'`wayto the southern property line. Warrior Drive is a critical part- of,the Frederick County Transportation Plan. Tlie developer could build, phases, but it, is a;requiremenf _forthe streets to be eligible p- P for- acceptanceinto the Secondary System. 6. The location;shown;in Exhibit A" forWarrior'Drive would cause the,most damage to the Buffalo +Lick Run wetlands when,the road is.,extended as it is-shown crossing °the widest section ofthe wetlands. 7.� The,current Exhibit "A `lacks =the details: of bow Land Bay-VII & VIII are to access a public highway. 8. Theret'is no mention of inter= parcelconnec.tions'with the adjacent property owners /developments. T.haWyou for, the opportunity comment. Should you'have any questions, feel freeto contact me. r, I LAWSON AND STLEK, P.L.C. 120.,CXETER,DRIVE,SOrrE200 Yt POST 'OFFICE 130x'2740' WINCtiESTER, VA 2260,4 ; TELEPIIONEC (540)665 =0050 -.. q (:A($IMILE ::(540)722' - 4051- :4 ,rHOM,�S.MOORE'LAWSON •'TTAwswNnim.wix,cOM September 26, 2614 ;John A. Bishop,,AICP w, Deputy Director - Transportation. County of;Frederick DcpartmentofP_lanning and .Development 107Nortl:Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester; VA 22601 Re: Heritage Commons 'Rezoning Application Our File No. '1050.00 VIA E -N4A1L AND HAND-DELIVERY Dear John: I am in receipt of your coirtments to the revised proffem :dated 'September 18, 2014 relating?'to the above,- referenced _matter. In response to your numbered, comments received by letter dated September 24, 2014, I provide the following.. 1. You are correct, the Generalized Development Plan ( "GDP ") has :not been revised with the September 18, 2,QI4 proffer revisions. 2. With regard 'to your comment about the entrances, reflected on the GDP, all need to be reminded that the road_ and, bridge network running across not only the Heritage Commons property, but also. across the adjoining (Glaize) property is' being conducted as a joint project between VDOT and Frederick County with the Frederick County Engineer 'having the primary role of coordinating' the work on 'the project, including, but not limited' to, the design and engineering. The - Applicant has intentionally engaged Pennoni & Associates to prepare exhibits, such as the GDP, because that engineering firm is the firm that has been_ selected by Frederick County and approved' °by< V1007 to design and engineer the above- referenced, road network. Any .entrances refIc6ed .. in the GDP are,, therefore; shared with the design team working with Frederick County and> VDOT To the extent any further consideration of those entrances needs to, occur, %the Applicant believes that is being conducted by the Frederick County /VDOT design team as the work. progresses. Certainly, the Applicant Will defer to' that process with regard'"to the location of .entrances, provided that there is reasonable access to the Applicant's property. Likewise; the suggestion that all entrances shown on the GDP should be removed from the graphic, is, not °appropriate. Clearly the purpose of'this toad network is not only to allow through traffic `to and :from the' City -of Winchester and Rt. '522, but also ro'access the Heritage Commons property. FRONT ROYAL ADDRESS: P.O: BO% 602: FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA' 22630; TELEPHONE: (540)635 -9415 • FACSIMILES: (540)635.9421 •.E -MAIL: JSILEXPLAWSONANDSILEK.COM Al 1 1 John A: Bishop, Deputy Director- Transportation Spptember 26,2014 .Page?2, 3. The Applicant understands that Frederick County Deputy Director of Transportation :is requesting a determination from VDOT as to what, if anything, ought to be required by way of further traffic' °study. As soon as that inform' mation "has 'been provided from VDOT; we assume that will be forwarded to the Applicant: The Applicant does appreciate the suggestion that there be a development cap in order to "...;.keep trip generation in line with what -was considered at the previous rezoning."' The Applicant submits, however, that the development types - and'. mix as submitted and, included i.n the rezoning application should be all that is xequired. T.he Applicant has intentionally .restricted residential unit development to no greater than 1,200,, but not; capped the _commercial, which would include `uses such as office and retail because those uses are very positive from a fiscal and tax revenue perspective to Frederick County, The Applicant also submits that the significant road network being installed across 'its property, an&acioss the:, adjoining property is more than, adequate to accommodate the potential maximum build out; which is. described in the rezoning, - application.: Indeed, the Applicant is aware that VD.OT has conducted. several traffic studies of:its own that has resulted, in the new road alignment. which -is reflected in the GDP to include a: dual lane traffic. circle and, further, still,. that- this road network has been designed to accommodate a detour of trips which is to occur when the Rt. 50 bridge ,that crosses I.8.1 is removed and reconstructed. To this end, the Applicant is curious as to what beneft;a traffic study would, provide because if this road network .has already been deemed to be, satisfactory to VDDT, what purpose would another ,traffic study serve? Certainly it would' not serve to allow for the installation of a lesser road network given the fact.that Frederick County and „VDOT have decided on the; network as depicted on the GDP. ” The. Applicant commits to .continuing to work with the Frederick County Deputy Director of Transportation on these issues;'butwe would expect that after there has been a thorough review of the traffic studies that were conducted with the original rezoning and the subsequent traffic studie& commissioned by VDQT that there has been:, more than adequate study of this road - network and that it more than adequately addresses impacts from not only this proposed development, but also the impacts that would come from the region as a whole. 4. Refereilees to the cxl* ting rezoning and proffer approved in 2005 . makes the evaluation of this proposed rezoning unnecessarily confusing and challenging. As stated in response to previous commen "ts„ the existing rezoning" and proffer.is for a much different project with different.aspects, all of w, hick, for a multitude.,of reasons are not buildable. As it relates,to transportation, 'the existing..proffer. describes, 'a road network that VDOT has determined' .is unacceptable.. Therefore, to make references to an existing proffer that calls for specific road installations,as set forth in the 20.05 proffers is not especially helpful because VDOT does not, approve.of, said ,road alignments and configurations. Instead, the - Applicant. has proffered to pay' the Frederick County share of the road project described as part of the cost sharing agreement with VDOT: It should 'be pointed out that as the final design, work is completed there will be more definition: given to' all parties "and'the Applicant as to what the exact final costs will be and ;the mechanism, for the payment of same. The ,Applicant does agree,,that the exact ,terms of said r John A. Bishop; Deputy Director- Transportation September 26, 20,14 :Page 3 agreement will be the subject of a separate agreement between thel Applicant and Frederick County: 5'. The Applicant is not.sure what is meant by this comment. about the bridge over I- 8 L As the. Applicant understands the cost .sharing project, for tfie .road improvements. across the Heritage Commons property and thet neighboring (Glaize) property, it includes a bridge which crosses `I -81 and connects to Tevis "Streef in the City, where another project has been committed to and which would attach,Tevis Street to the bridge. 61.- This is• again; ;a. reference to a prior proffer. All •need to'be reminded that there, are no CDA funds to pay for any transportation improvements on the Heritage Commons property. The Applicant has cornmitted'.fo paying Frederick County's, share.oNhe cost sharing agreement with V.DOT to construct the road network, which ;is depicted on the .GDP. .The final cost of said project is not yet known; but it is anticipated to be in excess of $1'0,;0'00;000. The Applicant's commitment to pay Frederick: County's share of same is for a significant amount,of money. To commit further still to pay additional_ sums, let alone an additional $.1,000,000; is not possible. Further (still, given the 'fact that a significant_ transportation, network' is `being installed on the. Applicant's property;, which is being designed. to address not only the impacts from the , Heritage Commons property, but 'al`so from the: region as a whole, the Applicant does not understand why it; would be expected to pay ,additional sums to addressi "impacts." 7. Please see,priorcomments. to references approved in 2005. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation.. If after you have reviewed th sAetter...youhave any other.cominents or concerns, please do.not hesitate to contact me. ML,:jk; T, Cc: R] 50 SPE, UC Heritage Commons, LLC I L • el�lpi //^.'1 &I - 1738 :September 23, 2,014 Mi. Thomas Moore Lawson Lawson and'_Silek, 'P L.C. P:O-. Box 2740, Winchester, Virginia 22601_ COUNTY o'f :FREDERICK J)*partment'of Planning and, Development 540/665-5651 FAX; 5401665 =639'5 RE:- Rezoning #02` -14 of 4he Heritage Commons Prof et (former Russell 150) Property, Identification Number (PIN)': 63 =A -1'50, 64 - -A.l- 64 -A -12 Second Comments Dear Mr. Lawson: I' have had the opportunity to ;review the :revised proffer for. the Heritage Commons project dated September; 7, 201"3 and' revised September 1;8, 29j4;: Staff's review comments are listed;, below for =your ,consideration: A revised inodif `eAioh document and :GDP were. not provided with :this submittal'sand therefore staff `s previous comment letter .:dated September 12;'20.13 should also:be,referenced: Rezoning Com`men'ts 1° Proffer 2. Uses, ,Density and; M i, As stated in staffs September 12, 2013 comment letter, `proffer should show a maximum and, minimum percentage of commercial and residential acreage being.proposed; with this rezoning. This area is proposed to consist. of business /commercial and : residenfial land "uses_ and therefore; B3 (Industrial; Transition). uses{ should be, prohibited on the site. 2. Impact on Commonity Facilities. Asp previously stated;in staff's September 12, 2043' comment letter, as part, of your rezoning package a, market and ff scal impact analysis . was submitted` that 'showed a positive fiscal gain,. aiowever, ;there isp no proffer_,ed phasing: or ,requi`remenf that the comiimercia ' portion be before the residential: °ThepdeMopment impact model pro�ects�,a negaf ue impact °of $1'3;062 ;per single, family ;attached unit and $1;1,330 -per Multif amily unit on County capital halines: Therefore, based on the' unit cap of proffer 2G the potential impact ;the residential units will have on Counfy facilities is . $;13.9 mrlhon; The ,deuelopmen`t' should °not utilize the future potential tax contributions of the commercial landbays to offset the residential. landbays; without phasing the " commercial to be uiltini conjunction with the residential: 107' North Kenn °Street;,'Suife; 202 Winchester;; Virgiriia`22601 -500,0 Page.2 Mr.Thomas`Moore Lawson .-RE: Rezoning of Heritage3Commons 'September 23,'20,14 3: Updated Fiscal Impact Analysis: Staff was ;advised that, the, 'Fiscal Impact Arialysi`s was updated to 'address inaccuracies in the input data:. To date staff has not:received, a,copy'of'ih" updated document, 4. `` Monetary Proffers Omitted from New. Rezoning: As stated. in .staff's S.epterriber `12, 2013 : co ' inrnentJ0tter, .it should'b& clarified why the °new rezoning pp emovedalie following previously proffered monetary proffers:: a licat�on has r ® $1.0,000 io Fire and Rescue e $3,000 per`tinit for Schools, • 52;5.00 . - star( up proffer e 1 million,&& the.general transportation fund ($3,500,per residential unit) 5. Proffer 6; -, Recr, eationaI Amenities: As: previously stated m staff's September 12, 2013 comment letter; this proffer speaks, in 'genera,'1 terms of what could be constructed, as recreational amenities .for i the project, 'but. does not commit, to construct anything: Unless the owner is proffering' a specif c amenity, the proffer should be eliminated and' "the;exac't recreational unit type,would be specified at the MOP :stage:, The - proffer also states that walking trails ando idewalk_s will be provided within the comrnunify' the •trail locations should be located on `the :GDP. a Please ,note that sidewalks along roadways.are,require_ by County. Code. 6. Proffer 6, Phasing The revised pfiasmg proffer states pp would that the a ,lcant . need to a l: for and receive a building, permit for 50 osf of commercial in order`to construct'the first °300 multifamily�units. The proffer also 'states that this SO,OOQSf of commercial area `would need, to 'be constructed, before the applicant' could construct thei 600th ,of gfeater multifamily units. Ws proffer does not g uarantee the constructs on of any commercial square footage. : to` offset impacts from the first`300.residentsal units; -it, simply guarantees that a,buildingpermit for a commercial use Wbuld;,-bel obtained'. A.rnore appropriate proffer should address acquisition of a Edtfficate of Occupancy for the commercial, use. 'As written; the proffer, would allow the construction of 599 multifamily units and 184' townhouses ;prior to anya'commer Hal.develop_ment being constructed. This 'is -not consistent with the Patz =suggested phased approach 'to. maintain, economic balance, nord'oes this phasing, proffer guarantee to .offset ''impacts from ,resid'ential. wr &ten :the phasingproffer provides little =if any benefit to the. County and development 7 , :Mixed 1Use:.Development.. The proposed' =R4 zoning ,being sought with. this rezoning application •woul'd ,enable �a mixed 'use development, however, there are no assurances; within{ the proffer statement that a core %town center area will 'be, provid'e"d.'' As proffered; ;the development, would :be. a,--traditional residential and } : commercial project,: with the uses, being clearly separate from one another. Page;3 Mr. Thomas Moore. Lawson RE: Rezoning of Heritage Commons September 23, 2014 Other 8. Transportation Comments. Please note that transportation comments on the rezoning application `from John 'Bishop,. Deputy Director of Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. 9. Agency°, Comments. Please provide. updated agency comments, from the. following,: (based, on the updated proffer statement): Virginia Department of Transportation;: Frederick, County Department of Public Works,: Frederick. County t Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of, Parks and Recreation, Frederick y Authority; Frederick - Winchester Health Department; Frederick Count S.anifation County Public Schools, the local. Fire and Rescue Company and the Frederick - Winchester. Service, Authority. Once attorney comments' are received by the Planning Department; they will be forwarded fo'your office. Attorney comments are required for scheduling of the rezoning application. Please feel free to contact.me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Caridice E. Per ik ns; AICP Senior Planner CEP /pd LAWS.ON AND SILEK, P.L.C. I20 EXETEWDRIVE, SUITE 200 POST 6I7FI6'BOX'8740 "WINCIIESTER,VA 32604 TFEEPHONEE' (540)'665'0050 FACSIMILE :(540)'722 -4051 "11 110MAS M6011E LAWSON • TI..AWSONra)LSPI,C CObf September 26; 2014 . Eric R. Lawrence, A.ICP_, Director Candice Perkins, AICP; Senior Planner Frederick County Department'of Planning & Development 1.07 North Kent; Street Winchester, VA 22604 Re: Heritage Common's Rezoning Application Our File No. 1050.00,1 VIA E' -MAIL AND HAND - DELIVERY Dear Candice and Eric: I am ,in receipt of Planning' Staffs comments to the, - revised proffers dated September 1'8, 2014 relating to the above- _referenced matter. In response to your numbered comments received by lettert:dated September 23',; 2014; 1. provide the following. I . The Applicant has intentionally incorporated, by reference a chart reflecting the minimum and inaximurn percentage of commercial and residential development proposed within each land bay. he.mix for all of'th6se land bays have ranges. We will not know the precise mix . elntil' actual .14, -out: .Certainly one can conduct a calculation for minimums and; maximums of residential and, commercial for the entire Heritage Commons' site, and by' our' calculations, the range of'commercial development'is 15 % to 76 % and the range of residential development ,is 16% to 56 %.. The Applicant,prefers, however, and thinks it makes more, sense if we tie `it io the specific land bays as is contaiized iii. the incorporated table. The last cornrnent from Staff was that 13'73 uses, should lie prohibited. To the contrary and at this point the Applicant wants to preserve with as much option-as, Doss ib le: the ability to deliver commercial uses.as 'a .mix and to blend in with the residential: It"should�be noted there are design standards`that are being-,proffered as part of this•rezoning so,iri the event any commercial, including, but not`.limited•to, 13 3.is installed, it will need to fully comply" with design standards so the use will `be.harnnonious with surrounding .development;. e FRONT ROYALADDRESS:: +P.O. BOX 602,'FRON'TROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630,TELEPIIONE :15401635 -9415 FACSINIIL: !( 540) 635= 9421•E'NAIL:'JSILEKnLAWS ,VANDSILEK.COSI Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, .Director Candice Perkins, AIGP; Senior Planner September 26, 2x,,14 ,Page .2 2. With -regard- to' your comments about. impacts on community facilities, Staffs initial statement is correct that the Market and Fiscal :Impact Analysis shows a positive fiscal gain to Frederick County. As a result, :there is no negative impact on community facilities. Staff s comment seems to be, more focused on the mix of the residential versus commercial. All would be well advised to remember that the, multi - family .residential according to the Stu Patz Impact Analysis results in a net positive fiscal impact. As a xesult,' eyed if 'for discussion's sake only the multi - family units were, delivered there would still be, a net positive fiscal impact to the County and, therefore,, to County facilities. As you have noted, we have revised the proffer to provide that there will be a minimum of 50,000 square feet of commercial. space developed for every 300_multi 4amily residential units. This', of course, enhances and.adds to the positive fiscal impact. 3, In response to this comment, I enclose a,copy of the updated Stu _Patz report. 4. I assume thet reference to the removal of proffers is referring, to monetary proffers that were offered with the 2005 _rezoning. Please understand that this Applicant is.not in any way related to the former applicant, and the former applicant no longer has any interest in this property. further still; the prior rezoning has numerous aspects. assoeiated with it, including, but not limited to, the fact-that it proffers a. road:network.and�gystems that are -no, longer acceptable to VDOT and also provided for a funding mechanism through a. Community Development Authority, which has since been amended as a result of a failure of the original financing scheme., Staff' is correct that - ._there Are no monetary proffer payments called for in the rezoning submitted for the heritage Commons community. As theApplicani understands it, the suggested monetary proffers were, created. to address negative impacts to the County that would occur as a result of a proposed development. As stated above, the proposed Heritage Commons development: has a net positive fiscal impact to the County, which _means' that the proposed development should not require. a supplemental proffer payment. The The would agree that under the prior rezoning; of 200,5 theAevelopment proposed therein would have had negative, fiscal impacts and, therefore, would call for monetary payments. As stated above, however, the community proposed, with this - rezoning- bears ilittle, if any, resemblance to the rezoning `that was submitted and approved in 2005,. 5. The comment to the proffer suggests that there .is no commitment to constructing amenities: 'In point of fact, the trails are, a. specific commitment of the Applicant, one running along' the side of the stream channel and also providing the possibility :at the Applicant.'s discretion. of;iristalling a second one. Staff has pointed out that sidewalks along die road'. systems are required by County Code. It is believed and, therefore, anticipated 'that. there. , will be .in addition to sidewalks a multi'' modal trail provided as a result of the development of the. °road network, which is :currently,' being designed by Frederick County's Engineer and its engineering firm <P,ennoni Associates. The Applicant. is not in a position to commit to the specifcs of said. road .network, and other related items, such as multi -modal trails, walkways, 'bike paths, etc. because the Applicant, does not control said design. f� Eric R. Lawrence; AI.CP, Director Ci mdice Perkins .AICP, Senior Planner September 26, 2014 Page 3 In addition to the: above, the: market rate multi- family units ,'that have been approved all include separate: recreational amenities for each multi - family project., The definition of market. rate multi - family units includes significant investment in arrienities °for the occupants of said market rate communities such as work -out facilities, pools and meeting and social areas within a clubhouse type structure. Those facilities will be present and will be more than adequate to address the recreational needs of their residents. 6.' The Applicant 'rs pleased that Staff has reviewed the proffer„ which commits to constructing 50,000 square feet of commercial for .every ')00 :multi- family :residential units., To the extent there is any confusion to this commitment, the Applicant will be pleased to rephrase; but it is .clear that the intent of the proffer is to deliver a minimum of 50;000 square feet of commercial development for ever 300 multi -family residential units. To restate the p Y �' � y commitment. the Applicant is further willing. to commit that a second block of 300 multi - family 'residential units will only be constructed after 501000 square feet of commercial has been constructed. Further in this paragraph there `is, a comment' drawing from the Stu Patz Impact. Analysis suggesting that as a result of Staffs review of said analysis that` there, needs to be a proffered: guaranteed offset to address'hTipacts from residential uses. In point of fact; the multifamily residential uses ;per the Stu Patz report provide a positive economic impact to Frederick County and, therefore, the ,Applicant does, not understand the: suggestion -that there needs to be a guarantee to " offset ",said positive impact. 7. Staff has correctly pointed out that the tnix of development that is sought by the Applicant at the Heritage .Commons site has no specifics to it and that there is no guarantee to a. mix that will result in ,a "core /tower center. area." The commitment, however, is that there will be a. guaranteed mix of residential I and commercial within the land bays and as proffered. Whether they will be delivered in the form a "cone /town center area" is not. part of this proffer. Indeed, the Applicant is .leery of making such a commitment because those are not defined terms and ,may, in .fact; be subject to interpretation. The Applicant believes and submits that ,it is far better, therefore,, to proffer that within the Heritage Commons site there will be commercial and residential in close = proximity which will allow for an opportunity to live,. "work' and play in the same land'bay:, °8. We recei`ved`updated comments from Mr. Bishop and will. respond accordingly. 9. As we,.previously advised we hand - delivered and e- mailed revised Proffers to the agencies _that, were requested for supplemental comment by Planning on'September. 1,8., 201:4.. To date, we,.have; only received responses /comments from Parks & Recreation, Planning, Frederick County Public, Schools and Transportation. We have responded in writing to all departments. We will; of course, respond to. any other comments that maybe received from the other agencies. .,Eric. R ' Lawrence;, AICP, Director. Candice Perkins,; AICP, Senior Planner September'26, 20,14 Pa - '4 ge Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. If, after you have reviewed this le . tier, you have any other comments or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Very, rul rs, Tho as TM L.j k Enclosure Cc R 150 SPE, LLC Heritage Commons, LLC Candice.ftrkint Fro-.m7' Qandib-_ Perkins Sent: Wednesday; March 12, 2014 10:28AM' To:! Ism ith, Matthew,.P.,E (VIDOT)> iSubject: FW: Heritage Common f/k jb Russell 150', LC - VDOT :Comments to Rezoning 'Candice Perkins', A10 SehiorPlanner k,edetick,.,,County D_60,qrtmentiof Plzfhb.ina &Development 107 North Kent -Street V6nchesber, Virgiinia.226.01, ,(54Q) 665,f-565,1 (540) 665_6395, (fax -) c0&kim@ftva.us, wwwAcva.u& F�toft'FUnkNoUser, Rhonda (VUOT),,[M''ai[fO'-Ph-Ond6.r.dhkhouser(Cov-D(DT.Virdihi6.qo On Beh-allf'Of Ingram, Lloyd (VDOT) Sent Wbdnesday, Septernb& 18, 2013,329,PM "To6 t1awsbn(MspIc,com. Cc: John Bishop- Candice' Perkins,! Smith,- Matthew, P.E. (VD QT )r -'Bb derson,Uifton,'M-:(VD0T)!: Carter, Edwin,(VDOT) -,Subject:; Hedtage Cot-hMohs f/k/a; Russell 150, LC VDOT Cornmentsto Rezoning The docuffientation within the'; application 't6rezone this property nt-measurable ya appears have significant mpagton Ii- - Route Oute 5,22, This tbijte Js the ,VDOT roadway which has bee1i:c6b'sidered as the access to the 'properly referenced. YDOT. is, NOT sadsfied that the, trj4nsp'oFtaf•on proffers offered' 'in: 'fh6 Heritage Commons Rezoning ,App cation dated Septem-4er S, 2, 13 a'ddres's transportation_ con,cerns, associated with-this request: The `lack of detail irf th'is,rezoning request raise- sl numerous questicin's that'Will need, to be addressed. prior to VDOT,support ofthis'relzoning requests. I The ,request .fails.fo mon'tiori,howthe,pto--bsed-dOvelopniepttrip!gpqer,,ati'-On compares to -.the previous Russell - 150TIA, .2., There,is' not -a-6 !,road faei.1-ifies are to be jgaFA�,t�il (trip coUti-ts, 6rapprov d site'plans, etc.) to,wfig�p';' constructed: 3. The proposed bridge: over .'Interstate ,81,,sigftalsj as well a&,other on, -site /off -.site traffic facilities are, not ' cleartyA86rififiCcl.rAs Ij responsibil'i'ty ns-161fity of-the developer_. 4. Are.thexoadwa y -ty pical rqss�-se�c-ti'oa��,/V�ight,,-of-Way widths to -rem i as detailed n th& original Rus`S�611 , c WP 91 5. Cbnstrq,cte4Varr �ior-,,DfivOlneeds to beshown extended all the way to `the southern property lihe". Warrior, Drive is axfilk-a a t"_ _I part of the Frederick County Trans p ortatioii..,Pl'efh..Th e.doveloper could build it 'in ,phases, but itli''s,a re�guirement for the streets to be el'i'gible for aecep:tance Arito the Secondary System: I �,.6. The,location shown in Exhibit "A" for Warrior Drive would cause the most damage to the Buffalo Lick Run `�- wetlands when the road is. extended, as'it is, shown. crossing the widest section of the wetlands,. Z The current4Exhibit "A" lacks the detail's of how Land Bay VII & VIII are5 to access a public highway. 8. There is no mention of an inter- ,parcel..connections with the adjacent property owners /developments. -Thankyou for,the opportunity comment: Should you have any questions, feel free to contact.me. Lloyd,A. h7graty, Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation EdinbUrg'Reesidency — Land Developm ent '14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Phone #(540) 984 -5611 'Fax #(540) 984 -5607 2 Winchester Regional Airport Mall f*o: Wi6c fiesiciRe gional.A�.'ji Aitii'-. Exctutivb Dir6tt6-r- '49) Aiipprt ~Road Nvificli, , s - tcr,,Viijlnila 22602 (54Q),662-202 Hand deliver-to: NY'1116 sief,kbgiolla .1 Ali' oii, Altjl:: 'Excuitive'Direc* 49'1 Aii,-poyt,Road (Rt. 6 tii 11 ch, &S t e- J",,,Virginia - ----------- Xp P-JUa- ilt"TleAs 6111,061- thc;.info'r-'ma,ti'bfi,14,,§.accurateiv,',as p"os-s''isibih 6f&rilb -Ai4M, the Win6b6st6r . I ... . . i� . . I J RegionAl Airpqrt-,vvith, their: jA� -i'W, c 1 -1. At copy q you r• ap p, Icatl GO form, locatton;tnap, proffer q'anal other vertimentan brmation; ApplidAql'&Nain6: F"ed!*,Cq,u.ri!y- Center, .LLC: Tel' pp -I" n6 l, �(b4O)q6 -0050 �Q, Mailing Address- d6.-LiWisor and : il6k. f5k.'c 40 Royal _ opposite Rlbad. p -(Route ' 6 );anid -has .f o ntaJe.,on the eas-1 sie q)b�f oterstate- 8 1 CU RA. mnt,zoning: a9'.62Rp' Zoilifig f('que&ed- rv& Date -k j AA Mim i o Nbiiei-tb:,Winchestcr. Regional Airpori -'Please'Returnforn! twAp 11kant '30 1- R' �. VUI�ICHE,$TER 'R, %16.NAL,AIRP�RY 491:RIRPpRT READ: . save n�E "INCNE$Ttk,, VIRGINIA 22602, . `,TOYsOf YIAGNA , ` - i 544): 662 - 3786. ` O'ctober 10;.201'.3 Thomas. M. Lawson; Esquire'. Frederick County Center;. LL_C Past Office Box 2740 V1linchester, % irgima 2260:4 Ap Re:. Rezoning 'plicatign RA:' &' 521RF to R4. j Frederick County Center, LLC R 1!50 SPE; LLic Shawnee Magisterial Distract; Dear Mr:. Lawson: On hel'a)f-'of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority I haute reviewed the referenced proposed rezoning application and: offerthe foll'owi'ng °comments related to possible negative impacts bra existing and:future operations of the'Winchester,;Regional Airport; 1... `The request., ' change the current RP zoning to R4 � The proposal would "allow an increase in acreagefor resetal use frm roximately c p 4`0 d 1 seventy two.(72) aches. aa- ncrease, in the,currentrmaximurn allowance of rivo hundred ninety four. (294) townhomes, to nine hundred (900)' apartment units and one hundred (1.00;) townhomes • This parcel is located within close , ro imit , and immediately underthe traffic v, t. f p Y a Y pattern�o,f`Winche, ter °:Regional Airport.whi'ich is approximately-1;200'feet above :the ground,el`evaiion, Reside ntial.8eveiopmentadjacent to 10 r, under a fllght path•,used regularly by aircfaft 'they`arrmve or' apart the Vllmche star Airport is'subject to aircraft noise Property owners or to "Hants are likely to expenence aircraft noise from overflights of aii&ift entenrig or departing the,flight;pattems As , e.airport continues to expand servicesand operaUo9- interactions between aircraft operafions and rasitlentsare iikely<to increase To ensure that potential buyers aril tenants are made aware of the yairport s ex'stenee and aircraft noise and fly =over potential', the County should work with the developer to develop a proffer provision that it will.give,wirntten notice to future property owners :or pf. this potential. through a;disclosure statement as a c6yeriant,m their property deed�or statement ° ll This wbU& be co sisenEWith p�emious within'.the r re tae r requirements for residential zoning withm`:close.proximity oftfie airport: • Winchester Regional Airportis a vital, linkin. the =Natonal,Air Transportation System used {by private citizens, commercial, charter users oomrnercial'alrcraft, businesses and kid ustnes.throG0h'dUt the region to'transport-people9and goods;arountl'ttie. world The,syst&h of airports in}the�Commonwealth provides numercus.crftical. seraiieesAd enhance the ,! quality of life, tiealth, safety.,and °welfare of Virginia �citiiens :. Ttie Winehester`Re,gional A }rport has a,!, i and. significant; economic impact on our 6brnmunity a;nd we';continually�work towards;expanding its operations. 'The Virgmiay Department ofAviattoh 2Q11 Economic lmpact'Study shows that Winchester Regional Airport generated 168 fobs_ payroll of $5, 682 Qt)0 DO ;and economic activity of $22;538',000 00 tlurmg 2010:_ 0 R successful in our "verituies; we-need. citizen support, which is the reason fob our - oncerR_ regarding potential complaints about aircra`ft noise which could have a negailvel impact on the airport! twent`y46br operatioh- 2. The Airport Authoniy is berg concerned it ith tf e request`to modify Frederick- County zoning o(0inance gi�65 201 03 (B;) (6)_Height::Limitations increasing, the maximum allowable height'from sixty k(60} feef to e:ighty'(SGyfeet•. Because.;the parcel lies within the airports ,flight pattern-;and CFR' Part 77protected airspace su'rfa,ces and`close;proxlrtiity to tF e�extended;,centi&rlih6 :.of Run' y1'4132,. future developnien would `regwre;an airspace;study'in accordance with the Code o C.FR }gPa "rt` 7ection 15:2 2294`, and Title 1;4 of "the Codeof Federal Regulations (14 The prime, 6bjeetives of the. FAA areJ60p 6- ote air safety and the'efficient:use of the navigable airspace; To accomplish this aeronautical studies a're conducted` basedbh'inf&` btion.provided by,prop.orients on an FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. ' Determinati6h.6f, any: mpact to the navigable airspace of the Vllmchester:Regional. Airportby the proposed increase in.the max[iiiU i allowable.t eight fo eighfy'(80) feet cannot be established at this_ti". as7fhe need for,this increase has -nc't been. provided., The Airport _Authority encourages the developer to ubmit`thi's`iriformatior at -the Un a a specific;develop' rent pcoject'has been identified`.: The Winchester Regional,Airport Authority carinot support1high demsrty residential development within close proxirnify of the airport We also recogrnze the need to allow. progress withm the Countyjof Fi-ederick..and'the abillty for land owners to;propose whatuthey feel best fits (heir needs however we nhU!§ 'try to protect the future friability of the Winchester Regionz&Airport-. Thankyou- for;giving;'thrsyour oons�derataon and should you.have questions, p ease eontacfrny. office: -Sincerely; 'Serena R Manuel. .Executive Director` Cc PtAark!< Flynn,hW,RAA Leg' "al Counselor .'Chad Carper, FAAJINADO Scott Denny;;•VDOA. WINCH,E-$TER REQ10NA_L RPQR? 497 AIRPORT ROAD \�111YCIit STll3, VIWGINIA 22602 1'540) 662 -5786 Octpbef 10, 20.13 Thomas M. Lawson. Esquire Frederick County Center „'LLC Post Office "box 2740 Winchester, Virginia -22604 i Re: Rezoning Application— RA & B2 /RP to R4 Frederick Gounty Center; LLC I R' 150 SPE ; LLC Shamee Magisterial District i Dear Mr. Lawson: On behalf of the, Winchester Regional Airport Authority i' have; reviewed the referenced proposed rezoning application and offer the following comments related,to possible negative impadts.on.existing; and future oPe�ations.of the Winchester Regional Airport- 1, The request °to change the current RP zoning to R4:, -The proposafwuuld allow an increase in acreage for residential use from fifty -four (5'4) acres to approximately seventy -two (72). acre sand.an increase in the current maximumm allowance of two hundced ninety -four (294) towrihomes lo.nine'hundred (900) apartment units and one hundred (100) townhornes. e ' This parcel is located;within.close proximity and immediately under the-traffic pattern .of Winchester Regional Airport which is apprciximately 1, -200 feet above the ground:elevation. Residential developrpont�adjacentdo or` under >a flight path used regularly by aircraft as they'arrive :or depart the WincheMerAirport is subject to aircraft noise. Property owners or4onants,are likely: to experience aircraft noise from over flights of aircraft entering or departing,the flight patterns. As -the airport continues to, expand pervices and operationsjnteractions between`aircraft operations andlTesid'ents ar_e likely to- increase. 'To ensure'that potential buyers and tenants are .made aware of the airport's existence and aircraft noise and fly -over potential, the County should work with the developer to develop a, proffer provision that'ltwill give written notice to future property owners or tenants,otthis potential through a:disclosure statement:as a covenant in their property deed orstatement, within their rental lease agreement. This would be consistent with. previous requirements for residentlaizoning;Within close proximity of the airport. •. Winchester Regional Airport:is a vital link in the National Air Transportation System used by.priv.ate.citizens, comrrnercial, charier users, commercial aircraft; businesses and industries throughout the region to transport people and goods ;around the world. Thus }tstem of airports inthe Commonwealth provides numerous critical services' o; enhance-the 'quality of life, he'alth,'safety and welfare�cf Virginia citizens. • ' The Winchester Regional'.Aiiport,has a direct,and significant economiclimpact°on our community,and we cox tinualtyWoek towards expanding its,operatioi s. The Virginia Departmeint of Aviation 201.1: Econom €c IM11Pact Siudy shdM that Winchester Reg€onaf Arrport,,generated 168 fobs, payroll df $5,882,00000 and $22,538;pt7t5.00'during.20E1t] 7io be successful in out'ventures, economic actruity of yve negd citizen support which, rs, the reason°for our concern regarding, potential complaints about aircraft? noise=which icou ld have a ;negative `impact on I e- airpoif`s twentyfou "r apiration: 2.` TheQAirport LLAuthor tyIis,very concerned with the- request, to' modify Frederick;OOun y zoning ordinance §1165,201.1)3 (B;) (6,.) Height Limiiaticns `increasing the rmaximun, allow' able height from siXYy (fi0lMeet`to eighty.(80} feet • Because the parcel lies withinI the airports flight pattern and CFR.Part 77 protected; a rspace surfaces and close proximity, to the'extended centerline of Runway 14x32,_ future d;evelopmenl(s} would _require antairspace study in accordance with the Code of Virgiciia, S.ectiori `9:5.2 2294, and Title 14 6Pthe Code of Federal: RegUlations (;14 i `GFR) Part 77: " • The prime objeet€ves of;lhe FAA are to promo a a€r safeiy and'the efficient;use of the,nayigable airspace To accomplish =this aeronautical'"studies',.are conducted based on information provided by, proponents oman FAA'Forn`i 74'6,o =1'; Notice of Proposed Construction'>or. Alteration: Deterrn'inatib ' f anyi l pact'to the nav€g_a'ble: a€rspace of the Win chiesfer:Regiona[ Airport by'the proposed increase in'the�maximyrn allowable,height`to eighty, (80) :feet cannot b6 estaiblisi ed: at this time as the; need f'or this'i;ocrease has;not: been provided. The Airport,Auti,ority encourages`,the.daveloper to tuba it'this infomiation h at;the tinle a speclficdevEloprnent project has beeniitentified. The'1linchesier Reg€onatlrrpo`rtAuihority cannot suppoif I }ighensityiresideiaiial deeioprient Within close °,proximity of h_e airpgrE: �AJe also'riscpgnize fhe need`to allgw progress'A . in the County of Frederick and;th;e ability for land owners to propose -what they. feel'best.fiis`their needs howReVer we,must tr„y, to protect.therfuture: viabilityof'the Winchdster Regional Airport. l Thank youfor giving this your consideratian:and`,should you,fave questions please °contact my offii.ce;.. kU _ = Snicerely; - Serena R. Manuel _ ExecUtide °Direct'or' Cc Mark K. Flynn 'W.RAA Legal Counselor Chad!Ca roe r,, FAAi' VAD4 �coii Denny,VDOA Thomas, Moore Lawson; Esq. 'September 20 2013 Page: 2 SP.E, LLC will need to execute a power of attorney granting such' authority to °Frederick County Center; LLC. Furthermore, unless an, employee, officer, or member of Frederick County Center, LLC. ,is going: to. represent the interests „of, Frederick County Center, LLC, in which case Frederick County Center, LLC will need to identify such person and their capacity, Frederick County`Center, LLC will need to- execute .a power of attorney granting such4authority-to -any representative other than an employee, officer, or member of Frederick County Center; LLC. 2 Beneficial ownership - disclosure County*Code "'§ 165 = 101:09; °as authorized by Va. Code 1'5.2 =2289, requires "a complete disclosure of ownership or parties in interest of.real esf ate for which the application has Peen made" ' -For R 150:SPE, LLC; as a iimzted liability company,'th is E would be the names and addresses of members; officers; grid any directors; and.the '9 -e' for the !. make up of each of its memlaers wh ch'tl emselves are entities other than d:bublicly traded corporation with more 500''sharel olders: SeeNa: Code § 15.2 =2289. q ty § (B), as-au 3 Delon uenttaxes Coun Code 165= 102.02 thorized by Va- Code, §' 15 2 2286 B), xe uires a rezomn a Ii- ion fo include roof that all Count ro `rt taxes are aid ()1 g PP p y p Pe y p arid that no delinquerittaxes are outstanding :: The`CoVhV Treasurer's feddids show that regular real roe taxes for the Pro a are'deliii uent back to 2011 Jn addition; althou I do p. P rtY P rty . q: - uriderstand that the CbA;assessments areahe� subjectofbngoirig diseussior s,�the.Couniy . Treasurer's records also show that those faxes are delinquent :back to 2009.:`R:150 sPE, LLC must:pay all_applicable- delinquent taxes before the County niay consider any rezoning application for the Property end' Proffer statement”, "Ongir al ;Date of Proffers ", and "Revision 17ate s " — I �) have pulled °a copy of the proffer statemeint' currently in force for the Property` -aid note that the Proffer Statement is iri.no way based upon'the proffer'statement;currently in,* force: In addition, the proposed rezoning doe-s,not propose•to-keep or maintain any of the - current'zoning ` classifications (primarily RP acid B2), but instead proposes R4 zoning, for`the entirety of the Property, a zoning`classification wlich the Property has.never had. 'Accordingly.it is inapprgpriate`to designate the Proffer Statement`as an "Amended Proffer Statement" or to show' the "Original Date of Proffers" as'being in 2005, or'any "Revision Dates)" Deletion of `the word "Amended", and of tle'01 -05_ number'`is appropriate; listing of September' 5, 201°3 instead as the On nal` Dateiof -Proff_ers is approp " gi Hate.. . 5 , 'Executive Summary —1g sentence— Proffer statements themselves , customanly mclude only specificfuture commitments with respect td the subject property and, as such, do not customarily and in fact' have no reason to recite the zoning history of the subbed property. Accordingly, the first sentence is completely unnecessary surplusage and should be deleted. Thomas° Moore Lawson, Esq. September 20, 2013 Page 3 _ 6. Executive Summary 1 st paragraph, last sentence = The timing commitment in this sentence,'that'proffered improvements "shall be provided atlhelirrie of:devel'opment of that portion,of 'the !site adjacent to the improvement ", renders the Proffer Statement inappropriately vague..Does "time of,development meanprior'to site`plaii,:prior to building permit, prior to ..o orsomething else? Not only does this vagueness- substantially; limit the eff cagy of staff review of `the' ProfferStatement, but it would :alk present a myriad of potentially significant interpretation problemsas ,the.Property'develops: Proffer 1 — County Code § 1'65 - 501.06(0) provides; in pertinent part; "An "applicant may request as part of ar' application for rezoning;to -the R4 -District that a'modification to specific requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, this chapter or other requirements of the Frederick County '.C` e applicable to :physical development be granted." Therefore; this proffer could simply state; "Pursuant to County Code § 165 501 O6(0), the design.modincAtions set forth in Exhibit B shall apply to the Property " The len e of hrs,profer n particular that of the paragraph following A and B,; is unnecessary and unclear:: If there is 'an actual need for the concluding paragraph ;then.it ,,needs to be simplified down to perhaps.a singie'senten' _ - :With respect to the particular design- modifications proposed,'the following comments are in order • Modification 1. §'1,65 `501.02 :Rezoning procedure'- While the Proffer Statement . proffers reasons for :waiving, the requirement:of'a master development plan to be , submitted with the,Ptoffer Statement;ahe proposedmodificafion lacks specificity` with . respect to recisel when ari master develo went Ian s would be' rovided.: itmr t `. p y y.. P p O p. be a ro riate`to -state that a master develo merit lan would be . rovided for a; articular` PP. P p- p P P d p isuce lanba o of any permits: for work on that land bay o IVlodification #4 § 165 :50 .06(D) Commercial and`mdustrial' areas The proposed alternative standard''states that "industrial uses should.': not [be] allouved' ; but' does'not indicate exactly which uses /zoriing`district uses would not be allowed, namely wfiether this rs "ust uses ur the Ml District' 'or also'those in the B,3 District or.some subsef(s) of one or both of those districts.:Also, the proffer would do well to replace the word "should" • Modifi cation' #8 § :1.65 501.06(M) `Phasing 'Please see the comment for staffm 'number;9 below, regarding the effect of,no phasing for this development T also note that 165: (3) indicates that' a "reasonable balance shall be maintained between residential and nonresidential uses" arid`that; With'the'proposed deletion ofthis requirement;,the Proffer Statement therefore irnpliedly ebncedes-'that the�absence of any phasmg:mearisIthere is no assurance that the balance would be reasonable: Modification #10 -- § 165- 4;02.09(J)(DL) — Multifamily residential; buildings This' modification, and the, Proffer Statement ih other places, refers to residentill and' :commercial uses being contained in the same buildings in some instances; but the Proffer Thomas ;Moore Lawson, Esq. Se e, mbev20, 2013 Page, 4 Statement does not include any actual proposed design modification to this. effect, with design standards for carrying oasuch a concept. 8. Proffier22 A 1. =This roffar identifies,certain,housin )O p g types s�rigle- fatriily attached; multi - family, gated single-family attached; and gated multi - family that the Property `.,`may' . iziclude ": ; Some of the: housingitype°terms do not appear in the County Code.:To prevent any ambiguities, a best'practice would-be for this proffer to use only4hose terms contained* in County Code '§ 165-4k.09..'-. Alsoj;,.by use of the erm° "niay include"; this proffer is ainbigu10us as to whether it prohibits other housuig ;types <that the County Code othervinse `allows in RP`zoning {vTlucli tfie R4 zoning follows for'residei` uses) If other liousingaypes are to`be prohibited; then this proffer should so state If other hoiisu g types are not to b e-pro hibited, `then there is no purpose °.for the inclusion ofProffer 2(A)(f as, it has no effect. 9:> Proffer 3 The purpose of a_proffer statement is'to state the obligations to iie imposed upon the property being rezoned Prod& 3 states no obligations .If the desire of the Owner and/or the Applicant is to nclude�a paragraph`regari i capital facility impacts, the paragraph; . should simply 'state, "Owner makes no monetary °proffers to :address`any Couhty`caprtal:facilities impacts:" Also ;.staff should be aware that the Proffer °Statement does,notrequire any phasing of the development and; therefore, :the entirety of the residential .portion of the :Property (1 ;200 units) could be constructed and occupied; with° the -full effect of its ampacts'felt, before any square footage of.business, commercial, office, and/or retail development is constructed or occupied; to,offset any portion of the residential impacts.. Along these liries;.staff may further wish to consider the following general factors '(as well as more specific factors'riot discussed here) .with respect.to the Impact:Analysis Statetrient ( "IAS "} accompanying?the Proffer Statement: - • .:The IAS's assumption as to the total number of housing units (1;000) is flawed, as Proffer 2(C) would :permit as rriariy as 1 ;2OO:housmg units , P r. q . s :.The JAS assumes develo merit of 454 ;000 s care feet`of taxable office space on.. e Property, vv�thin a 15 build, outperiod By way of comparison -according tpxe ' tax:records' among si "..,f nt`office buildings in Frederick County are the . property g g FEMA bffice�buildi' g on th6 Rutherford site, with approximately 160,000 square feet; ... and the Trex office _burldirg on Exeter Drive, with approximmately 60 ;000`square':feet.. . Therefore, .for the assumption to hold`true; Frederick - Countywould need'to add the .. equivalerit'of two FEMA buildings and two Trex buildings; on the Property alone; in a 15 o With:e's ct t o ce " pe stain pupil data, ahe IAA states this is "based on data from site managers at better dpartrnentprojects ". This is wholly'inadequate as a data source citation. Thomas Moore :Lawson,. Esq. Se ,ptember 20,201:`3 Page S • The IAS- cites S. Patz;:& Associates; Inc as a source,,but °generally does no"t:rd'entify published or industry sources, upon which S. Patz &Associate "s, Inc.: "relied. The total Count FV 14 non ;schools budget -is $82,780;460. 'see attached'- $52,86 ®." y _ { 9,263 ' plus $29,9`l,1,i91), and.not $5,7;610,9,35 ^::Also; the application ofthe 69.8% "Percent Tax g P Burden" to reduce�the bud et amount •inahe �IAS is unex lamed .Taken `these two factors together, the ,costs are in, fact slightly more than'twice ($82,780,460`versus. $46 44 367),the assumption in the IAS. • ±: T1Se total County FY 14 schools ;budget, is "$1,64;892,404, an not $75;353 ;4.72. Again; discre P anc m ma nide of over tofo lu '- d • : If not already'provided fors Patz &Associates; >Inc, curncula vitae _for key personnel and waist of key engagements and'expert°testarziony given would be appropriate; as S Patz &Associates appears to have no website or: any other, readily 'ascertainable credentials to suggest_ a reasonable:basis' for reliance' oAJts report 10 Proffer 4 The second sentence does,notstate an obligation of the Owner and therefore" rs;rna ro mate for inclusion in the coffer and should b_e deleted T Pp p p i1e °Hurd sentence purports to obIr ate the County tomenter g` gr nt The'Board of Supervisors g, nto a VDOT revenue sharin a Berne . does not:have;tle authority to commit to a future:'affirtrative act in he context of a proffer statement and, therefore, the sentence should be deleted: Withth6J eletiori ,the third sentence; ,lie fourth sentence might best read,. "Owner agrees to�participate�m one or more VD OT revenue :. shanng'agreements for the fundin 6h 'A desi and the fundin of`the installation of.the road g network ;' 'which-,shall be in, substantial conformance with the designs _set forth in Exhibit"'A " I L Proffer 6 The f rst two sentences do not, 'any obligations beyond ,any existing ordznat ce obligations and; as such; are not appropriate "for, inclusion in approffer statemdrit Also- whether the County desires'to accept dedication''of the`trail easements questionable. Ordinarily, tlieaapplcable'; "property owners' associatiozi(s} owns trail facilities vi` °fee,simple acid maintains such facilities "In ties regard, the concept'of the trail ,being held as only an easement also rases the further questions of who':would' 'old the fee simple'interest in the'property subject to' the easement and whytliey would wish; to maintain that fee supple interest 12 Proffer 7 This roller is na ro Hate as` rt does not rovid p pp p p e for what would be considered adequate nottce:for purposes of maridatory'reviews under" va :Code § 1 2 2232 " SpecLfically;, °at present,. the Proffer Statement its 'lf.ideritifies only the trail as :a public facility:.. Section, °15 2 2232 requires_, "unless a feature' " ° is already shown on the adopted roaster plan or part thereof or is deemed soundersubsection D no street orsconnection to an=ex'istrrig street; Park or :other publre' Area , °pubhc;buildirigor, publc°structure;... wh_ether',publicly or privately owned, shall be constructed estatlishedor authorized; U01 -unfit until the general location or approximate location, character ,'and,extent°thereof has been submitted to and, approyed`by the School System, 66.3 s FY 2013 -2014 Total County Expenditures $247,6729864 Government Admin.; 21.2% [.Jail,, 7.2 % 1,3..4% vices, 0.2 %. and, 0.3% 3% County of Frederick, VA 11 FY 2013- 2014 2011 -12 :2011 -12 201.2`13 2012 -1'3 201 1;4 '/0 of Total Couniy�Expenditures Budgeted Actual Budgeted 1 stimated Adopted Total General Government Administration 7,817;698 7,791;083 7,890,635 8,599;585 8;348,432 3.4 % Judicial Administration 2,022;788 1;909,677 1,940020 1,961,826 2,124;752 :86% Public Safety 1'9;814;667 19,920,1 '26 19,4 ,14,037 20,636;884 20,713,355 8.4 .% Public Works 3,995,895 3,518,554 3,955,055 3,405;082, 3;940;814 1.6% Healtli /Welfare 7;228;685 6,696,169 7,058;184 6;411, i 08 6,935,132 2.8 % Community College -56,493 56,493 56 ;493 56;493 56,493 .02% Parks, Recreation.& Cultural 4;972;994 4,9f8,974 4;929y830' 4,600;909 5,107;445 2.1% Community Developmeni 1,782,527 1,680,290 1;753,697 1,676;928 1,818,346 .73 % Miscellaneous 3,123,638 3,788,710 4,162,773 4;162_;773 3,824,494 1.5% Subtotal 50,822,385 50,274,076 51,161;324 .51,511;588 52;869263 21.3% Other Funds Regional Jail 16,425,072 .16,2971267 17,380;185 17,339,696 18,415;374 7.4% Landfill 8,307,530 5,903,595 8;226,180 7,739,551 6,626,620 2 -.7% Division U,CourVServici S 1,107,584 ' 1,375;528 588;809 547,157 600 ;489, .24% Shawneeland;Sanitary Disirict 777,700 522,105 766,702 867,622 849;550 .34% Airport Operating 3,1`59,728 1;833,270 3,159,728 1,798,932 2,298;838 .93 %: Lake:Holiday Saiuta`ry District 0 0 0 0 1,1204326 .45 % Subtotal 29,777,;614 25,931,765 30,621,604 28,292,958 29911; =_1;97 12.1% School - System Scbool.Funds- 1,40;91`7 }763 1.35,637,621 145,593,962 152,103,660 ;1-51,020;3;43 61.0 % Debt Service Fund 13;7.11;078 13,837,559 13,951,052 13,951,052 13,8721,061 5.6% Subtotal 154;628;841 149,475;180 .159,545,014 1-66,054,712 1.64,892 404 66.6% Total Expenditures *' 235,228,840 225,681,021 240,827,942 245,859,258 247,672,864 100.0 % *Excludes transfers County of Frederick, VA 11 FY 2013- 2014 0'.., Thomas;:Moore Lawson, Esq. September 20,'2013 ,Page:2 • SPE'- LLC. will need to execute a power of attorney granting si eh authority to. Frederick-County Center; LLC. Furthermore, unless an-employee, officer, or member of Frederick- County Center„ LLC is going to represent the interests of Frederick County Center, LLC, in which.case Frederick County Center, LLC will need todd'entify.such person and their capacity, Frederick County Center, LLC will •need to execute a power of attorney granting such authorityto any :representative other than ,ai .employee, officer, or member of Frederick County,Center; LLC. 2 ::Beneficial ownership disclosure = County Code § 165=101.09 s'authorized by Va Code 1'5.2 2289 requires "a complete:disclosure of ownership'or parties in interest- of real estate for which °the application has -been made `. For R 150 SPE,: LLC; as a-limited liability'company'.this would -tie the na' mes'and,addresses of members; officers; and any directors; and`the same'for the make -up of each of its members whichtheiri elves are eAtities'othefthan a'publicly traded corporation'wth more 500 shareholders:: See Va Code § 1:5,2 -2289: 3.. :Delin uenitaxes - Coun Code ;165-142 02 ty § (B), as authorized >yVa Code § t5.2- 2286(B), _requires a rezoning application to include proof that all Co u- ty.propertytaxes are paid ` and that no delinquent taxes are outstanding , The County Treasurer's records show�that regular `realproperty taxes for the Property are delinquent Back to 2011 In -addition, altlioug}i;I do . understand that the:C1)A assessments are'th& :su ectofongomg- discussions, the County Treasurer's records also'' show that those taxes are delinquent-back to 2009.;:A450 SPE, LLC must-pay all applicable delinquent taxes before the County`rnay Cons" ider�any rezoning application for the Pro * t r 1. Y 4 "Amended Proffer Statement ", ..Original Date''of Proffers "� and Revision Date(s)" = I h64p-ulled a copy 'of the `Proffer stAtemeirr currently iii force,for the:Property and note that the Proffer Statement is in no Way based upon the proffer statement, currently in fo ice. n addition, ` the'psed rezoning do: notopo t kep or. maintain "of the 6u rent `zoning classifications (primarily`RP and B2), but instead proposes R4 zoning forthe entirety of the Property; a zoning classification which the Propertyhas never had 'Accordingly it is ,inappropriate :to designate the Pro ffer'Statement'as an"Ainended Pf6ffer'Statenient" Of to show the "Or inal:.Date`of Proffers" as bem "in 2005 or`an ' "Revision Date s Deletion of the g g Y i) word'.. "Amended" and of the 0' 1 =05 number is appropriate; listing of September 5, 201'3 instead as the "Original Date 4 Proffers" naappropriate. S Executive Summary — lS` sentence — Proffer statements themselves`customarily`inclWe only specr is future ,commitments with respeot to the subject property arid, as such, do'not• customarily, and in fact;have no reason to recite thezoning history of the subject property. Accordin 1 the fii g y, ist sentence. is completely unnecessary surplusage and should be deleted.. Thomas° Moore Lawson, Esq. September-,20, 20:13 Page 3 6: Executive Summary T 1St` paragraph;. last sentence -=`The tirniiig commitment in this sentence, thatproffered improvements "shall be provided atthe ;time of development of that portion of the.site adjacent,to the iinprove.ment", renders1he Proffer Statementinappropriately Vague. 'Does `Iime;of develo pment mean prior to site.plan,:pnor to building'permit, prior to occupancy permit, or something;else? ;Not only does this va gueness "substantially limit the efficacy of staff- review of the Proffer State ent, but it would also present .a myriad of potentially signif cant interpretation problems,* as the Property develops 7 Proffer 1-County Code § 65- 501.06(0) provides, ri °pertinent part, "An "applicant may request as part of an; application,for rezoning.tolhe R4 District that a`modification -to specific requirements of the 'Subdivision Ordinance, this chapter or other requirements of the Frederick County'Code applicable to;physical development be granted: ", Therefore, this proffer could simply state, "Pursuant to County Code § ,165 50;1 06(0), the design modif cations set forth m Exhibit B sh all apply`to the Property " The lengthy language of this proffer; mparticular that of the paragraph following A and.B is unnecessary and unclear: = Ifthere is ari actual need for the g P P concludin , a h:then it needs to be'simplfied downi to perhaps a single sentence With respect to the particular design modifications proposed, he following comments are in'order:.: ® 1Vlodifi cation A , =,165 -501 02 Rezoning procedure While the Proffer Statement proffers reasons for waiving the requirement ofa master development plan to be submitted with the Proffer °Statement the proposed _modificafion°lacka- specificity with respect -to preciselyWhen-'anymaster development plari(s) would beprovi'ded::It might be appropriate to*, state' theta master development plan:w .b6' provided for a:particular and bay prior to issuance of any*permits for work on that land bay • , Modification #4 § 165= 5.0'4.06(D) ..Comme "rcial and Industrial areas The proposed alteri ative'standar I statesaflat "industrial uses :should :.not [be] allowed ", but'does'not indicate exactly which uses /zoning district uses .would not be allowed, namely whether .this °is j xst uses-,u :the Ml :Districtbr als6 ose-in the B3 District or some subset(s) of one or. both of those distric#s :Also;'#he proffer would do well to replace the word "should " : • ` Modification #8 — § 1-65;501 M(M) Phasing Please seethe comment for staff in ` number 9 below regarding1he °effec# of no phasingfor`. is development I'also note that - § 165= 50106(1V>)(3); indicates tliat.a `.`reasonable balance shall be maintained between residential Wand nonresidential uses" and that;; With theproposed del "etioil of this requirement; >the Proffen Statement therefore impliedly concedes that the absence of any phasing means there,is no assurance thatthe balance would be reasonable: - • Nlodifcaton #10 — §;165402.09(J)(Dl) — Multifamily residential buildings = This modification, and the Proffer Statement in other places, refers to residential and commercial uses being contained in the same buildings in.some instances, but the Proffer Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq:, September-20,,2013 Pager4 Statement does not include anyactual proposed design modification to this effect, with design standards for carrying out- such a concept. 8 roffer 2(A)(l:) -This proffer identifies certain housing types; .single fatriily attached; multi family, gated single-family :attached, and gated multi- farriily. —that the Property `.`may include Some of the housing t yp e terms do not- appear in the County Code :To prevent-any ambiguities, ai, best practice would be forthis,proffer,to use onlythose terms cdntained,;in County Code § 165-400'.00. Also; by use';of the' term "may include "; this proffer is ambiguous as to Whether it prohibits'other housing types.that the County Code`therwise'allovvs in RP zoning (which the R4 zoning `follows for residential uses) If other housing types are to be prohibited, then this "proffershould so state If otherlousmg types are riot to be prohibited, then there is <no purpose for tkie'inclusion of,Proffer A has! effect: 9: Proffer. 3 The ose of ao- roller state pure p merit rs to state the obligations to be imposed upon the property being rezoned ;Proffer 3 states no obligations If the desire 9f the Owner and/or the Applicant.:is to iricliude�a`paragraph regarding capital facility impacts; the paragraph; should simply state, "Owner;makes no monetary proffers to a dd ress any County capital facilities impacts: ". Also; staff should`bp:Aware that the Proffer Statement does not,require'any phasmg`of . the development and; therefore,ahe entirety of the residentia: portion of the`Propety (1';200 units) could be constructed -and occupied;' �nth°the foil effect of its impactsTfelt Before 'any square footage of business; commercial "; office ;;and7or retail development'is constructed or occupied; to offset any portion of the residential impacts Along these lines, staff may further wish 'to consider the following general .factors ,(as welt as more specific factors not discussed here :with res p eet 10 the Im P act Analysis Statement ( IAS ) accompanying-the Proffer Y. Statement: :. . • The IAS's assumption asYto the total number of:housing u niis'(1;00.0) is'flawed, as :Proffer 2(C) would'pernut as many:as :1200 housinguiuts s The IAS assumes'development:of;450000 square-' feef of taxable office space on `the Property,:within a .15 year build oaf : period: By way of coinpanson; according to real property tax record - :among significant office buildings in Frederick County are the FEMA °ioffic-e building on th&Rutherford site; with approximately 160 ;000 :square feet; .. . and the: Trex officebuildug on Exeter, Drive, with approximately 60,000 square :feet. . Therefore, for. the "assumption to hol *ti ue, Frederick County would need, to add the equivalent o. f two`f EMA'biuldings and two Trex buildings;,on the Property alone, in.a 15 . year 'penod. ; respect::fo certainFpupil data, ahe IAS states thisls "based on data from site managers at better apartment projects ". This is. inadequate as,a data source citation. r Thomas Moore Lawson; Esq. ,September 20,, 2013 Page 5 'o The IAS cites S. Patz :. &,Associates, It c. as a source; bufgenerally, does'not identify, published or industry sources upon'which S. Patz & Associates, Inc. relied. ® .. Thd1otal County fY14-:non- schools budget is -$92,790 ,*46Q,(see attached ;- $52,869,263 plus $29,911;197), and not $57,670,935 .Also,.the application of the 69.8 % "Percent Tax Burden" to reduce the, budget amount in the IAS is unexplained: Taking these two" factors together; the in'factrsl gl tly more than twice ($82,780,460 versus $4:0, 244 367) the'assumgtion in the'IAS..., ® The total CounWVY14 schools budget is $164;892;404, and not $75,353;472 Again, a discrepancy in_magnitude.of over °twofold ® `. If not'already provided for S Patz & Associates Inc;:curncula vitae for`key'pe.rsonnel : and a.list of key engagements and expert testirrlony ;given would be 'appropriate; as S Patz'& Associates'appears to have no website`or any other readily ascertainable : - .credentials to suggest a,reasonable basis for reliance on its report..'. 10 Proffer:4 The: so cond sentence does not state an.oblig&i6ii of the'Own and .tl ere fore is inappropriate for inclusion in the proffer aril should be deleted .The third sentence purports to obligate the C6untyao enterInto a.VDOTreveriue sharing agreement The:Board of Supervisors does not have the authority to commit fo a`future affirriativegact in the context of a proffer statement and, therefore, thesentence should be deleted. With the deletion .of the third`senterice, 6 . gr p 'p. `• the fourth sentence mi t best read; "Owner a ees to artici ate in one or more VDOT 'revenue shanng agreements forthe funding of the design`_and the funding of the installation of the road network; which shall °be m substantial conformance with the desFgris :set :forth in - Exhibit A " 11 Proffer 6 The fast two sentences do not state any obligations beyond any existing ordinance obligatioris and, -as, such; ;are not appropriate 'for inclusion °in a proffer statement : Also, whether the County desires to accept dedication of the trail easement is questionable Ordinarily, the applicable "property owners' associauon(s) owns trail facilities m fee; simple and maintauis such facilities:;: In this regard, the concept'of the ;trail tieing Held as` :only ari easement also raises the'further questions of Who . would °hold the fee simple interest in the property subjectto the easement and;why they would :wish to r iaintain that fee simple interest 12 Proffer 7 This proffer is nappropnate, as it does not provide for what would be " considered adequate notice for purposes of, maridatoryreviews under Va ':Code 2232 Specifically;` atpresent, the Proffer Statement itself identifies only the trail as a public facility: q y p Section 15.2 -2232 re wires; :"unless�a feature already shown onthe ado ted:master`planor part'thereof or is.deemed;soundersubse'ction.D, no street or connection`to an existing street, park or other public area, public buildhig or public structure,...::.. whether: publicly or pri�afely owned, shall tie constructed established or authorized, unless and- until the general location or •approximate °location, character, and extent-thereof has been submitted to and approved by the School System, 66 FY 2013 =2014 Totai 'Co.unty Expenditures $2479672:9,864 Government Admin., 21.2 % Total County Expenditures General Government Administration Judicial Administration Public Safety Public Works Health /Welfare Cormunity College Parks, Recreation & Cultural Community Develop_ ment Miscellaneous Subtotal I Other Funds Regional.Jail Landfill Division of Court Services - Shawnee land Sanitary District Airport Operating Lake Holi day �Sanitary District Subtotal School. System School "Funds' bebfService. Fund' Subtotal Total Expenditures* *E'xcludesstransfen 2011,-12 MI M 2 2012 - -13 2012 =13. Budgeted- Actual Budgeted Estimated onal Jail, 7.2% ndfill, 3.4% Services, 0.2% �neeland, 0.3% )., 1.3% % of Total 7;817,698' 7,791;083 7""890,635 815991585 8,348,432 3.4% 2,029,788 1;909,67,7 1,940;620 1,961;826 2,124,752 .86% 19;8'14;667 19,920,426 19,4,14,037 20,636;884 20;713,355 8.4% 3,995;895 3,518,554 3;955;055 3;405;082 3,940,814 1.6% -7,;228,685 6,690,169 7;058,184 6,4.1.1, 108 6;935,132 2.8% 56,493 56,493 56;493 56,493 56,493 .02% 4,972,994 4,918,974 4;929;830 4',600;909 .5,107,445 2.1% 1,782' 527 1,680,290 1,753,697 1,676,928 1,818,346 .73 %. 3, Id 3,788,710 4,162,773 4,1 "62,773 3,824,494 1.5 % 50;822;385 -50,274,076 51;161,324 51,511;588 52 869;263 21.3% 16,425,,072: 16,297,267 17,380,185 17,339,696 18,415,374 7.4% 8,307,530 5,'903,595 8;226,180 7,739;551. 6,626;620 2.7 % 1;107,;5 84 1,375,528 588,809 547;157 600;489 .24% 777,700 522;105 766,702 867,622 8491550 ,34% 3;159,728 1,833,270 3,159;728 1,798,932 2,298;838 .93% 0 0 0 0 1,120,326 .45% 29,777,614 25,931,765 .30,121,604 28,292,958 29,91,1,197 12.1% 140,917,763 135,637,621 145;593,962 152,103,660 151,020;343 61:0 % 13,711,078 13,837;559 13;951,052 13,951,052 13,872,061 5 .60/. 1'54,628,841 149,475;180 159,545,014 166,054,712 1;64,892;404 66:6% 235,228,840 225,681,021 240,827,942 245;859,258 247,672864 100.0% County of Frederick, VA 1 FY 2013- 2014 Candice Perkins From: Funkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT);[ Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT,Virgina.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd (VDOT) [ Lloyd.Ingram @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday,, September 18, 20.13 2:24 PM To: tlawson'@Isplc.com Cc: John Bishop; Candice Perkins;. Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT); Balderson,. Clifton M. (VDOT); Carter, Edwin (VDOT); Ingram, Lloyd (VDOT) Subject: - Frederick County'Center, LLC -'VDOT Comments to Rezoning The documentation within the application, to rezone thi's property appears to have significant measurable impact on, Route 522. This route ;is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as. the access to the property referenced. VDOT is NOT satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Frederick County Center, LLC Rezoning Application dated September 5,, 2013. address transportation concerns associated with this 'request The Jack of detail in this rezoning request ;raises numerous questions that will need to be addressed prior to VDOT support of this rezoning request: 1. The request fails to mention how the proposed 'developmen.t trip generation compares to the previous Russell 150 TIA. 2.. There is not a clear detail (trip counts or approved site plans, etc.) as to when road facilities are to be constructed. 3. The proposed bridge over Interstate 81, signals, as well as other on -site /off -site traffic facilities are not clearly identified as being a responsibility-of the. developer. 4. Are the roadway typical cross - sections /right -of =way widths to remain as detailed in the original Russell 150 M -DP ? 5. Constructed Warrior Drive needs to be shown extended;all the'way to the southern property line. Warrior Drive is,a critical part of the Frederick County Transportation Plan. The developer could build it in phases, but it is a requirement for the streets to be eligible for.acceptance into the Secondary System. 6: The location shown in Exhibit "A" for Warrior Drive would cause the most. damage to the Buffalo Lick Run wetlands when. the.road. is extended as it is shown crossing the widest section of-th�e wetlands. 7. The current Exhibit " A" lacks:the. details of -:how Land Bay VlI & VIII .are to laccess a public highway. 8. There is no mention of an inter- parcel connections with the, adjacent property owners/, developments. Thank you for the, opportunity comment. Should you have any questions, feel. free to contact rne. LloydA. Ingrain; Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency. - Land pevelopment T403T O ld Valley, Pike Edinburg,, Virgina 22824' Phone 4(540) 984 -5611 Fax *540) 984=5607 13 September 16,204 3 Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire, RO Rok,_2740 Winchester, VA 22604 'COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of , Mrminitand .'Development 5401665-a5651 FAX: 54W665-63915 RE: RezoWhgAppjieat!on for Frederi&,CountyCenter,, LLC Dear Mr. Lawson: Thank. you .for- the Qpportu-nity1d, comment on your recently submitted Frederi6k County Center, LLC rezoning on 1he -properfy-fonnerly-, known as.Rassell 150. Please consider the comments that follow: 1. The new proffer language, appears to: Offer no triggers for; realizing the trAns�*por-.t'atiOil�ifh-otdveriietits relative toAevelopnient. I.; The language of the neW proffers leans heavily on, the Generafized Development Plan (GDP)to, jive detdil's,of thero wwayproffets.- However, the GDP itself riot - 1� (GDP) , , I . , '._ 1 -40 ' . d'etdiled-ehough -regarding. lane, wnfi fatibrfs and entrance -improvements such as the I -81 gil Bridge and, the intersection of"Airport Road., and. Route 522 to ful"fill' the . task. I'd ,not question tliat, the- 'intention, is there, but more detail ,is needed to protect the County:, These r items should be specifically addressed in the written, lari age"for the sake!6fclarity: 3. The he prqffers, contain no,'mention. of 'responsibility, fovthe bridge F over 1-84. 4. 'The, pr6ff&s d6 riot address ,the -signalization of Airport Road. at Route 522. 16. Road Wdmoy.Dnve to, th =e: south 4's, not addressed. This .is Eastern R Plan - roadw . 'I w 6iiI4 suggest phasing it in triggered, by deVelo pmen,o f land bays'VII; �and "VIII; 'This. could'h.e,, another potential revenue. s h anngproject. 6., 'Incl'us'iijh,of b-i'cycle,,Ahd'pedesttiAh,fac-ilitie8albiig,th6lroad.ways !is:addresse ifithe. reereatibnal. amenities, section. Facilities along, roadways ,are co Iq sideredvartofthe- transportation. system and are in keeping with the Board's comprehensive_ plan Please,rclocaie,theseto the trans ,portation',sectioiri.ofthe proffers.. "Path, siihdt: are�.not part of'the roadway,ric, W.-W, 111 __ . twork can remain in the recreational' 8 �soc I'amegifie .6on. i - to, have be Qash proffers 'to, the network appear .. --eq,el,iminated, 107 N - WiiictiestetiVikginia)1,2661-5060 rte ' .`Page 2 September 16, 2013 z Re ,Frederick County Center, LLC R. _ Language; is needed to address `limitafion of additional, entrances to Route ,52'2 9: Y'our� submission does; not;:corita m the trip ,generation comparison to the currently approved development. that:; -we discussed. This is needed -in: order to make sure you are not` obligated under Chapter 527 to complete, a Traffic Impact Analysis:. Mr. Glickman; called', me on .your :behalf following tfi'e Technical Review Committee meeting and -we•discusged what is needed and 4 y. y posed rezoning `I; believe z, majority of ya on ern again dn�throu h an xecuted, revenue sharing agreement or making T g execution of said agreement a limitation' of property development: As�you know, the County has. .already procured State funding sufficient- `to. fund half' of the currently .proffered transportation.. improvements, with theexception 'of Warri °or Drive to the' south. Smeergly, irk L� John A. Bishop, AICP - Deputy Director=Transportation Control number RZ13 -0003 Project Name Heritage Commons Address P.O. Box 2740 Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA &B2/RP Automatic Sprinkler System Yes Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle - Access Siamese Location Emergency Vehicle Access Comments- Access Comments Additional Comments Plans approved. Plan Approval Recommended Yes Date received Date,reviewed Date Revised 9/9/2013 9/2012013 Applicant Frederick CountyCente, LLC City State Zip. Applicant Phone Winchster VA 22604 540-665 -0050 Taz,ID:.Number' Fire District Rescue District 63-A -1 50 41 21 Election District Recommendations Shawnee Automatic Fire Alarm System Residential SprinklerSystem Yes Yes Requirements Hydrant Location Fire Lane Required No Roadway /Aisleway Width Special;Hazards, No ReviewedBy Signature S. Mark Showers Title�'�' /S Rezoning Comments. Frederick- Winchester Service Authority Mail'to:. Hand deliver to- Fred-Wine Service Authority Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director Attn: Jesse W lMbffett P.O. Box 43 107 North-Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22604 Winchester, Virginia (540) 722 -3579 Applicant: Please.; fill out;the information as accurately.aspossible in order to assist.the Fred -Wine Service Authority With their review. Attach a 'copy of your application form, location mad, proffer statement, Applicant's Name: Frederick County:center, C c Telephone: (540) 665 -0050 Mailing Address: c/o Lawson and sBek,'P- L.,,Z. P.O. Box 274W Winchester, VA 22604 Location of property: west side. of Front, Royal;Pike.(Route 522) opposite; Airport Road, (Route 645),a s frontage on the east side of'Interstate 81 Current'zoning: RA,and 821RP Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: tsoss +- Fred -Wine Service:Authority' §Comments: he co mvft"Pts Fred -Wine Service Authority .�. Signature. & Date: , Notice to Fred -Wine Service Authority -Please Return ,Form to Applicant 33 Septernber.20, 2013 Mr. Thomas M. Lawson, Esquire Lawson and Silek, P.L.C.. 120 Exeter Drive;. Suite 200 P.O. Box 2740 Winchester; Virginia 22.604 RE Rezoning Application,forHeritage,Commons Mda Russell 150 Frederick County, Virginia Dear. Mr. Lawson 0, COUNTY of )E 12EE ERICK Department of Public Works 5401665-:5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning application for Heritage Commons (f/k/a Russell 150) and offer the follow,ing.comments: 1. Refer to the amended proffer statement, page 4, paragraph 4, multi,,- modal transportation ,iinprovements: Expand the,narrative;to adequatelydescribe, the road'network that.will be installed bythe,owner: Also, revise the Generalized. Developinent Plan ;included.as proffer Exhibit `A" to adequately'depict the roadmetwork that will be the responsibility of:the owner outlined on this rezoning, application. For example,, the GDP does not clearly indicate that the bridge over I -81 is the total responsibility of the:owner. The - amended proffer indicate_§ that there-will be anew design and installation' that will occur as a resultofa,Revenue Sharing Agreement entered into by and between;the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)2and Frederick'County. This statement: ghoul d be revised to indicate that tfiis.opportun tymay be a.potential possibility, but does nottrelieve the owner of the ultimate .responsibility , for installing the road network ultimately approved in this rezoning application. 2. Refer to Modification #8, Phasing: Phasing will be critical to the impact of this development on the services provided by Frederick County: Without,phasing.accountability., the actual financial iinpact cannofbe realistically modeled. It could conceivably be possible to develop the entire residential component of 1;200 units without: developing anyof the commercial development. This occurrence would have,.a significant,�negative impact on Frederick County. 3. 'Refer tolthe Impact. Analysis Statement: Provide separate narratives evaluatingjhe impact of the, proposeddevelopment on services provided by. Frederick County including, but not limited to, water; sewer, solid waste•and'transportation. 4: Refer to Impact Analysis;,Assumption for Development Program,. Item #1: The,tabulation of assumptions indicates that table, #1 was based on 4,000 housing units. The, narrative - furnished ,Heritage Comm=ons Rezoning; Application. Comments Tigel September,20,1013 with tle'revised proffer statement indicates that the proposed development will,include ,1,200 units. Rectify the conflict ^in the number of residential units. I can be reached at 722-8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely,; Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES /rls PC: Planning and Development file Rezoning Comments • Frederick `County Department of Planning & Developm- ent _ _ Mail to:. Hand deliver 'to: Fred. Co Dept., of Planning & Development Pred. C,o. Dept. of Planning & Development 107 North Kent'Street North Building, 2 "a. Floor Winchester, Virginia,22601 107 North Kent Street (540) 665 -5651 Winchester, Virginia 1: Applicant °Please: fill out the information .as accurately as, possible in order to assist the Department of - ! ' Tl ____ ___ -mot 1 _ _ ♦r. ., .. -i• _ ••.. ,,�.•.. .n. .... .•. _ .. ., nn .. .... .. _.. Applicant's Name- Freden6k,County Center, LLC Telephone: (540) 665 -0050 Mallirlg Address; c /o`Lawson and.Silek, P.L.C. RO. Box 2740 '1Ninchester, VA 22604 Location of property: • West side of Front Royal Pike (Route-522) opposite Airport:Road (Route -645) and has frontage ow the side of Interstate '81 Current Zoning: RA-and B2 /RP Zoning requested- R4 Acreage- 1,50;59 + - rg EC 34 S EP 6 2013 F '6 i,, y i� •7r ',l n� Pi'Ji� i' � � Rezoning Comfiients Fredetick County Sanitation Authority Mail to:, Hand deliver to: Frederick County, Sanitation Authority Engineer - Sanitation Frederick Cou'n ty S I --tation Autho Attn: P.O. Box 1877 3,15 Tasker Road Winchester, Virginia 22604 Stephens City, Virginia (540) 868-1061 ApplicantrPlase fill out the as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation Authority with their review! Attach a: copy of.your application form,. location map, proffer statement, impact analysis; and.any other pertin6nt!inf6rmaiiou. Applicant's Name: ,;Frederick' County center, Telephone: (540),665-0050 Mailing Address: do Lawson and Silek. P.L.C. P.O. Box 2746 Winchester, VA 21604 Location, of property: 'west side oi'Ront Royal Pike (Rou.tes522) opposite Airport Road (Route 645) an&has frontage an the east side of interstate 81 Current zoning: " and B2/RP Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 150:594-- Sanitation Authorityromments: Q;fY &niiation•Authority, Signature &'Date! Notice to,s�SA,ultation Authority - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 25 p @ SEP 6 2013, WV\/ i A AU 110 FRI-ITTY Post0&5ce`Box 1877 I PrL— (540)96 "o -iU6t windiestec,10reina 22602 =$37T September 16, 2'0113 Uwe E. Weindei, V?.E: Sngineei Dirmor Mr. Thomas M. Lawson Frederick County Center, LLC _ C/o Lawson &.Silek PLC P.. O. Box 2740 Winchester; Virginia-,22604 l Ref.: RezoningCommenfs__ R 150 SPE, LLC .Tax Map # 614-150j-64-'A-10 & 64 -A -12 Dear Sirs. Pe "r`;ybur request; a review of the proposed rezoning has been performed. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority offers comments limited to the anticipated irnpactleffect,upon the Authority's public, water and sanitary sewer system andthe demands thereon. The parcel :is in-the service and sanitary plant is, also, presein the ability-of the.exisl require the applicant determine available c from this site. ater and sanitary sewer area served by ,the Authority. Based on the location both water wer service is 'available., Sanitary sewer treatment capacity at the waste water treatment available. Sanitary sewer conveyance capacity' and' layout will be .contingent on the technical analysis of the existing sanitary sewer system within the area to be served and g conveyance system to accept. additional load.. Likewise; water distribution capacity will > perfoiri a technical analysis of'the existing system .within the area to be served to ,acity. Both water and sanitary sewer facilities .are .located within a reasonable distance Since certain easement's have. already been filed; any modification to the previous existing layout will need to modify-the FCSA easements °for both water and sanitary sewer. In addition, any material exposed to weather and contemplated to be used will, require ;manufacturer certification ;as to the integrity of the material to be used in constructing'either themater or sanitary sewer'system. i Please be aware submitted .b the a tthat t he Authority does not review or comment upon proffers and/or conditions proposed or y pp cant in support of or in conjunction with this application .for rezoning nor does the Authority assume or undertake. any 9responsibility to review or comment upon any amended proffers ;and/or conditions which.the Applicant may hereafter provide to Frederick County. Thank;you / Uw' e'E. `Weindel, l Engineer-Director WATER'S WORTH ITT R ezoning -Com:_ ment s _ Frederick Onpt b'e artment of,Parks,& Recreation 11Jail'to , HandAbliver4o: ty, Frederick Courity County Administration Bldg.,, 2nd F p _ De artment o P arks &:;Recreation De artment of Parks &Recreation 1 "0:7;North Kent Street ty g , Floor Winchester; Virginia 22,601 107:NordiXent Street (540) 665 =5678. Winchester; Virginia. Applicant: Please:fill oufthe uiformahon;a_s accuratelyas p "ossible in order to assist the Departmegtof &Recreation with then review Attach a copy of your, application form, location map, pt statement; impact analysis, and',any other pertinent iitfoi matron Applicant's Name:. Frederick "Countyicenter„ LC T,efe' hone:' (540) ss5 -0050 P ;Mailing Address: cto;Lawson:and si[ek, P.L.CI, PA Box'2740' _e Winchester„VA 22604. Location,of property:; ''West side of Frori(Royal,PIke (Route 522) opposdesArpod?Road (Route 645) and has kontage.on the easf±sideof'Interstite e1` Cinfent'ZQI11I1g RA.and 62/RP Zoning requested . 'R4 Acreage: 150.59+= Departm;ent of arksk& Recreation Comments. tee__c ell 1?ks & Rec Sign I hire & Date. 30 J Noticerto`1)'e ariment of "k r s, &;Recreation Please Return'This Form tolhe.Appiieant P 23 y Heritage? Commons, o Parks and Recreation would prefer trail aiongcBuffalo U6k'Run to, _have- a.public easement with, the Home Owners Association:respon$ible for care /malnfenance rather`:than "County ownership. The irai Iwo uid-appearto just;serve residents of0e developme;nt. • Proffer ailudes to recreation - amenities presumablyto be;,6uilf a`s•regoired by ordinance. Recreation amen'ities`to: be'proffered,as partW the rezoning should be stated..'as such: e. The 2005 proffercurrentfy'm forceAndicates "10-fo'ot wide asphalt lanes separate from.the vehicula I travel lanes" (p, 4) on a.N. ntencirroads. This�has!been,dropped inahe current proffer statement. Separate,10' shared -use paths should be.- nstructed,a[' %al[ interior'roads and on Rt -. -522 property frontage. • It;, s unclear if appli cant 'Kproffering; "pedestrian•trails :and %or sidewalkisystems' beyond those required bVxrdinance: 'Multi -modal connectivity °between residential recreational,.ond 'co mmereial.areas'should be „constructed. All multi modal transportation accommodation shoUid meetmbo! standards for construction Multi -modal accommodationshould be incorporaifed into 1 -81 flyover bridge construction. `Theudevelopment does not - appear to =offeethe rimonetary`resou - — s needed `to offset,the` rnpact the';residents of this developmenfwill have on the Parks;and Recreation services provided by the County. • a Fred.er�,cic County Public Schools-, G e l' ci:i; SrE.tdfilllS an 'p ~(;c"ilF'ilt C <fc t <:iTPot "1 K'1Nayne Lee, Jr LEE DAP :. Cootdinator of; Planning +and Development . lee- ee-w @frederick,k12A.us October 4; 2011 . Mr. T,yLawson Lawson andsSilek, P,O. Box' 2740. 'Winchester, VA 22604 Re: Heritage'Conimons Rezoning'.Application .Dear Ty: Frederi&CounN Pulihc Schools:has =reviewed the;Heritage'Commons rezor ng application submitted to us :on Septernber'9, 2013. We, offer.the following comments: :1. It is tioted that there ;are no�cash prof 6rs and that the app'licant's consultant used an.i npact calculation;differentyfrom :the ?.county's Development Impact Model, Thivcalculation.used student generation °rates;that do'not match our data :an`d'fnancial inforination.regardng,FCP.S that is incorrect. Plea"se�refer, toithe County's Development ImpactMbdel for student ,'gener`ation rates!;based on our. data. -The,FCP:S budget,docutnentis availal'le.online for,correct financial. mfon5ation. The FOPS budget for, fiscal year 2013, °total, for all - accounts, was $1`60;949,463.. We spent 59;773 perstudent in FY2011'. 21. The cumu]ativeTin pal ofQtht's;development and other developments in Frederick County will require" construction of;new schools'and supportTfactli6 s to acconnnodate4ncreased student enrollment. We estimate that'the 1'00 single4arnily *ta6hed units and 900 multi- family units in in this,development will h6use,246 students: 64 hi'ghaschool students,'54 middle school students, and, 128,.eletnentary school students. In orderto properly serve these additional students, Frederick• County Publte Schools would;spend an estimated $2,569,,60o,, more per year in operatin&6oiis,(or$2;568 average per unit per.year).and 'an estimated $9,455;000 in one -fiine capital expenditures (or $9;055; average per unit). You will find, enclosed with this letter „amore 'detailed'assessment of= ='the estimated, impact of Her itageConUnons on FCPS; including attendance =zone information. Please: -feel fiee'�to.contact me at leew@frederick kl2 va-us,or 540-6626388&x88249 if you=have any questions or- comments: ' 'Sincerely, /! t K `Wayne L ee;Jr.,;LEEDIGA Coordin' dorof..Planniing.,and:Developtnerit enclosure cc: Dr. David Bovine; Supeiintenilent,of Schools: Mr_ Albert OrndoTff- Assistant'Superifitenddht for`Administratiorr. Mr lohh,Grubbs, Transportation Director Mrs: Elisabeth° Brown, Supervisor: of Driver'Operations - . _ ..... ......... ....._ -_. --- .. 1415'Amherststreet, www.fredelick.M.va.us 540:662 -3889 Ezt 88249 RO:Boi3500 50662-4237 fax Winchestgr�Vitinia; 22604 -2546; r • Iteromng Camrnerris; •. - Winchester Regionnl Airport � I Mail aa: „ Hasid dclii'cr:.to: 1?l %in�3iester Re�iunrtl iiilwtt tytn "clic�tUr,R_�k o-W Anpon- ;lftit Fsecuttuc,:I]ieclar AtG7a;Lxt ciui c Ult'cetnr 49,1 :lirpen�t Roat3 49l t1'tr►n�ri Rt�ati ' Wineli6ster, Viet iiu t;2260? (Ri.'t5'4S.,cii1cit Rt.- 522 Srnttli) (549) 662 -2422' Wind un V1rg.liiia :lnplrc`nt Pl��:c>. flit oat'.thcPinl %trmaliun as tjecuf 4yt�ly is pc�atiilile ln;uil%rtc� �tssisl Jtc Winchester Regional � ttp�itrit Ith rtreii rcwiew. Attach a copy of,y;our gpp`lic ttt!oci?for>in,; locatio vulap, proffer, ;stalcn-Pil -, rnipact ai»lysis, Audany,• other pertiucufli formation., Aj pltc trwm_s Njihi ,f R, rick Count} Center 'LC Cc t; plic»rc ,hai �e5 Soso t'failing lddre§s; ao:Gawsar an JttSil@ <. F.! .e. r b. m 2' �hineiie%ter ; .FOd Lo catiott'ul' "prol)div west side of FrontcRoval$wkc 'Roof, 822) opposite kfrport Road {Pc+ute;44 an!i?,hs fronte3e or [he a st s i ce of Intaistaws C'11'rrent ic•ri_n f?A'.;ard ��r. Zoning requested f2r Acrqjge; suss 1N6 ntonal ; pport', 3c��n�itute & U,rt� �• <, ti � ' 'Npticerto 1 hidieste.r.Rehinrial >Urpnrt Please Ref n-n Forin to Applicant _0 WINC ESTER REC `L A►y1RPORT 49,1 Aikp& ',ROAD I�If+EC EST_R;.VIRGINIAi2:602; (543)'662=5786 4dober TO, 2bTJ ' Tfiamas, ;M.;,La,vson Esquire Frederick County.Cen ter, 'LLC Post Office Box 2740; Winchester; -;, Virginia .226Q Re€ Rezoning Application —'RA & B21RP °to R4 Fredterrrk Cq6qty C6h ler;, L L C R 1'59' S,PE,, LLC Shawiee:Magisterial District Clear Mt. 'Lawson. On,Oi alf "of-the Winchester Regionah,<Airport Authority °,I have! reviewed ,the referenced ;proposed'rezoning appli6a'tiopr and.offer the following eomments;relafedto possible =negati >re ,irrip6cts;on -,existing and future operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. 1. The request'to, change the. curreni;RP zoning to. , The proposal would alloin� all increase v,, acreageTfor residential use from. fifty -four (54);acres fo approxrrnately seventy tYro!(72) acres an '<an increase; n th'e current maxima rm allowance of two. hundred .ninety- four,(294).townhomes Co nine hundred (6Ot]) "apartment'units and one ", hundretl,(1`QO }�tovrnhumes. • This parcel is located avi hin, close proximity and' irhrhm diately under °the ;traffic. pa #ern of Winchester Regional Airport which s approxrni -il"-k 1f,200 feet above the grbohd eievatian. 'Residentiaf deNvlopment :adjacent to or undeca flight path used. regularly l aircraftas th6 arrive or," depart °the'Wincl ester:Airporfissut ject >to; aircraftnoise. Property pwhersor tenants arekltkely to experience.aircraft noise, from ove:rflrghts of aircraft entering or-departing`the'flight p?Oerns. As the airport` contrnue5.ta expand se'ry es>and operation "s, 'ii teractibns�between:,aircraft of eratioris °and reside6ts areIikely to increase: To ensuretthat potential buyers and tenants are made -aware df the, airoort's;existence :a d aircraft noise and'fly -over potential; he�County should work with, the developertaid'e_velop ,?proffer provision That It w ll,givel Wntten =notice to fat( ire- properfy owners; or,tenantsrofthis potential, through a disclosure sfaternent as ,a coven antin their'property deed `or staternent: wirithin their re0tal'lease.agreei -rent. This.would be .,consistent with,preyipus. requirements for` residental zoning Within close pr&irriity of°the:airport. • Winchester Regional Airports- a;witatlink in the National Air Transportation System used byprivate,citizens;,commercial charter users, eonttrieretaPaircraft, businesses and indiasiriesAhroughout the region t"O'Aransport people and goods around the ,wgrld" The sYAe_rri of airports "in the Cornmonwealih jar "`wides;nurrierous: critical servicesto enhance the;quality of life; health,.safety and welfare of Virginia citizens. • The 1N;inchesler Regional rtiirp- -iThas a direci�piid significant economic impac # °on our corrimunity,and' wE contfnuallywork towards expanding its operations: The 'Virgin'ia Debdit6idffof,Avi6tion'201 f Econom;clrnpact,Study sfioivs -that Wii cf,ester °Regional ;,Airport "generatetl. 168 lobs; pyroll,of $5,882;000:00 and economic, activiiy,of. $22;538;000,0 ©during, 2010: To be,sugcessfut in our ventures;, we' need citizeri,support, ,A,hich'is she reason,for our concern regarding potential complaihts abod�, aircraft noise which ,could have a negative +impact on'the?dirporfs twenty= #our Operation: 2: 'T e;Airporf;Authority,is_. very, coricerne dwitK the request to 'modify Frederick County zoning ordinance §i;,1,65.7201.0&(B) (6) Height Limitations, increasirig.the maxirnum . allov%able- hEightffram sixty (6Q1'feet to Qighty (800j feet: 6e p ce , I _a s i I' cos. oximitPort's flight palternzand,GFf3:P.art 77 protected. r. ;airs a' p ' y. to the extend4 d,centerline of'- Runway 14.W, future,devetoprneni(s) �vould „requir�e'an airspaoe stddy ih "accordance >with Ehe Code of Virginia, Section` 15`2 - 22,94, and Title 14 ofthe Code of' Federal Regulations (14 CFR)'Part, 77. - The prime objectives' of'the FAA are to' promo e airsafety =a „nd the _e€ficie.nt,use of the iavigable;airspace;. To accomplish this aeronautical studies ar ..conduct6d based on information "'provided by proponents .. nyan FAA Form 7460 1,. Notice of Proposed Construction or Afferation • ,Determination of any, iiTipact io; ttie navigable airspace of the Winchester Regional Airp4rtll5yrthe proposed increase in the maXimum i llowabl0!height to eighty. ('8Ci) feet canriotbe estat li_shed 8ithis tim d e' asithe heed this incr t ease has no been provided. ` The .Airport,Auttiarityencourages the developer to sObmit; this infomia ion at tfie tiine;a specific d'evElopment project has been iteniified,., The Winchester RegronalaAirport'Authorily, cannot supp6 i liigh de nsitytesicleijtial 'deuelopnient p y p Wb also recognize the need to aJlow'progress,'A,rithinthe- within close roxim_'ii of he arr orf Coun;ly,.ofiFrederick and th_e abildy.for land, owner's to prgpose!.what theyfeel' best fits their deeds however•,v.,.e mustary.to; protect the future'viabilitypf the Winchester Regional Airport:: Tliank,;yau for giving this;youriconsideeation andshould you have- questions, please contact my office; - - Sincerely,_ )1;k \ i Serena ,R'. Manuel Dx itive,Directo` Cc” Mark'K:.'Flynn WRAA LegatoCoitnselor Chad: Carpec; FAA,1NAp0 Scott Denri "y; VDGA 0 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Roderick B., Williams County Attorney 54022 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E-mail: rwillia@co.fr6derick,.va.us September-20,2013 VIA E- MAIL - tlawsori(a)lsulacom - AND REGULAR MAIL Thomas.Moore Lawson, Esq. `Lawson,and'S lek, P'I.C. P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Re: Rezoning Application —'R 150 SPE;.LLC property "146ntage. Commons" (f/k/a Russell 150),.Parcel Numbers 63 -A- ,150,.64 -A -10 64 -A -12, consisting of 1'50.59± acres— Proffer °: Statement dated,September 5, 20,13 Dear Ty: You have submitted to Frederick County for reviewthe,above= referenced ,proposed proffer statement (the "Proffer Statement ") for the proposed rezoning of,the indicated property (the "Property ") in the Shawnee Magisterial District-from the RA (Rural Areas) `District, the RP (Residential Performance) District, .with:.proffers, and the:B2 (General Business) District, with proffers;. to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, with proffers. I have now reviewed the Proffer"Statement;and itis iny,opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet tthe:re uirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance `and the Code of 4 Virginia, and would bee legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following comments ,1. Designation of "Applicant" and "Record Owner"; power of attorney — The materials indicate that Frederick County Center, LLC is the .Applicant and that.R 150 SPE, I;LC is- the Record Owner. As the: materials, including the, Proffer Statement,,already contemplate, signatures on behalfof both entities will be necessary (though inclusion of Frederick County Center, LL'C�appears superfluous). In addition, if Frederick County Center,, LLC' is going;to representthe interests of R 150 SPE, LLC with respect.to the rezoning, application, then R. 107 North Kent'Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Thomas Moore. Lawson, Esq. September 20;.2013 Page 2 SPE, LLC will.need to execute a power of attorney, granting such authority to Frederick County Center, LLC. Furthermore; unlessan,employee,officer, or member of Frederick County Center, LLC is going_to.representthe interests,ofFrederick:County Center, LLC; in which case Frederick County'Center 'LLO will need to identify such.person,and; their capacity, Frederick County Center, LLC will need to execute a,power of attorney granting such authority to any represeritative�other than an employee, officer, or member of Frederick County Center, LLC. 2. Beneficial ownership disclosure —County Code § 1'65- l'0J,.09, as authorized by Va. Code 15:2 -2289, requires "a complete disclosure of ownership.or parties in interest of real estate.for which.the applicafiori has`been made' For R 150 SPE, LLC, as a limited'Iiability company, this would be the;names, and-,addresses of members, officers, and any 'directors,.and the same for the make -up: of each:of its members,' which'themselves are entities other than a publicly traded corporation, with more 500shareholders. See. Va. Code § 1.5.2; 2289:: 3. Delinquent. taxes.— County Code § 165- 102.02(B),.as authorized.by Va..Code § 15.2- 2'286(B), a rezoning application to inclufleproofthat all County propertytaxes are paid and- thatno delinquent'taxes are outstanding. The Courity`Treasurer's.records,show that.regular real property taxes for the Property are delinquent back to, 201.1. In addition, although I do understand'thatt the,CDA assessments are the subject of ongoing - discussions, the County Treasurer's records also show that those taxes are delinquent back to 2009. R 150 SPE, LLC mii§Vpay -all applicable delinquent.taxes before the County,may consider any rezoning application for the, Property_: 4., "Amended Proffer Statement ", "Original Date of Proffers", and 'Revision Date(s)" — I have`pulled a copy ofthe proffer statement currently'in "force for the Property and note that the Proffer Statement is in -no way based upon the proffer' statement currently in force. In addition, the proposed rezoninz does notpropose to °keep or maintain any of the current zoning classifications-(primarily RP,440;132), but instead proposes R4 zoning'for: the entirety of.the Property; a zoning classification which the Property has never had. Accordingly, it is inappropriate.to.designate the.Proffer Statement asan "Amended: Proffer Statement- "or to show the "Original Date of Proffers" as being in.2005, or any "Revision Date(s) ". ,Deletion of the word "Amended "and.of the,01. -05 number is,appropriate Iisting;.of Septeniber'5, 2013 instead as the "Original,Date o f Proffers" is appropriate. 5. Executive Summary I" sentence — Proffer statements themselves customarily; include onlyspecific future commitrnents'with respect ,-to the subject property and, as such, do not customarily and in fact.have no reason to recite the zoninghistory of the subject property. Accordingly, the first sentence is completely unnecessary surplusage and should be deleted. Thomas'Mbore 'Lawson;,Esq. September: 20, :2013, Page 3 6 Executive 'Summary —;l St'paragraph, lastsentence = The timing commitment in this sentence. ihavxoffered improvements "shall be provided avihe timerof development ofthat portion:of the site adjacent.to theimprovement" ,: renders „the. Prdffer;Statement inappropriately vague. Does "time of development” mean,priorto, site plan; piior•to; buiiding permit; prior to occupancy °permit,;or something, else? Not only does th isvagueness ,substantiallyliniitt lie° efficacy of:staff review:ofthe Proffer Statement; but it would:alsorpresent;a myriad.ofpotent ally signficant'interpretation problems as the Property develops:. 7. 'Proffer 'l County Code +§ 165 - 501.06(0) provides; =in;pertinent.pait, "An applicantmay' requesfaspe;of an application for rezoning to the R4 District:thafa modification to specific .requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, thi chapter or other:requirements of the Frederick County Code applicable tofpliysical .development b'e granted." -Therefore„ ttiisproffer could simplystate,. "Pursuantto County Code°,§ 165 =50.1 06(0), the design modifications set forth in Exhibit•B'shall apply to: the „Property: The lengthy language of this.proffer, in °particular that:of 'the paragraph following kiand B, is.unnecessary;and;unclear' Ifthere4s.an actual need:forthe concluding;paragraph, then itneeds to be simplified down tofperhaps a` single sentence, With :respect 'to, the particular design modifications proposed, the following comments are in order: • Modifcat on #1 §':1`65- 501.02 — ,Rezoning procedure.-V ile'the Proffer Statement proffers reasons for waiving the requirement of a master"dpyelopmentpl4p ,io be sub riitted with the ProfferStatement, the proposed.modification lacks _specificity'with, respect to precisely'when any master: development,plan(s) would`be provided. , It might Be appropriate to state that a master development :,plan °would 1eprovided.for a particular bay p .land ba no "r to of�an " y ernuts;,for worlton'•that land,bay;:. • Modification A' = § 165- 501.06(D) —t oiiihiefd al +and,ind'ustiial areas —The proposed alternative siandard` states ,that "industrial,uses should ..; Rnot [be], allowed” but does not indicate exactly- which: uses/zoning district uses would riot be."all'owed, namely whether thrs'`is just;uses in,the Ml District or•also those in;the b3 bistricvor some subset(s)•of one of both of`,thase di'strnct- Also;.the:proffer' would do well.,"tn ;eeplace die.Word "should" 'With, 'Ishall ". Modification #8 —; §'`165 :501.06(Ivl) .Phasing =— .Pleasewe;the commentrfor st aff in, number 9;below regardirigthe effect of.no,phasingfor this development'. Jh' 1s041ote that indicates thava "reasonable balance shall be. mauit4med between. residential and n6nr6sidential uses "'and`that, wiih`the'proposed deletion oftliis requirement, theTroffer Statement therefore •impliedly concedes`that thecabsence ofany phasing;means=there,'ismo assurance that the, balancewould be reasonable. •_. Modification 4`10 §' 165402.09(J)(D 1) — Ivlultifamily residential `buildingsr This' d;the Proffer Statement in.other`places, refers,to reside.n 'modification �an' tial. and commercial uses '.being =conta ned`in the.same'buildings in_some instances; but the Proffer is Thomas�Ivloore Lawson,;Esq September. 20; 2013' Y. 4 $tAtement•d6es not include any actuaLpfoposed design smodi fication to this effect, with design sfardards;forcarrying out'such a concept: 8. -Proffer 2(A)(1) — Triis=profferidentines`certain housing;types - single-family attached;. multi - family, ,gated single -family attached, and,'gatedmulfi family-- that,the - Property`may� include ". Some of the housing typeferms do, not.appear in the Q6 .Cdde., To prevent any ambiguities, a best practice;would,befor this proffer to usdponl'ythose terms�conlained:in County Code § 165=402:09 Also; -by, use of theaerm- "may include ",atlas proffer is Ambiguous-as to whether it prohibits other_hou; ii4g types thatAhe CountyCode'othexwise: ahows in ;RP zoning (which the R4- zoning foll`ows;fot- residential uses). If, other °housingtypes.Are to•be prohibited; then,thisproffer +should so state. If-other. housing'types are nofju.'be prohibited, then there is no , purpose for;the,inclusiori_of, offer`2(A)(1), As it has no =effect:; 9; Proffer 3: The purposetof a,proffer statement is to state "the:otiligations,to be imposed. upon,the pro perty°bemg rezoned ';Proffer 3 statesmo obligations. Iftheo&si`re -of the Owner and/or the A licantf�s fo, pp uiciudera ,,paragraph regarding capital facility; mpacts,'theparagraph; shoiild§nnn tystdte "Ownermakes no.Monetaryproffersto address,any tountycapital facilities ;impacts. Also,ataff should be;aware4hai the Proffer Statement does "not require anyph'asing.of the development;and, therefore; the entirety of the residential'aportion,ofthe Property (1;200 units` could be constructed,and occupied, with the full effect of;its impacts -felt; before any square footage of liusmess.commefdial; office, and/or_retail development °is constructed or occupied, to. offset anyport on,of &residential irnpacts:Along thesedines; staff may further wish to consider'the;following general;facfors (asrwell asmore specific factors,not discussed' liere)twrth;,respect'to tlierImpact Analysis Statement ( "IAS ") accompanying the,Proffer ;;Statement: • The:;IAS's:assumpti6h asi to the totahnumber of housing units. (1;000): isrflawed, as Proffer`2(C) would permi-as many as 1,200`, housing units: • The IAS assumeszdev,,elopment _of 45,0,000 square feet of,:taxable,dfice space on the 'Property, within a,15 ;yearlbuiId Wt- veriod. By ofcomparison', according;to real property tak� records, :among' si"gnif cant "off ce buildings'in,F,rederick�County are,the FEMA.office buildi_ng�on th'e Rutherford site, with approximate ly'160;060.square feet; ands °the Trexkoffiee ;buil'ding,;ori Exeter Drive, w tti,approximatefy 60;000' "square feet:: Therefore,: for 1 the assumptibzi to-hold true; Frederick ,.County would need:to add the equivalentof two FEMA buildings and "two Trex buildings, on'theTroperty alone, in a, 15, year =period. , •, With respect o certain pupil data, the IAS states1his is "based onAdtarfrom;site managers,4t better apartment projects ". Thisis wholly inadequate as a,data,source citation. . Thomas 1M0ore Lawson,;Esq. September, 2Q 20:13' :Page's • The IA8teites S,oPatz =& Associates, Inc. as a source; but generally, does not identify published or industry, sources upon which S. Patz, Associates,, Inc. relied. • The total;CountyTY14 - non - schools budget is $82, 780,460 (see attached — $52;869,263 plus $29;9,1;1;197), �and,not;$57,670,935. Also,,the4pplication of the:b9:8 %' Percent,Tax Burden" to reducetliebudgetamount in the IAS is unexplained: Taking theseawo factors pgetfier; tl e:d sts'aze4h fact slightly more} than °twice ($82,780,460'versus, $40;244;367) the assumption in the IAS'. ,. • The, total County FY14,sc-hools, budget `is�$164 892,404, andenot $75,353,472: Again,'a discrepancy inErdagnrtude.of.over twofold. If not already+provided,for,S..Patz.& Associates; Inc, cu ticula Vitae for key personnel. and a fist ofkey engagements and expert testimony given woul'd'be!appropriate, as`S. Pat A Associates appearsto haven website or;anyotherireadily °ascertainable credentials tosuggest a reasonable basis':forreliance�on its report. l Q: Proffer 4 —The second sentenceJdoes,nof;state,an obligation,of:the :Owner and therefore is. inappropriate for inclusion iin:the proffer,and should "lie: deleted. The'third seritence purports to: obligate the: County'to enter; nto z'VDOT revenue sharing agreement; `The:Board of <Supervisors ,does; nofha�e the auihorityto commit °to a future affirmativetact in,the context °of a proffer sfatement ar d, therefore,- !thelsentence should be deleted., Wiih'thedeletion.of the third ,sentence,. the fourthsenterice eighth st.;read,.. "Owner a gree s participate.,in one'or more VDOT'revenue sharing,agreements fgr the =funding of the design and` the funding ,of the installation of the. road network; which shall bd in,substantial conformance with thedesigns,set,forth n ExhibitA." " y g s beyond,any- existing 11. Proffer 6 —The first twodsentences do not state�an obli ation ordinance obligations and,,.as .such, are not appropriate.for inclusion inn' a proffer statement. -Also, whether the .Countydesires,to. accept dedication of tlieArail easement is questionable. Ordinarily, ,the�applicable_property o)N ners' association(s) owns trraitfacilities ih fee simple and maintains such facflifi6s Jrtlis'=re-g- qrd , the:concept of the,trail being held -as only Weasement also raises the'further quec ould"hold,the fee simple interest;inAhe property su>,ject to the easemen'Vand why'tliey, "would.wish to maintain that fee simpler nterest. T2. Proffer 7 —'This proffer is; riappropriate, as it;does notprovide foriwhavwould be, considered adequate;notice�for purposes of mandatory reviews under Va., Code.l 15.2 = 2232., . S pe cifi call y , at resen t,'tfie Proffer, Statement itself idntifes onlythe trail. as;a:public facility. Section,l'5.2'= 2232:requ res-. "unless afeatuie is,already'shown;on the adopted master plan,or partthereof or is deemed so under, subsection D, no street .or- connection to an :existing<street; parkoriother °public area, public building or public structure, ....'whether publicly or privately- owned,,sliall be constructed "establishedaor;authorized, unless and until the general location' or approximate`location, character, and extentthereof has"been submitted,to and approved by then 06 Thomasm fe,LeC*soh,IJEsq.. SeSeptember 24j,70f .3 'Pa e commission as b6ipg,'substaniiallyin accord with the adopted cd 6hensiye',,plan or part, OPT, thereof. ', The;effepi of -theproderif approved; would prevdht--qhY and all review under Va. 'Code §1'5 ,2 - 72.3 2 ..'ofany and'al additional publc 1 A cilitie $I in c dh -,g:in.p q I aras to'the "character' "and; "extent" of Su61vacilities, and,again, other than theti-ait, the Proffer'Statement c- htly,grovides no information regarding r - the "character '.' and "WdW lffinysich fuiuio facifities-' 13.. ` Proffer 8(A)nand (3)"' — To "the extent thatthese;proffer§,,s6-6k,, to; perrit signs beyond !and/or. diffetent: froffi'thos.q'Ihaf County Code §: 165-201.06:permitsi the PiOMrStaternerif cannot rii6aify th6i,-Z6'm*iig,Or4iriar-i j4n theabsencel,of compliance intfiq Proffer.Statement'with the onreqi4remeni ,design inodificAti s;of County Code § 165-501.06(0).% lh4y!p,,pot:reviewedqheist�bstaitt of thepoffefsas'•,to Wheffier-Ilie-pKpffers are suitable and :development, that review will be done xqp�Aie,16r'ifiis specificdevel g byfstaff and the Planning.; Commission. Sincer UM Roderi6k.B. Williams County Attorney AtCachffi.erit cc: Candi6e-E. Perk , ins, SeftibrTlanner ' Tbe exceotionJn subsection D 'U VA., Qb& § 1-5 2-2232,does;not.applyb thecu because subsection D " requires:. ",,the- goyeming�body:has.by,,ofdinance:ot res6luti6ii.ddfine construction, establishment -or, auiho�ization,�fsuch,p�blic"area, facility qrbs�,&ha&a conAtu Ppr( accepiaTice,:6f..4�pf6iTef, made 04rsuhnt-,to§ 15'2-1303.'' The'Boatd'of8upervis,ors!,has,-,4qtA defted suchsiandards. Lik6 ise."aS^tfie Ptoffef.Stat6rnent'iaentjfi6s only the trail', tWBo, be +bdzvsiaere-d to have ap ed'any'otherfacilitiesybv acceptance of the Mffer 9tateme6t. SchooI,system „663 r • FV1013 -2014 Total County Expenditures $24796721,864 Go-vernment Admin., 21.2% al Jail, 7.2% 11,3.40/6 vices,.02% land, 0.3% 3% County of Frederick; VA 11 FY 2013- 2014 2011 -12. 2011 712 2012 -13' 2012 -13 2013 -14 % of Total County, Expenditures Budgeted Actual Budgeted Estimated Adopted Total General Government .Administration 7,817,698 7,791,083 7;890,635 8,599,585 8;348,432 3.4 % Judic al AdminiWation 2,029;788 1,909,677 7,940;620 1;961,826 2;124,752 .86 %' Public Safety 19,814,667 19,920,126 19,414,037 20,636,884 20,713,355 8.4 % Public Works 3;995;895 3,518',554 3,955,055 3;405;082 3,940 ;814 1.6 % Health/Wcifare 7;228,685 6_,690,169 7,058,184 6,411,108 6,935,132 2.8% Community College 56;493 56;493 56,493 56;493 56,493 .02 % Parks, Recreation'& Cultural 4,972;994 4,918,974 4,929,830 4,600,909 5,107,445 2.1% Community Development 1;782;527 1;680,290 1,753,697 1,6761928 1,818,346 .73 % Miscellaneous 3,123,638 3,788,710 4,162,•773, 4,162;773 3,824,494 1.5% Subtotal 50',822;385 50,274;076 51,161,324` 51,511;588 52,869,263 21.3 % OtherFunds` Regional Jail 16,425,072 16,297,267 17,380,185 17,339,696, 18,415,374 7.4% 'Landfill 8,307,530 5,903,595 8,226,180 7,739,551 6,626,620 2.7% Division,of Court Services 1,107,584 1,395,528 588,809 547,157 600,489 , .24% Shawneclarid Sanitary District- 777;700 522,105 766,702 867,622 849,550 .34% Airport Operating' 3,159,728 3,833,270 1,159;728 1,798;932 2;298;838 .93% Lake Holiday - Sanitary. District 0 0 0 0 11120 ;326 .45% Subtotal 29,777,614 25,931,765 30,121,604 28,292,958 29,911;197 12.10 School System School Funds 140,917,763 135,637,621 145,5931962- 152,103,660 151,020,343 61.0% Debt Service Fund 11,711,078 13,837559 .13,951,052. 13,951,052 13872;06] 5:6% Subtotal 154,628 ;841 149,475,180 159,545,014 166,054,712 -164,892'404 66.6% Total Expenditures* 235,228,840 225,681,021 240,827,942 245,859,258 247,672;864 100.0 % *Excludestransfers County of Frederick; VA 11 FY 2013- 2014 U �< a w O �+ M 0 U i O x o N Q' z' a, .O a b C C U ,C 'O a a. N Q Q y' o 00 etl o rz, C N N � c � o y a on on N cis rig F O C � y O +r O V] O 00 O w' U � Y u o `otb o v� a O C u C tn r+ ,LRi. y i O •--� O N G d O CU •� as � a O x b U CO a a. N Q Q U o rz, � c � o y a on on cis rig F 0 U y UeC O H O pay C .00 V O tn O 69 x N � u O 4 O� � � V O m I CD 00 N � N `o U �r� rte+ W N 64 •.n U ylQ A a a. U o rz, � c � o c. � y U � Y u o `otb o v� a � k\ ¥f. \: a \ % m t / � 22S 2� %.1W.. . f� Q� fT-( 2 r s ¥ a � 0 0 — 2 \�. : G � m k N � , a c3l� m 2 Q % 7? 7 \ § 7 > e 7 \ �� \ \ k 3 \ 2 2 / \ L : � \ \� \ \ / Q , ct3 k G \\ ¢ Co / �/ 540- 722 -3610 04:31:36 P.M. 10 -10 -.2013 20 Rezoning „Commepts Clty of Winchester Alail to: Hand delivertto: W mchester City Planpiug,Department Winchester City,P_lanning Department A ttn: Planning Director Attn: Planning Director 15 North Cameron Street Rouss °City Hall Winchester, Virginia 22601 15 North Cameron,,Street (540)'667-1815 Winchester, Virginia LApplicant:'Please fill outthe information as accurately as�poseible,in order. to assist the City of inchester with theirreview. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer atements intpact.aaalei ,and any'Motherpe ;hnent i>saformation Applicaiies Name: Fredariek.County_Center, LLC Telephone: (540) 605 -0050 11Mailirig Address: do'Laweon and SIM, P.L.C. P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, M 22504 Location ofproperty: wesfside.:of Front Royal'PIke (Route 522) "opposite Airport Road (Route 645) and'has frontage on the east side ofinferstate.81 Cilt7e17t Zoning: RA and 9Y1RP Zoning requested- R4 Acreage:, 150.59 + - City, of Winchester's Copamen 0;1 L art or 714 e_ OVAMAWI Jr. vfrfeor 7 4S i� OroAatad �iek f• �+to, i,. affe�tf ix knr, wth: t�B t✓lar[ gorctf or ><•�� 1 -P.704ri t Gon ,fiw��w .� +Jp ., Vl GnSQ: tir 4� tut 4 H 9 , ,AfvAp � 5 City of Wine_ hester's Signature & Date: /O 4. 1- Notice:to.City of Winchester ase_R turn This Form fo the Applicant M 0 i COUNTY' of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665 =5651, FAX: 5401665 -6395 September 12, 2013' Mr. Thomas Moore Lawson Lawson,and.Silek, P L.C.. P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Proposed- Rezoningoftle Heritage Commons :Project (formerly Russell 150) Property Identification-Number (PIN); 6. 3 -A- 150,64 -A -10, 64 -A -12. Dear Mr, Lawson - I have had the opportunity, to review the draft rezoning application for the Heritage Commons project: This application seeks to . rezone 96.25 acres from the Business General (B2)'District,''5 *0 acres from:the Residential Performance (RP) District and .309' acres. from the" Rural Areas (RA) District, to, the Residential, Planned Community (R4) District. (total' of 150.5: acres) with proffers and` modifications. Staffs review comments ;are listed below for�your consideration. Rezoning Comments 1. New :Rezoning This package shows the rezoning as an "amended rezoning; this is a substantially modified rezoning application and, therefore, is not an amendment application. Remove #01 -05 rezoning application numbers from the cover page.- 2. Project Acreage. The .individual acreage of RP; 82, and. RA Zoned property needs to be specified, on the coversheet. 3. .Comprehensive. Plan. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows this property as being planned for employment and high - density residential (12- 16 >units/acre). 4. Proffer 2 Uses, Density and. Mix. The .proffer .should show a maximum and minimum percentage of cofnmercial and residential acreage being proposed with, this rezoning. As presently provided, the Land. Bay Breakdown Table does not establish minimum nor maximum acreages within each land use. Nor. does the proffer specifically state the development will adhere to the land. bay breakdown, depicted in the GDP'as well as, the Table. Additionally, this. development area.is proposed to consist of �businesslcommercial and residential 'land uses and, 107 °North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Page 2 W. Thomas Moore Lawson RE: Proposed Rezoning of,Heritage Commons Septembee'12,1013 therefore, .B3 (Industrial Transition) and M1 (Light Industrial) uses should be prohibited`jori the site. 5. Previous vs. New Land Use Tabulations. The original rezoning called for 54 acres of RP land, and 96 acres of B2. Based' on the residential percentages for .Land Bays. V and `VIII shown in the Land: Bay Breakdown table for proffer 2, the new rezoning calls for 66 acres of residential land area and, therefore, 84 acres for con. mercial. The impact; statement from the original rezoning showed 294 attached residential' units and 704,450 square feet of commdtcial/office. The assumptions from `the new rezoning. are ,900 multifamily units and 1,00 single - family attached units, and 1.15 million square feet of commercial /office space (which differs from.proffer 2C which caps the residential units at 1,200). It is noted that the potential commercial /office space is increasing over 60 percent over the original ;rezoning, and the number of ,potential residential units is increasing over; 40,0 percent. 6., Land "Bay VIII: It: appears this land ,bay will primarily consist of the right -of- way'for Warrior. Drive. The proposed land use for this Land Bay Is not, provided for'in 'the Land Bay Breakdown table. The proposed land use of the Land Bay needs to be 'provided, as well as acknowledgement. of Warrior Drive. This roadway should', at a minimum be addressed: with this rezoning and the remainder land area.. included in .`Land Bay VII. This ,land should not be shown as "to be determined." 7. Impact Analysis Statement. The application package does hot, have an Impact Analysis Statement than addresses impacts on. transportation, water and sewer, environment, fire and rescue, etc. While some of these impact projections would be : generally consistent with the original Russell150 rezoning, othevimpacts, such as water and sewer, will certainly :increase reflective of ,the, ,greater densities sought by the new application. Such.an analysis is vital to assessing the abilities of water and sewer capacities to,accommodate anticipated '.flows. 8. Impact on Community Facilities. As part of the rezoning package, a fiscal .impact analysis was" submitted that showed- a positive fiscal gain; however, there 'is no phasing or requirement: that the commercial portion be constructed before the residential„ to. actually offset impacts as suggested by the submitted, analysis. The County's Development Impact Model (DIM) projects an impact of,$13,062 per single - family attached unit and $11,339 per multifamily unit. 'Therefore, based on the unit cap of 1,200 (proffer 2C), the potential impact the residential .units will place on County facilities could range from '$13.6 million to. $15:6 million. Current county;;policy does not permit future tax contributions for either Page 3 1Vir; Thomas,Moore Lawson RE: Proposed Reigning of Heritage Commons. September IZ, 2013 commercial or residential land uses to mitigate the fiscal. impact on county facilities, and the, lack of, a phasing plan further questions the appropriateness to consider future tax contributions as mitigation of projected, residential development impacts. 9. Monetary f'ro_ffers •Omitted from New Rezoning. It should be clarified why the new rezoning application has removed the - following previously- proffered residential 'monetary proffers:. • $10,000'to Fire and Rescue $3,000per,unitfo"rSchools • $2,5Q.0 HOA startup proffer • $1 million for the general transportation fund ($3,500.per residential unit) 10. Bicycle Paths.- `The.original proffer called for bidydlei lanes (10'separate asphalt paths) along all the major collector roadways being constructed with the development. The. new rezoning should.also capture these.improvements, as well as a bicycle,path along Route 522 as called for in the Comprehensive Plan: ',M Access to Land. Bay VII. The original proffer provided for the construction of Warrior Drive which would have served as the roadway to provide access into what is being called Land Bay VII with the new rezoning. The new rezoning proposes to elitninate'the Warrior Drive access for this land'bay and, therefore, it would need to have, primary access to Front Royal Pike, and would be virtually severed 'from the . other portion of the development. This landbay should not have primary access -to Route:522 and should 'be accessed via the internal road network of-the development. 12. Interparcel.Connection. The original proffers called for ihterparcel connections from the residential ' landbay to the adjacent. parcel (64 -A -18) the new rezoning does not call for any interparcel connection to parcel 64-A- IS (aka,the Madison Village development which shows interparcel connection:on their-,proposed GDP into parcel 64- A7.;12). Interparcel connections are required•by § 165 - 202.04 of the Zoning Qrdinance and should'be accounted-for in the proffers and the GDP. 13.,Proffer 6 Recreational Amenities. This proffer speaks in „general terms of what could be .constructed as recreational amenities for the project, but does not commit to provide, any specific amenity: Unless the owner is proffering (committ ngto provide):a specific amenity, this proffer'should be eliminated; the exact. recreational unit type as required by :ordinance would be, specified at the MDP stage. The proffer also states that walking trails and sidewalks would. be Page4 .Mr .'.Thomas.Moore Lawson RE - : Proposed Rezoning of Heritage Commons September 11. 2013 provided within the..community; the trail locations should be located on the GDP. Pleasenote ihat.sidewalks along roadways are required by County Code. 14'. Proffer 6 -Trail Easement. This proffer proposes to,dedicate _a trail easement to the Fiederick'County Parks and Recreation Department. This is a trail on private property-and should be owned and maintained by the HOA; it, would be more appropriate to. create a public use trail easement: enabling the public to utilize this .HOA -owned trail amenity.: 15-Proffer 7= Comprehensive Plan Conformity. Provide clarification as the need for'this statemerit,and what uses it would pertain to. 16.'Proffer, 8 Community, :Sign age :Program.. Signage is regulated within the Zoning„ Ordinance. It appears this proffer would allow. . for more signage within the development than allowed by ordinance, which.is not permitted. a. 8b. Chapter 165 already regulates residential 'entranc.es'signs. b. 8c Monument signs are required by ordinance; therefore, proffering the sign type is repetitive. Signage material could be included in the proffer. 1.7. Generalized Development Plan. The generalized development plan's legend should include-the matking utilized for the Warrior Drive area. Also; the lane configuration for the roadways should be-shown on the GDP since this is the guiding;document per the proffer statement for the road network. Modification Document 18. Modification' #1 The modification languagereferences the RP density table, and should, +.also provide'density ranges (minimum andmaximum density) -for this R4 Development. The justification should reference the expected density range specified.for this area .in-the Comprehensive Plan. 19.- Wdification #4. The Zoning Ordinance states that no more than 50% of an R4 project may consist .of commereial/industrial areas: Given the commercial nature of'this'project, it, is advisable to provide a minimum commercial and maximum residential percentage for the project (minimum 55.% commercial, maximum 45% residential): Page 5 Mr. Thomas MooreLawsop RE: Proposed. Rezoning_ of Heritage Commons September 12, 2013 20. MbdificMion #5. The decrease ofoperi,space from 30 % to 10 % seems excessive: The .minimum open spaB2 -zoned ace for B2 - developments'is `15 % and the minimum for,mixed residential development is 30 %. The justification for the modification states that rooftop green spaces and amenities could. be provided; however, there are no proffers or guarantees that these types, of, amenities will be provided. This modification has the; potential to create .a, community with no ;outdoor areas for recreation or ,simply open space. Please note that open spaces do not have to be green areas, they can consist of central plazas and :squares; therefore, a profferld provide `these types, of amenities is encouraged to justify any open space modifications. The.; modification needs to include: the, total acreage contained within the streani valley and within the developed portions of the property. It does .not appear that the justification provided supports the request for the reduction. 21. Modification #6 Specify that road efficiency buffers will be provided as requir_ed`in the Zoning Ordinance. 22. Modifications. The rezoning package indicates there is a desire to build residential units connected to commercial units' (either on the .second or higher Boots ' or attached). The Zoning .Ordinance currently does not.allow for this type of development,and, therefore, an additional modification,to,create a new building ,type, is necessary;, 23. Property,Owners. Property tax,records indicatejhe soleowner <of the property is R15MRE LLC; therefore, Frederick, County Center, LLC should not bean owner signature on,the proffer. Other 24. Transportation Comments. Please ndWthat county °transportation comments on the rezoning application-from John Bishop, Deputy Director of Transportation; are being provided.to you in a separate letter. 25. Agency Comments. Please' 'provide appropriate agency- comments 'from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick. County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, FrederickL County Public Schools, the local Fire. and Rescue Company, and the! Frederick- Winchester Service, Authority. Once attorney comments are received Page 6 Mr. Thomas Moore'Lawson, RE"Proposed Rezoning of Heritage Commons Septerntier 12;,2013 by the Planning Department, they will be forwarded to, your 'office. County Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application.. '26. Special Limited ,Power of Attorney. Provide a power of attorney for the property°.owners. 27. Verification of Taxes Paid. Provide current documentation that all. taxes have been paidnfor'the subject properties. 28. Fees: Based on, the foes. adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008) the rezoning fee for this application includes a $10,000.00 base fee plus $1.00:00 per acre .for the first 150 acres and $50 for each acre 'over. 1'50, and a $50:00 public hearing sign 'fee. Therefore, the application fee is $25,050 plus the refundable $50.00 public.hearing sign. Prior to ,formal submission to the County; please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments are adequately addressed. A.I,etter, describing how each of the agencies and, their comments have been addressed should be included as part of the submission. Please feel free to contact me with.questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner (7OUNTY of Department of ]Planning_ and Development 5401665 -5651 FAX: 54665 -6395 September 16, 20131 T.homas.Moore Lawson, Esquire PO Box 2740 Winchester, VA 22604 RE: Rezoning Application for Frederick: County-.Center, LLC Dear Mr. Lawson: Thank, you for the opportunity to comment on your recently submitted Frederick County Center, LLC rezoning on the property-formerly known as Russell 150. Please consider the comments . that follow- `l. The riew proffer language appears to offer no. triggers for realizing the transportation improvements relative to development. 2. The, language of the new proffers leans heavily on the Generalized Development Plan. (GDP) to give details of'the roadway proffers. However the GDP itself is not detailed enough regarding lane configurations and' entrance improvements such as the I -81 Bridge -and the iniersectim of- Airport Road. 'and Route 522 to fulfill the task. I do not question that, the intention is there, but more detail is needed to protect the County. These items should be specifically addressed in the written language for the sake of clarity. 3: The proffers contain no.mention ofresponsibility,for the bridge over I -81. 4. The proffers do not' address the signalization of Airport Road at Route 522. 5. Warrior Drive, to the south is not addressed. 'This is a key Eastem Road Plan roadway. I would suggesuphasing.it in triggered by development of land bays VII, and VIM. ThJs could be another potential revenue sharing project. 6. Inclu sign of:bcycle and pedestrian facilities along the roadways is addressed in the' recreational amenities section. Facilities along- roadways are considered' part of the transportation system and are in keeping with the: Board's comprehensive. plan policy,of complete streets. Please relocate these to the transportation, section;ofthe •proffers. Pathways that are not part of the roadway network can remain in the recreational amenities section. 7. Cash proffers to the transportation network appear to have been eliminated. 107 North Kent:Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 °Page 2 September 16,,2013 Re: Frederick County Center, LLC 8. Language is needed to address limitation of additional .entrances to Route 522. 9. Your submission does not contain the trip generation comparison to the currently approved development that we discussed. This is needed in order to make sure you are not obligated under Chapter 527 to complete a Traffic Impact Analysis. Mr. Glickman called me on your behalf following the Technical Review Committee.meeting and we discussed what-is needed and why. Thank you again for this. opportunity to - review this proposed rezoning. I believe a majority of my concerns could be, addressed through an execuied. revenue sharing agreement or making execution of'said agreementa limitation of property development. As you. know, the County has already procured State funding sufficient to fund half of.the currently proffered transportation improvements, with .the exception of Warrior Drive to the south: Sincerely, John-A. Bishop, AICP J Deputy Director=:Transportation JB /pd `Frederick'County Center,,LLC - VDOT Comments to Rezoning Page 1 of 2 From rngram, Lloyd (VDOT) <Goyd:Ingram@VDOT.vlrginia.gov> To: tlawson @lspic.com Cc: Bishop; -John. (VDOT) <iOishop6c9SrederI&.mus >;. cperkins @coJrederick.vaws, Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT) < Matthew .Smith @vdot.virginiasgov>, Balderson, Clifton M. (VDOT) < Clifton. Balderson @VDOT:Virginla;gov>;,. ,CarteF, Edwin (VDOT) < Edwin.Carter @vdot:virginia.gov >, Ingram;lloyd (VDOT) < Lloyd,Ingram@VDOT.virginia.gov> Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 02t23 pm Subject: Frederick County<Center, LLC - VDOT Comments.to Rezoning Attachments: The documentation within the applicatiomto rezone this property°appears to have significant measurable ,impact,, on, Route '522. This route is the VDOT ;roadway which -has been considered as the access to thel,property referenced. VDOT is NOT satisfied that the transportation the Frederick County p proffers offered in Center, I:LC. Rezoning Application dated September 5, 2013 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Thel lack of detail in this rezoning request raises numerous questions that will need to be addressed prior to VDOT support of this rezoning request: 1, The:re.quest,fails ;to mentio,;i,how the proposed development trip, generation compares to the previous Russell 150 TIA. 2. There is not a cleandetail (trip counts or approved site plans, etc.) as to when road facilities areto be constructed. 3. The proposed bridge over Interstate 81, signals, aswelhas- otheron- site /off -site traffic facilities are not clearly identified as being'a responsibility of the.developer. 4. Are the roadway typical, cross- sections /right -of waywidthsto remain as detailed in the original Russell 150 MDP? 5: Constructed'Warrior Drive needs to be shown. extended all theway to the southern property line. Warrior Drivels a critica.l,part;of the Frederick - County. Transportation Plan. Th&developer could build it in phases, but it is a requirement for the streets to be eligible.foracceptanceInto the Secondary Syste * 6. Thelocation shown in Exhibit "A° for Warrior Drive °would causethe.most.damage to the Buffalo Lick Run wetlands when the road is extended as if;is,shown crossing the widest section of the wetlands. 7. The current Exhibit "A" lacks the details of how Land Bay'VIl& VIl1 are to access a public, highway. 8. .There',s no, mention =of an inter - parcel connections'with;the adjacent property: owners /developments. Thank-you for the opportunity comment. Should you have any questions, 'feel free to contact ine. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg °Residency Land Development http: / /maii.Isvlc. com/ edgddesk /egi- bin/viewmail.exe ?id =01 dld28a23f667d5e873c52c9561... 9/1- 9/2013 Frederick Cagnty Center, LLC - VDOTComments to Rezoning 14031 Old, Valley, Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Phone 4040#84-5611 Fax #040) 984-560-7 'Page 2 of 2 http://mailasvic.c6in/edgedesk/cgi-bin&icwmaii.exe?id=Olald28a23f667d5e873c52c9561... 9/19/2013