Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-05 Comments
WILBUR C. HALL (1892 -1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 -1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE O. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. HAND DELIVERED Dear Mike: HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW I 7 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSOAWEN STREET LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 703.777.1050 August 3, 2005 Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 FAX 540-662 -4304 E lawyers @hallmonahan. PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 -0848 Re: Winchester Artrip, LLC (Villages at Artrip) Proffer Statement I have reviewed the above referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and is legally sufficient and enforceable as a Proffer Statement, subject to the following: 1. I have not been provided with a copy of the Master Development Plan (MDP) referenced in the Proffer Statement. As many of the proffers contained in the Proffer Statement are referenced to the MDP, this review does not include matters referenced to the MDP, and I assume that those matters will be reviewed by staff. 2. While implied, I believe it would be preferable to have it expressly stated in Proffer No. 1 that the property will be developed in substantial conformity with the MDP. Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director August 3, 2005 Page 2 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL 3. The second paragraph on the first page of the Proffer Statement makes reference to a General Development Plan (GDP), and states that the GDP "shall not be deemed a part of the MDP submittal but is otherwise proffered as set forth herein." It appears that the GDP is a sheet within the MDP, and I am not clear as to the significance of the statement that the GDP is deemed not a part of the MDP. 4. In subparagraph 1.2.1, it is provided that commercial development shall not exceed a maximum of 118,550 square feet. The area subject to this limitation should be identified (for example, 118,550 square feet of usable commercial floor area). 5. The description and limitations on residential development as set forth in Proffer No. 1 should be carefully reviewed by staff for conformity with County ordinances and for suitability. 6. Paragraph 1.6 states "not withstanding any provision of law to the contrary, rental apartment, condominium units, and rental apartments over retail and office uses shall be permitted." This does not seem to be a proffer, but rather seems to be calling upon the County to waive provisions of its ordinances, which the County cannot do unless the ordinances provide for a waiver. 7. Subparagraph 1.3.1 provides that residential development on the property shall not exceed a maximum of 905 dwelling units. Paragraph 1.7 states that the gross density of residential units shall not exceed 5.40 units per acre. Are these two statements consistent? If not, which controls? 8. It should be noted that in Section 3 (Phasing of the Development) there is no timing associated with the phases. Therefore, there is no control over when the residential units will come on line. It should also be noted that the residential limitations are cumulative, so that if any portion of the 300 dwelling units are not constructed in Phase I, there are added to the 380. dwelling units which may be Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director August 3, 2005 Page 3 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL constructed in Phase II. Also, it should be noted that the commercial portions of the property will be developed in Phases II and III. Therefore, there could be 300 dwelling units constructed in Phase I without any commercial development. However, in subparagraph 3.1.3 (Phase III), it is stated that "the Applicant may construct all or any portion of the commercial development authorized in this proffers at any time." Is this inconsistent with the previous statement in Proffer 3 that commercial portions will be developed in Phases II and III? 9. In subparagraph 3.1.4, it should be noted that the community center and pool to be constructed in the Core Area is not required to be constructed until the beginning of Phase 11I. Therefore, there could be 680 dwelling units on line before the community center and pool are constructed. 10. In paragraph 5.1, if it is intended that the provision on sidewalks is to require sidewalks on both sides of public and private streets, that fact should be expressly set forth in the third sentence of paragraph 5.1. 11. In paragraph 7.1, regarding dedication of 11 acres for a school site, I question why it should take 180 days after a written request for the Applicant to dedicate the identified 11 acres. Also, the proffer indicates that the land would be dedicated for use as a future elementary school site "in conjunction with the adjacent property of others What is the significance of the quoted language? It also should be noted that in paragraph 7.1, the Applicant retains an easement on the 11 acres for the construction of storm water management facilities, and retains the right to construct storm water management facilities for both quality and quantity purposes on the 11 acres. While the paragraph says that the facilities will not materially impede the use of the property as an elementary school, it seems to give the Applicant the continuing ability to come on to the property to construct storm water management facilities. This would seem to raise a question as to whether there would be any assurance for the future that the storm water management facilities would not interfere Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director August 3, 2005 Page 4 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL with the use of the property as a school site, and, further would seem to raise the question as to whether the proffered school site is suitable or whether it is merely "land left over after development." In any event, the proposed site should be reviewed by the school board, in addition to the County, for suitability. 12. Each of the various monetary proffers should be reviewed for suitability (the monetary proffer for schools would appear to be low, particularly in relation to the other monetary proffers). 13. In paragraph 12.1, the provisions for public water and sewer seem to presume that the Sanitary Authority lines are now at the property boundary, or will be brought to the property boundary by the Sanitary Authority. Further, the word "property" at the end of the first sentence should be capitalized, to make it clear that the "property boundary" being referred to is the external boundary of the entire development, and not interior property boundaries. 14. In paragraph 13.5, there is reference to the dedication of "Land Bay F As I do not have an MDP, 1 cannot identify what is being referred to as "Land Bay F." It is noted that, for some reason, it may be dedicated in phases. In any event, this proffer, if desired by the County, should have a timing commitment as to when the property would be dedicated to the County, or its assignee, and a determination is made as to whether it is appropriate to have a dedication made in phases. 15. [assume that Proffer No. 14 (Transportation) will be carefully reviewed by staff. As I do not have the MDP or specific information about transportation plans in this area of the County, I am unable to substantively comment on this proffer. Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director August 3, 2005 Page 5 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN S, MITCHELL As stated above, this review does not included items which are referenced to the MDP, which was not available to me in preparing this review. Further, in general, I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. RTM /glh ly yours, Robert T. Mitchell Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached letter from VDOT to Mr. Michael Wiley dated May 20, 2005. i VDOT Signature Date. �v (ii {9 5 Notice to VDOT Please Return Form to Applicant i• Rezoning Comments Mailing Address: Current zoning: RA Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984 -5600 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 Applicant; Please 111 out the information as accurately as possible m order to assist the. Virginia Tl4parhnent of Tran withtheir review: Attac Three copies of your. application form, toeatron map, proffer s tatement, impact analy and? any other pertinent information, Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Telephone: 540 678 -2700 c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75— ((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I -81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 20 MAY 2 3 2005 wberty Philip A. Shucet COMMISSIONER May 20, 2005 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGIN' Mr. Michael T. Wiley C/O Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Building B, Suite 6 Winchester, VA 22601 Sincerely, Ref: Winchester Artrip, LLC Dear Mr. Wiley: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 719. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in The Villages at Artrip rezoning application dated May 20, 2005 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. The developer will be required to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT at the time the roadway is requested to be accepted into the State's Secondary System. The developer will he liable for the cost of the signal. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer LAI /rf Enclosure Comment Sheet DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING r: r MAY 2 3 2005 b JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984 -5600 FAX (540) 984 -5607 To: (Frederick County Sanitation Authority ;Date: 1 5/6/2005 !Project No: 1276014 P.O. Box 1877 Project Name: Villiages at Artrip Winchester VA 22604 Reference: Carbon Copy: Attention: IJohn Whitacre Copies: D Date: N Number: D Description: El In is Mies ie* .,p Atlanta, GA 611 West Juba! Early Dr. Bldg 13 Suite C, Winchester, VA 22601 Baltimore, MD We Transmit: as per your request under separate cover by mail by messenger by pick up by overnight carrier D ewberry Chicago, IL Comments: c fi3r V /x'11t/ A/0 Ca411/ 7,E*% enclosures are not as noted, please notify us at price e wberry Davis I,LC is an equal opportunity employer and. as such. compli ion of Executive Order 11241 as amended by Executive Order 11359, Fairfax, VA the following: prints specifications change order shop drawings reproduciblcs samples product literature computations descriptions Fredericksburg, VA rc! Lanham, MD /r✓- c-a e S "G -61 Gaithersburg, MD 0 for: Transmittal 4509 Transmittal Phone 540.678.2700 your approval your review and comment your file /use revision and submission distribution Leesburg, VA MAY a 2FC g y "Fl�r 71 �i 3 C O Fax''540:678i2 703"• 0 as requested by as approved by Manassas. VA I lk Winchester, VA as submitted For approval by please acknowledge receipt of enclosures return enclosures to us 7/1111Y 0S Fire Marshal's Comments: 5'2.- c \C> QoreNwve <\,-.9 i tit l asFprm to the J A Fire Marshal's Signature Date: a:7 Noh ce is e 1Vits hal Please R'; Appli Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick County Fire Marshal 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665 -6350 Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Mailing Address: (VA Route 649), and 150' Current zoning: RA Frederick County Fire Marshal Hand deliver to: Frederick County Fire Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal County Administration Bldg., 1st Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 540-678-2700 c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75 —((A)) Parcel 99A. One mile west of I -81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road north of Fair. Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 22 Control number RZ04 -0021R Project Name Winchester Artrip LLC Address 611 West Jubal Early Drive Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Siamese Location Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Plan Approval Recommended Yes Date received 5 /6/2005 Tax ID Number 75 -A -99A City Winchester Automatic Fire Alarm System No Requirements Hydrant Location Roadway /Aisleway Width Reviewed By Timothy L. Welsh Applicant Dewberry Fire District 11 Recommendations Date reviewed 5/17/2005 State VA 22601 Rescue District 11 Date Revised 5/1/2005 Zip Applicant Phone 540- 678 -2700 Election District Shawnee Residential Sprinkler System No Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Where the desire of the developer to provide proffers is appreciated the development of this project will have an overwhelming impact on fire and rescue services. F .9 Date Dec 21, 2004 Routing Talked With: Greg Lock Of: Chief of Stephens City Volunteer Fire Dept Phone No.540- 869 -4576 or Pager: 1- 877 -500 -0967 Action Recorder Incoming Outgoing Reference Information Record of Communication Topic ARTRIP REZONING PACKET 53 Dewberry Greg said he would not sign off on the comments because no amount of funds for the Volunteer fire dept. was designated as a contribution. According to Greg: The VFD are volunteers and receive no compensation for their fire fighting, but they buy the equipment (engines, ambulances, etc) and house and maintain them while the Fire and Rescue get all the funds. The VFD have had no funds for 3 years while the F&R have had 3 raises and get the money in the proffers. They will have to refuse to cover the Artrip area, because without any funds they won't have the equipment needed to do so. They want an amount designated at a contribution for the VFD stated in the proffers. I spoke to Mike about this situation the next day and he said they could state their objections and what they want as their comments. I have called Greg on his pager and left a message. So far I have received no answer. updated 1/03 Mr. David L. Frank, CLA Dewberry Davis LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Suite C Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: The Villages at Artrip Comments related to Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Frank: June 22, 2005 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 Your letter dated June 13, 2005, has adequately addressed our previous review comments related to the rezoning application and master development plan associated with the proposed Villages at Artrip. HES /rls cc: Planning and Development File v' Sincerely, h.L Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E Director of Public Works 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 2 'd ooh (0 Atlanta, GA Baltimore, MD e Transmit: as per your request under separate cover by mail by messenger by pick up by overnight carrier Comments: D ewberry 611 West Juba] Early Dr. Bldg B, Suite C, Winchester, Va 22601 Chicago, IL the following: prinLs specifications change orders shop drawings reproducibles samples product literature computations descriptions losures are not as noted. please notify us at once. Fairfax, VA Gaithersburg, MD Fredericksburg, VA D Lanham, MD for: your approval your review and comment Aar ealltritottE rtsar u sub n LJ. Aplientim re Parlous Mtlb is necessanq aecemmad a project buAki Dewberry At Davis LLC is an equal opportunity employer and. as such, complies with Section of Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11357. Rf1 T T 77/ nbC 1 1 T Mnu I nu A]I"'C 'turm rr rs, 7Cransrnittal Phone 540 676.2700 Leesburg, MB as requested by as approved by y our file /use revisions and submission as submitted for approval by distribution please acknowledge receipt of enclosures return enclosures to us fytQ vt Sent b Michael T. Wiley FAx 540.676.2703 Manassas, VA Winchester, VA .J i •1/1 L., e. N f. TO:1Fred —Wine Service Authority Dote:l 08 NOV 04 Project No: 76030007 107 North Kent Street Project Nome: The Villages at Artrip Winchester VA 22601 Reference: Master Development Plan for The Villages at Artrip Carbon Copy: Charles A. Segerman, P.E. Attention: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director John H. Foote, Esq. 2 'd ooh (0 Atlanta, GA Baltimore, MD e Transmit: as per your request under separate cover by mail by messenger by pick up by overnight carrier Comments: D ewberry 611 West Juba] Early Dr. Bldg B, Suite C, Winchester, Va 22601 Chicago, IL the following: prinLs specifications change orders shop drawings reproducibles samples product literature computations descriptions losures are not as noted. please notify us at once. Fairfax, VA Gaithersburg, MD Fredericksburg, VA D Lanham, MD for: your approval your review and comment Aar ealltritottE rtsar u sub n LJ. Aplientim re Parlous Mtlb is necessanq aecemmad a project buAki Dewberry At Davis LLC is an equal opportunity employer and. as such, complies with Section of Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11357. Rf1 T T 77/ nbC 1 1 T Mnu I nu A]I"'C 'turm rr rs, 7Cransrnittal Phone 540 676.2700 Leesburg, MB as requested by as approved by y our file /use revisions and submission as submitted for approval by distribution please acknowledge receipt of enclosures return enclosures to us fytQ vt Sent b Michael T. Wiley FAx 540.676.2703 Manassas, VA Winchester, VA .J i •1/1 L., e. N f. Copies: Dote: Number: Description: 1 76030007 Rezoning Application, Impact Annalysis Statement and Master Development Plan for The Villages at Artrip 2 'd ooh (0 Atlanta, GA Baltimore, MD e Transmit: as per your request under separate cover by mail by messenger by pick up by overnight carrier Comments: D ewberry 611 West Juba] Early Dr. Bldg B, Suite C, Winchester, Va 22601 Chicago, IL the following: prinLs specifications change orders shop drawings reproducibles samples product literature computations descriptions losures are not as noted. please notify us at once. Fairfax, VA Gaithersburg, MD Fredericksburg, VA D Lanham, MD for: your approval your review and comment Aar ealltritottE rtsar u sub n LJ. Aplientim re Parlous Mtlb is necessanq aecemmad a project buAki Dewberry At Davis LLC is an equal opportunity employer and. as such, complies with Section of Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11357. Rf1 T T 77/ nbC 1 1 T Mnu I nu A]I"'C 'turm rr rs, 7Cransrnittal Phone 540 676.2700 Leesburg, MB as requested by as approved by y our file /use revisions and submission as submitted for approval by distribution please acknowledge receipt of enclosures return enclosures to us fytQ vt Sent b Michael T. Wiley FAx 540.676.2703 Manassas, VA Winchester, VA .J i •1/1 L., e. N f. Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868 -1061 Applicant Please tiff oil; Sanitation Authority v rnap, proffer statetnea Mailing Address. Current zoning: RA Sanitation Authority Comments: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Applicant's Name Winchester Artrip LLC 4/l/ r(/d/,//,M' 25 WazigeaSiWagaz ormatron as accurately'as possi eu re few. Attach a'copy o unpact analysis, and my'othe Rand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia n order to assist ou application form, Iocatin ?n..ent infoimatkon:: Telephone: 540-678-2700 c/o Dewberry Attention: David L. Frank 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite Winchester, VA 22601 C Location of properly: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75— ((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I -81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 /l Sanitation Authority Signature &Date �c/UL Os l otk.e to A r" or ty 'lease Retur i This Forrnr to Applicant Copies: Date: Number: Description: 1 5/6/2005 Master Development Plan 1 5/6/2005 Proffers Statement 1 5/6/2005 Comment Response Letter D 0 611 West Jubal Early Dr. Bldg B Suite C, Winchester, VA 22601 Atlanta, GA Baltimore, MD Attention: We Transmit: as per your request under separate cover by mail by messenger by pick up by overnight carrier Comments: Dewberry Winchester VA 22604 Chicago, IL John Whitacre If enclosures are not as nosed. please notify us at pnce 122 0 0 0 To: Frederick County Sanitation Authority P.O. Box 1877 iii ewberry Davis LLC is an equal opportunity employer and. as such. complies with on or Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11357. Fairfax, VA Gaithersburg, MD Fredericksburg, VA Lanham, MD the following: prints specifications change order shop drawings reproducibles samples product literature computations descriptions (Date: 1 5/6/2005 Reference: Carbon Copy: EB 0 for: Transmittal t{ 4509 your approval ta your review and comment your file /use revision and submission distribution Transmittal Phone 540.678.2700 Leesburg, VA Project Name: Villiages at Artrip Fax 540'%78' ^70J' Project No: 1 1276014 as requested by as approved by 1 Winchester, VA as submitted for approval by please acknowledge receipt of enclosures return enclosures to us /fl J'$ Manassas. VA Rezoning Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868-1061 Mailing Address: Current zoning: RA Sanitation Authority Comments: N/t' COi$'fi/ il/% 25 nauai.<s. a >x...3..,MO n .✓.n.dMz Je. ,M.... r:e «..vim.. `vW:g x..ai:?.a s Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant Please fill out the utformatton as accurately as posstbie ut orde: OlitSSISt. Sanitation Authority with their review Attach a copy of your, applcattoa Corm, locatio. map, proffer statement, unpact analysis, and`any other pertinent tufot'titatton Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Telephone: 540 678 -2700 c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75— ((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I -81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 Sanitation Authority Signature Date: a V4/.'N�.cit- /7 /1in NatiGe Sa tk is .f'vi7ti to tli�e I NOV 1 6 2OP4 1,pplicat�k Freder'ck- Winchesterr Realth Department's Comments: et: c,, CI Cr et" el Lie:✓✓, e •4) ,A E ,f J l i'? Z etiereg7 Health Dept. Signature Date: /7 AX el Ap u s T1 orm to th plicant 0 "f 'P mfi nip moti0 tp„Fl t Ae partmen ease p Pl Return Rezoning Comments HEMMAIDIMMEITZ Mail to: Frederick Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 722 -3480 ormatipri as accuratel}� as j wx i ri. anent nth *tlie ct?.dir proffer si4ement „unpa Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Frederick Winchester Health Department South Frederick Land' Use area, Tax Map 75- ((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I -81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road Location of property 7M 75 /-1 .11 4 '"flailflT Winchester Artrip LLC Otto 9C41d 7/ 3fri Hand deliver to: Frederick Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Suite 201 Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 540-678 2700 c/o Dewberry Attention:• Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 26 rDEC 0 2004 Dewberty vvinc May 20,2005 David L. Frank, CLA Project Manager Dewberry 611 West Juba! Early Drive, Building B, Suite C Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Application Master Plan Development Plan Comments The Villages at Artrip Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Frank: We have reviewed the above referenced Rezoning Application /Master Plan and it appears that the proposed site plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport as the majority of the subdivision falls outside of the Airport's Part 77 surface. No special requirements or conditions are requested on behalf of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662 -2422 Rezoning Comments II II 9, 3 2004 FnEc Rscs:CCRirJty i'Lj\NNt 3 a °SELOPMENT Historic Resources Advisory Board Mail to: Frederick County Department of Planning Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665 -5651 Applicant'sName: Winchester Artrip Limited Telephone: (301)984 7000 Partnership Mailing Address: pin The Tenzer Cnmpanias_ 11501 Huff: Court North Bethesda, 1D 20895 Location of property Sduth Frederick Land Ilse U.S. 522 on Tax Map 75((A)), Parcel 99A. Current zoning: Zoning requested: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Planning Development Co. Administration Building, 4th Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Plan area, R4 east of I -81, west of Acreage: 169.924 Advisory Board Comments: Signature Date: ;o cet4 oa rd ,,,:Pease r..n arne :0 *pl caa t 19 August 5, 2004 Sincerely, CEM /bad Mr. Mike Wiley Dewberry Davis LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester, ITA 22601 Lt I/r) Candice E. Mills Planner I 107 North Kent Street m Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERIC Department of Planning and Developme 54 0/665 -56 FAX: 540/665 -63'. RECD G Dewberry ncheste r RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Villages at Artrip; Rezoning Proposal; PIN# 75 -A -99A Dear Mr. Wiley: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. The Rural Landmarlcs Survey and the Comprehensive Policy Plan do not identify any significant historic structures or battlefields located on or adjacent to the property. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5678 .goss5le m order to assisj tt 5ttacit a c 9 P y of yo applw sr s *if oily. Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of roe South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75— ((A)), P P rty: Parcel 99A. One mile west of I -81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north Current zoning: RA Department of Parks Recreation Comments: t ar use on ce �o,T eGrea Winchester Artrip LLC c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 MAY 1 9 2005 Zoning requested: R4 23 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 540-678-2700 of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). PRINTED R EC 0 8 2004 Dewberry Winchester Acreage: 169.924 REZONING COMMENTS ARTRIP Department of Parks and Recreation's Comments: The area identified as a school site and open space for use by the Parks and Recreation Department does not appear to be adequate to accommodate both uses. The typical section on page three of five of the Master Development Plan, indicates trails to be between five and ten feet in width. The Parks and Recreation Department recommends all trail to be a minimum of ten feet in width. The revised proffer statement has modified proffer 5.1 to reflect ten foot bike trails. The Proffer Statement should include language which indicates the bridge design (the proffer statement, section 14.2.1.1) will accommodate bicycle lanes. The proposed monetary proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be less than what the impact model would indicate is needed to offset the impact of this development. Signature and Date: h i 91' Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Winchester Artrip LLC c/o Dewberry Attention: David Franks 611 West Juba! Early Drive Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Franks: SMK/dkr 540- 662 -3889 Ext 112 Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us cc: WiIliant C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools June14,2005 Respectfully yours, Frederick County Public Schools RE: Resubmitting of rezoning application for The Villages at Artrip Project This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning application for the proposed Villages at Artrip project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 155 single family homes, 180 town houses, and 570 multi- family homes will yield 49 high school students, 47 middle school students, and 131 elementary school students for a total of 227 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the arca, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The resubmitting of this rezoning application with its proffer statement provides approximately 11 acres to be dedicated for a future elementary school site (minimum acreage needed for an elementary site would be 15 acres). It is imperative with the above number of units included with this project that an elementary school be located in this area. With current building trends, future considerations need to given to additional middle and high school facilities. Also because of the continued growth in Frederick County, the replacement of certain administrative facilities such as the transportation and administration, which currently have exceeded their capacity, will need to be replaced or expanded. This proffer helps to address the impact of a future elementary school; however, the impact of this type of application on other current and future school division needs should be considered during the approval process. Stephen'Kapocsi Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604 -2546 e -mail: kapocsi s ©frederick. k12. va. u s FAX 540 -662 -3890 Town of Middletown's Comments: A/c) -f--- Town of Middletown's Signature Date: G'%,' :..J x A/c, r N 0 ce=tqu7.;own afMld... ii, ,,l'l se ,R gfpr..tlis Farm to the Applicant FIFF iliritittl 'OF Rezoning Comments Mail to: Town of Middletown Attn: Town Manager P.O. Box 96 Middletown, Virginia 22645 (540) 869 -2226 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of property. Current zoning: RA Dewberry Winchester Town of Middletown Winchester Artrip LLC Zoning requested: R4 27 Hand deliver t,: Town of Middletown Attn: Town Manger Middletown Town Hall 7875 Church Street Middletown, Virginia Telephone: 540-678-2700 c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75— ((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I -81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Acreage 169.924 Town of Stephen City's Comments: tril ff C 'en e t„A S 0 V 4 Irw,? S Town of Stephens City's l Signature Date: at f '41; r. i 7; 5 ft" N A e 1\ohcc R P Q n 9. S #epiiellk i y ;,R Eo to $a Applicant ,Please se..inSMT* W? Ai9i Rezoning Comments Mail to: Town of Stephens City Attn: Town Manager P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 (540) 869 -3087 Town of Stephens City Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of property Current zoning: RA Winchester Artrip LLC Zoning requested: R4 28 Hand deliver to: Town of Stephens City Attn: Town Manager Stephens City Town Hall 1033 Locust Street Stephens City, Virginia Telephone: 540-678-2700 c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75- ((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I -81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Acreage. 169.924 City of Winchester's Comments: y W-A f 3 r t I L `/ewiS"f�d: 6749 5 ict„_, pfni 1/t /ne.,4/ -o s s-v,/t n.ioPC7✓r/ '76 t7!! rr o r lJC1Jt W here 4e. 5r 4Q /S rice/el it 7L 1 1/4_ S ay 4 &J TA's es Crycern J^ ie(rzs e( 'la etols, City of Winchester's d Signature Date: VC OC N ottce,to Ci o1 Wi nchester e'R eturn 'This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Winchester City Planning Department Attn: Planning Director 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667 -1815 540 678 -2700 Applicant's Name: Telephone: Mailing Address: 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property- South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75– ((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I -81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), Current zoning: RA City of Winchester Winchester Artrip LLC c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Zoning requested: R4 29 Hand deliver to: Winchester City Planning Department Attn: Planning Director Rouss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 169.924 Acreage: The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan SECTION 6 AGENCY COMMENTS February 14, 2005 Mr. Mike Wiley Dewberry 611 W. Jubal Early Drive Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Additional Preliminary Comments The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application. Dear Mike: Thank you for forwarding to this office the Villages at Artrip Rezoning application and Master Development Plan application materials for our review. The opportunity to discuss this project with you over recent weeks has been most helpful. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to address the issues associated with this rezoning application. As customary, it is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. With regards to the Master Development Plan application, please refer to the accompanying letter from Candice Perkins of this office. L General Comments, Application and Impact Statement. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 1. The Comprehensive Plan provides two clearly stated goals that pertain to planned communities which seek to encourage large scale new communities that are creatively and appropriately designed to provide the highest possible quality of development and seek to ensure that new planned communities do not have adverse impacts on the community. 2— The mixed use concept is intended to land use patterns that allow for internal service, employment and intermodal transportation opportunities with public open space linkages between various developments. The concept is offered as a diversion from the typical segregation of land uses into specific zoning districts that are often unrelated to each other such as is presently evident in the County: The approach offered with this application seeks to achieve this desirable concept and is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 3. From a land use planning perspective the location and scale of this project may present a unique opportunity to implement a truly mixed use project into Frederick County. The property is centrally located to the developing areas of the County at the future confluence of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. The prominent visibility and strategic location that will ultimately be provided at this location should be advantageous to the success of this concept and project. Such a creative approach or concept would be more preferable and acceptable than a rezoning that would simply enable more of the existing pattern of development to occur. Recognizing the desirability of the concept, many of the following comments seek to ensure that the impacts associated with such a project are addressed to the greatest extent possible. 4. The narrative describing the development proposal of the project and the residential uses is extremely flexible. It states that the uses may include and are not limited to the noted housing types. Further, the description of the unit types depicted on the MDP is clear in that it is for illustrative purposes only. This lack of commitment or specificity with the housing units and the MDP would appear to leave the ultimate mix of units, and the overall design of the project open to significant modification that may ultimately frustrate the concept and design that has been presented to the County. The applicant should evaluate if it would be more appropriate to provide a greater level of specificity and commitment regarding the housing units and MDP. The more certainty that the Planning Commission and ultimately Board of Supervisors has regarding the ultimate outcome of the project may result in a greater comfort level in the disposition of the application. 5. Throughout the application there are requests to modify certain elements of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as enabled by Section 165-72.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. As required, the applicant shall demonstrate that the requested modification is necessary or justified. It would be helpful for the applicant to consolidate all of the requested modifications in some form of justification statement or document. Further, an alternative dimensional requirement plan and alternate buffer and screening plan should be prepared that clearly identifies the modifications or alternatives that are being requested and the justification for such modification. Presently the various requests are located throughout the application and in the proffer statement. The above would provide clarity in the review and potential ultimate endorsement of modifications and would be most helpful to the rezoning and MDP administration. As we had previously discussed, please find enclosed with these comments a copy of a similar document that was accepted by the County with the Stephenson' s Vill age rezoning application for your information. 6. A listing has been provided within the narrative that identifies the dimensional standards for which the applicant seeks modification. It is suggested that a separate document is created that would stand alone from the application and also have the ability to be attached by reference to the proffer statement. The justification for the modifications should be addressed in the application. 7. It would be desirable for the applicant to expand upon the brief justification offered for the modifications to the dimensional standards. Further, there does not appear to be a real nexus between the design standard modifications and the design and construction of a portion of Warrior Drive, a major collector road It may be more appropriate and helpful to the application to recognize the Warrior Drive improvement in relation to other project benefits or modifications such as the overall project density. 8. The applicant has proposed a modification which would result in a reduction of the required parking for the commercial elements of the plan. It may be helpful to expand upon the rationale and justification for this modification request. Further, it is offered that the potential may exist for a further reduction in the visibility of the parking area in front of the core commercial structures. This could be achieved by relegating this parking to an area behind the core commercial buildings and moving the core commercial buildings in a southerly direction or slightly closer to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, further promoting the neo traditional concept: 9. With regards to the commercial uses in general, and on alternative Landbay D in particular, the application has not committed to the design and layout of the commercial uses and structures. Architectural design standards could be considered as a proffer that would ensure the character and integrity of the design program that has been represented with this application. The concepts and renditions presented would appear to be highly desirable in such a community. However, it should be recognized that as proposed there is no guarantee that the architecture and design would be achieved. The concept presented stands out above the typical suburban developments with unlimited access that is currently prevalent. It is the desire of the County to ensure that what is presented in support of this application is guaranteed with the mechanics of the rezoning application. Further, that the innovative approach offered by the application is ultimately fulfilled. 10. It may be appropriate to ask the applicant which scenario is their preferred option for Landbay D and why. The result of the implementation of the option would be a decrease of 80 units, from 900 to a total of 820, and an increase in the commercial square footage of 43,560, from 175,700 to 219,260 square feet. It should be pointed out that the MDP included with the application does not accommodate the commercial conversion of Landbay D. A mechanism to effectuate this should be provided in the proffers or as an alternative section of the MDP in anticipation of this being the preferred scenario. 11. An important request of the application is that which requests flexibility to change and /or relocate housing types, and as necessary, neighborhood alleys and streets, provided that the total number of residential units and densities set forth for each landbay shall not be exceeded, and that primary access points to proffered roads be similarly maintained. The substantial flexibility that this request offers is extremely problematic when considering this application and its illustrated concept. An extreme result of this flexibility could be a completely different project with only the total number of units as the guiding element for the design. This issue needs to be resolved in favor of the ultimate implementation of the illustrated concept depicted in the Concept and Master Development Plans. The concept that has been presented to the County is in general terms positive and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the requested flexibility leaves open the opportunity to change the project beyond the design and context of the presented project. 12. An exhibit has been provided that shows conceptual building elevations of the various product types anticipated to be constructed within this development. This exhibit reflects a positive image for the project and would be desirable. However, no commitment has been made in the application to guarantee the successful inclusion of the various product types. It may be desirable for the applicant to proffer the various design elements illustrated in the exhibit. In particular, the urban core of Landbay A with its mix of commercial and residential uses in a well planned and designed environment warrants consideration for such an approach. This focal element of the project is most critical to ensuring the character and function of the mixed use village concept that has been introduced with this application. II. Transportation. 1. It is imperative to call attention to the fact that the Concept Plan, the MDP and its associated road designs, or the proffered transportation improvement program do not address the need to connect the Warrior Drive improvements into the existing and /or approved off -site Warrior Drive improvement projects. The assumptions of the TIA provide for this connection to occur in one direction or another and ultimately in both directions. It is safe to say that the validity of the project and rezoning application depend on the connection of Warrior Drive to existing sections of Warrior Drive. Coordination should occur with adjacent development projects and satisfaction of this issue should be completely secured with future modifications to this application. I have provided a copy of the adjacent Wakeland Manor projects Warrior Drive design and commitments for your information. The following comments relate to the details of the proposed transportation improvements. 2. Consideration should be given to construction of the ultimate roadway cross section designed for the Warrior Drive improvement portion of this project in a similar manner to the Crosspointe project and the Drive project south of Route 277 recently completed by the County and VDOT. It is recognized that the design of the typical sections provide for an initial and future typical section. While the initial section for Parkins Mill Road would suffice for a more significant length of time, the importance and location of Warrior Drive, and the projected traffic volumes, would suggest a need to implement the ultimate design of Warrior Drive within a shorter time frame. 3. The proposed typical sections indicate the provision of gravel shoulders with the interim and future sections of portions of both Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. This approach is not conducive to bicycle travel. As you are aware, Warrior Drive is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a Bicycle Route. Any accommodation that could be made to facilitate this designation should be considered. Additional paved width in the travel lane or the provision of a paved shoulder consistent with Virginia Department of Transportation guidelines could be introduced into the typical sections. 4. Based upon the existing location of the Warrior Drive hiker/biker trail and proposed expansions to the trail it would be appropriate to designate and design the trail along the east side of Warrior Drive through the limits of the property to a point where the transportation improvements connect into the existing or proposed road system. The typical road sections on the MDP should be modified accordingly and should reflect the appropriate width hiker /biker trail. 5. The responsibility of the design, dedication, and construction of Lakeside Drive should be further elaborated on with this application. The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes this road connection and the application indicates a recreational use of adjacent Landbay C with access from this road. The ultimate use of the area south west of Warrior Drive in the vicinity of Lakeside Drive may evolve and the connection to existing Lakeside Drive may not be timely, however, access to this portion of the project should be addressed further. 6. Accommodations for the ultimate design of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road should be provided throughout the limits of this property to a point where the roads connect with adjacent projects commitments. This should include accommodations for drainage and trails. 7. Consideration should be given to extending Parkins Mill Road to a more logical terminus beyond the access point of the final private driveway that is depicted on the MDP. The adjacent Canter Estates V project will provide for the necessary right-of- way dedication for the extension of Parkins Mill Road to accommodate this expansion. I have provided a copy of the adjacent Canter Estates V subdivision design plan for your information. 8. The opportunity exists to further address identified community facility needs by anticipating potential locations that may be appropriate for future public uses. Such locations would- appear -to -be adjacent -to- existing- publicly owned land and land proposed to be provided for recreational uses. the Ordinance should be provided which would include consideration of the additional recreational units for the small lot single family housing alternative. It may be appropriate to further clarify the commitments regarding community facilities in the proffer statement. An elaborate arrangement of community facilities has been expressed in the Concept Plan. However, the flexibility proffered by the applicant may enable a substantially alternative approach to be provided. 8. The architectural, signage and landscaping proffers could be more illustrative and committal to achieving a certain design for the Villages project. The proffered buffering should be consistent with the alternative buffer and screening plan that is developed for this project. Also, please provide the comprehensive sign plan that is referenced in proffer 4.3. 9. It should be noted that the minimum acceptable standard for hiker biker trails is ten feet in width. Proffer 5.1 should reflect this requirement. 10. It would be appropriate for the application to address the full impacts on the Community Facilities of the proposed project. Presently, the values have been omitted from the proffer statement. A significant relationship exists between the phasing of the project, the inclusion of the commercial land uses, and the impacts to community facilities. The identified fiscal impacts of the project should be fully addressed with this application. A reevaluation of the phasing may assist in addressing the impacts of the residential components of the project. Alternately, it may be appropriate to offset the impacts of the residential components of the project by contributing a corresponding amount that represents the impact of only the residential components of the project. This may ease any concern regarding the timing of the inclusion of the commercial components of the project. 11. A fine example of a specimen Delaware Pine tree is identified in the application and exists on the property in the general location of the original home site and gravesite. Further consideration should be given to the preservation of this tree and the incorporation of the tree into the overall design of the project. 12. The character of the environmental areas adjacent to the steep slope areas and the mature woodlands that exist in this vicinity are dramatic examples that should be incorporated into the project. Serious consideration should be given to adjusting the limits of development to minimize the impacts on these resources. This appears to be a more critical concern adjacent to the Opequon Creek. Such modifications would appear to have a minimal impact on the overall development of the project and would result in enhanced areas of environmental protection. 13. The notations regarding the proffered transportation improvement should be modified to ensure that the road improvements related to a specific phase of the development are substantially completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for that particular phase of the project. This is consistent with existing policy of the County Department of Public Works. The design, bonding, and platting of the III. Proffer Statement. 1. The initial and perhaps most significant proffer is Land Use Proffer 1.1. The language contained within this proffer is extremely permissive and provides complete flexibility to modify the design, layout, and concept of the project from what is promoted with the rezoning application. As presented, the language opens up the core concept of the application to be frustrated. The County is in general support of the mixed use village concept proposed with the application and would seek to ensure its completion with a commitment to a project that is in conformance with the initially presented MDP. 2. The commercial development of the property should be in a style consistent with that presented in the application. The proffers do not ensure that this will occur. No architectural details and site design elements have been proffered and secured. It would appear as though the core commercial area is integral to the design of the project and the success of the concept. It may be appropriate for the applicant to consider this within the proffer statement. 3. It has been suggested that the alternative development standards included in the proffer statement be detached form the statement and stand alone. The proffer statement should then make specific reference to the stand alone document as an attachment to the proffers and would therefore be recognized as an integral part of the proffer package. 4. It would be helpful for the application to further describe the shared parking concept proposed for the commercial areas of this application. A reduction in the amount of 20 percent may be appropriate However, no justification has been provided for this reduction as required. 5. A phased approach to the development of this project is desirable. The details of the phasing program offered warrants modifications to ensure that an increased amount of commercial comes on line earlier in the development process. Particular attention should be paid to providing for the inclusion of the core commercial area as early as possible in the projects lifecycle. This would provide for a key component of the overall concept of the project. Presently, 577 residential units could be in place prior to the inclusion of 10,000 square feet of commercial. The entire 900 units could be developed prior to the initiation of the remaining commercial product being introduced. In fact, there appears to be no guarantee that the commercial will be provided. Certainly, there is no assurance that the commercial will be provided in the preferable manner represented in the concept plan. 6. Please correct the reference in proffer 3.1.5 regarding the early construction of Warrior Drive and its connection to area roads. 7. Connection should be provided for the provision of necessary community facilities in relationship to the phasing program. A summary of the requirements of phases of the project will occur prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project consistent with customary land development practices and County policy. 14. Specific language should be included regarding the roundabout intersection improvement project at the intersection of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. In addition, accommodations should be provided for the connection of Lakeside Drive, or an alternative entrance to this area of the project, into the roundabout intersection. 15. It may be appropriate to consider advancing the substantial completion of the transportation improvement package for the entire project with the initial phase of the projects development. 16. Proffer 15.4.1 should be revised to reflect the correct number of units as the approach appears to be cumulative. Also, as previously mentioned, consideration should be given with this section to the completion of Warrior Drive and the extension of Parkins Mill Road to a more logical terminus. 17. It would be appropriate for the purpose of clarity to proffer the width of the right of -way that is to be dedicated in conjunction with the transportation improvements for this project. Please feel free to contact me at any time regarding the above comments or the application in general. As I have identified in this letter, further coordination of the review with the Frederick County Director of Parks and Recreation and Frederick County Public Schools regarding the potential for additional public uses in association with this project may be worthwhile. I look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this application. Sincerely, MTR/bad 7 4^-07 Michael T. Ruddy, AI CP Deputy Planning Director