Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05 Comments (2)John H. Foote (703) 680-4664 Ext. 114 jfoote @pw.thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680 -2161 JI- IF /jhf Mr. Jerry Copp Residency Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Dear Jerry: Thanks very much for your assistance. WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH WALSH PC CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED November 20, 2008 Re: Artrip VDOT Frederick County Agreement Sincerely yours, n H. Foote WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY, WALSH, P.C. PHONE 703 68o 4664 1 FAX 703 68o 6067 1 WWW.THELANULAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 ATTORNEYS AT LAW W-Irip won,► F/e. ja -o5 NOV 2 1 2008 I have received signatures from all of the parties to the above Agreement. The County forwarded me but one signature page each for Mr. Riley and Mr. Cheran, and 1 am electing to return the entire original of the Agreement to you for VDOT's safekeeping. I am sending copies of the completed package,to all of the other parties trusting that this will be sufficient, since it would require yet another round of letters and emails to get additional original signatures. 1 am also enclosing with this a check from The Tower Companies in the amount of $185,975.00 in conformance with that Agreement. Mr. Jerry Copp November 20, 2008 Page 2 of 2 cc: John Riley, County Administrator w /attachments Rod Williams, County Attorney w /attachments Eric Lawrence Mark Cheran Jeffrey Abramson w /attachments Stuart Margulies David Borchardt John Callow w /attachments Mark Cheran 11501 Huff Court North Bethesda, MD 20895 Tel: 301.984.7000 s Fax: 301.984.6033 wwwtowercompanies.com October 26, 2006 Michael Ruddy, AICP Frederick County, Maryland Dept. of Planning Development 107 North Kent Street, 2 Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Artrip Property Dear Mr. Ruddy: Enclosed, please find a copy of the revised proffer, statement dated October 25, 2006. This proffer reflects Gene Fisher's recent request to include the connection of Parkins Mill Road to the school site in phase I in the event Warrior Drive is constructed first from Crosspointe. You will find that modification in paragraphs 14.7.1 and 14.7.2. Please don't hesitate to contact us, John Foote or David Frank for any questions you may have. We hope to see you at the Board Hearing on November 8th. Sincerely, J Stuart Margulies Assistant Project Manager i THE TOWER COMPANIES cc: Jeffrey Abramson, The Tower Companies David Borchardt, The Tower Companies John Foote, Walsh, Colucci 4310 Prince William Pkwy., Suite 300 Prince William, VA 22192 David Frank, Dewberry Davis, Jim Brown, Dewberry Davis, 602 North King Street, Suite 201 Leesburg, VA 20175 John Callow, Patton, Harris, Rust, 611 West Jubal Early Dr.,Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 14532 Lee Rd. Chantilly, Virginia 20151 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP „,(ACT_ Deputy Director RE: Revised Proffer Statement Villages at Artrip. DATE: October 16, 2006 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 Please find enclosed the revised Proffer Statement for the Villages at Artrip. This is the color comparison versioh which Mr. Foote has provided in advance of the fully executed version. It appears to address the comments made by the Board at your meeting on October 11, 2006. Please let me know if you have any concerns or additional comments. This item will be back in front of the Board at your November 8, 2006 meeting. Attachment MTR/bhd 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ #12 -05 and MDP #09 -05 RA to R4 PROPERTY: 169.924 acres Tax Map Parcel 75 -A- 99A (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Winchester- Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia Corporation APPLICANT: Winchester -Artrip Limited Liability Company PROJECT NAME: Villages at Artrip ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 2004 REVISION DATA: May 20, 2005 June 17, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 26, 2005 November 28, 2005 January 27, 2006 September 8, 2006 October 10, 2006 October IC 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant "Applicant these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with `Final Rezoning" defined as that rezoning that is in effect on the day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board grants the rezoning. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners, assigns, and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Master Development Plan" shall refer to the plan entitled "Master Development Plan, The Villages at Artrip" prepared by Dewberry (the "MDP dated January 27, 2006 and revised September 8, 2006, sheets 1 -4; provided further that sheet 5 thereof, entitled General Development Plan "GDP shall not be deemed a part of the MDP submittal but is otherwise proffered as set forth herein. 1 u P0047851. DOC 1 Proffers (905 Revisions) 000419 000004; Deleted: Octobc Deleted:\ Formatted: Font: 8 pt 1. LAND USE 1.1 The project shall be designed so as to establish interconnected mixed use villages in conformance with the MDP and the GDP, and as is specifically set forth in these proffers. 1.2 Except as modified herein, areas of commercial development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Planned Community "R4 zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165 -67 through §165 -72, as cross referenced to Article X, §165-82, Sections A through D inclusive, and §165-83. All commercial development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be otherwise approved by Frederick County. 1.3 Except as modified herein, areas of residential development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Planned Community "R4 zoning district, including permissible housing types, including those set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165 -67 through §165 -72, as cross referenced to Article VI, §165 -58, through §165 -66, including as set forth in Appendix A ("Housing Types In the event that the Applicant elects to construct any of the Housing Types that are set forth on Appendix A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, such units shall conform to the development standards established therein. Housing Types and lot layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the permitted Housing Types identified for those Landbays as set forth on the MDP or as are otherwise authorized for the RP district as it is incorporated by reference into the R4 district; provided further that no more intensive Housing Type may be constructed in any Landbay than is identified as a Housing Type permitted therein on the MDP. 1.3.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 793 dwelling units, with a mix of Housing Types permitted in the R4 district, subject to the modifications as set forth in Appendix A, and dwelling types shall be constructed in the locations generally depicted on the MDP and as further set forth herein. 1.3.2 For the purposes of these proffers, single- family attached and detached and multi- family units shall include those 1 J P0047851.DOC 1 Proffers (BOS Revision,) 000419 000004 1.2.1 Commercial, retail, restaurant and office development on the Property shall not exceed 128,550 net useable square feet of commercial area, and shall be provided within the Core Area. 7 JP004785 I.DOC I Proffers (BOS Recisions) 000419 0000041 3 Housing Types identified on the MDP and set forth in the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance including detached cluster housing, small lot singles, single family urban, zero lot line singles, and village rear load singles. Multi family units shall include apartments, fee simple condominiums, and duplex units. 1.4 Development of commercial, residential and community uses within the area identified on the MDP as the "Core Area" shall generally conform to a grid lot layout, and the street layout and Housing Types depicted therein on the MDP. Not fewer than three Housing Types shall be provided in the Core Area. The layout of the Core Area shall be constructed in general conformance with the GDP, provided that reasonable adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. 1.4.1 The Applicant shall construct not fewer than 100 residential units of three different permitted Housing Types in the Core Area in Phase 1 of the development as otherwise set out herein. 1.5 Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area shall generally conform to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP; provided that minor adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. Housing Types and lot layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the permitted Housing Types identified for those Landbays on the MDP and authorized herein or subsequently approved by the Frederick County Planning Office; provided further that no more intensive Housing Type may be constructed in any such Landbay than is identified as a Housing Type permitted therein on the MDP. 1.6 Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, rental apartments, condominium units and rental apartments over retail and office uses shall be permitted. 1.7 The gross density of residential units shall not exceed 4.7 units per acre. 1.8 Shared parking shall be provided for retail, restaurant and office uses within Landbay "A" such that a 10% reduction or increase of the required parking spaces shall be permitted. 1.9 The Applicant shall make reasonable attempts to preserve the specimen Delaware Pine in the general vicinity of the cemetery on the property identified on the MDP as Village Green B. Such Green shall be preserved for passive recreational use, provided that a tot lot may be located thereon. During construction the limits of clearing and grading in the vicinity of the specimen Pine shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the Frederick County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance to prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances and regulations for the R -4 zoning district, the MDP, and this Proffer Statement as it may be accepted by the Board. 3. PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT 3.1 The Property shall be developed in three phases, with the commercial portions of the Property to be developed in Phase II as set forth herein. The three phases shall be authorized as follows: .P0047851. DOC 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 4 3.1.1 Phase I. Residential development shall not exceed 325 dwelling units and shall consist of not fewer than three permitted Housing Types. 3.1.2 Phase II. Residential development shall not exceed an additional 275 dwelling units, for a total of 600 dwelling units comprising not fewer than three permitted Housing Types. 3.1.3 Commercial development shall include not less than 20,000 square feet of commercial /retail /restaurant gross leaseable floor space in the Core Area, whose shell has been constructed not later than the 600 residential building permit. 3.1.3.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, and except to the extent set forth herein, the Applicant may construct all or any portion of the commercial development authorized in these proffers at any time. 3.1.3.2 The Applicant shall submit a site plan for the aforesaid commercial development prior to the issuance of the 326` residential building permit. 3.1.4 Phase III. Residential development shall not exceed an additional 193 dwelling units, for a total of 793 dwelling units. 3.1.5 Community improvements. Community serving improvements such as community center, tot lots, and similar improvements as shown on the MDP shall be 4. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING: ;P004785 I DOC 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004; constructed in conjunction with the Landbay with which such improvements are associated; provided that the community civic center and pool to be constructed in the Core Area shall be designed and bonded at the beginning of Phase I, and constructed prior to the issuance of the 325 building permit. 4.1 The following building materials may be used for construction within the Property, and no others: 4.1.1 Pavements Curbing shall consist of cast in place concrete, natural and colored; aggregate concrete; precast concrete, natural and colored; concrete pavers; brick pavers; stone pavers; asphalt pavers; granite; ceramic tile; asphalt. 4.1. House sidings shall consist of EFIS; stucco; brick; cementious siding; cedar siding; stone veneer; painted wood; vinyl siding; stained wood; aluminum; aluminum wrapped trim; hardy plank; PVC trim. 4.1.3 Decking and fencing shall consist of pressure treated wood; stained wood; painted wood; PVC fencing; IPE decking; cedar decking; TREX decking or similar recycled product. 4.1.4 Miscellaneous materials that may be used for roofing shall consist of standing seam metal roofing, colored; slate rooting; asphalt roofing; powder coated steel, colored; galvanized steel; aluminum brushed; anodized aluminum, colored; 304 stainless steel. 4.1.5 Additional materials not listed herein may be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval, who shall determine whether those materials are of a type and quality substantially similar to those listed. 4.2 Vinyl siding shall not be used on the front elevation of residential structures facing Warrior Drive or on the fronts of residences located on corner lots that intersect with Warrior Drive. The side of a residential structure that faces Warrior Drive located on a corner lot on a road that intersects Warrior Drive is not permitted to have vinyl siding on that elevation. 4.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, materials used for exterior facades of the commercial buildings shall include but not be limited to concrete masonry units (CMU) split -faced block, architectural block, dryvit, or other simulated stucco (EFIS), real or simulated wood and /or glass. 5 6. FIRE RESCUE: 7. SCHOOLS Standard concrete masonry block shall not be used for the front facades of any buildings. 4.4 All buildings within the development on the property shall be constructed using compatible architectural styles. The Applicant shall establish under the jurisdiction of the HOA(s) to be established hereunder, one or more Architectural Review Boards to enforce and administer a unified development plan. 4.5 All signage within the project shall be in substantial conformity with the comprehensive sign plan incorporated herein as Appendix B to these Proffers; provided that the Director of Planning may authorize alternative signage that is substantially consistent with the aforesaid sign plan. 4.6 The major collector roadways (Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road Extended) in the Villages at Artrip shall be constructed with a minimum 20' width buffers adjacent to dedicated rights -of -way and, except at entrance locations, shall be improved with landscape features and lighting to create a "boulevard" appearance. Illustrative details of such buffers shall be as set forth on the MDP. 5. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 5.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian bicycle trail system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and commercial areas within the development and provides additional connectivity to adjacent properties. Said trails shall be in general conformance with the South Frederick Land Use Map and shall be in the locations generally depicted on the MDP. Five -foot sidewalks shall be constructed on all public streets and a minimum of four foot sidewalks shall be constructed on private streets in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, except as may be otherwise depicted on the MDP. The pedestrian/bicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Extended shall be 10 feet wide, and shall have an asphalt surface. 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $537 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7.1 Within one hundred and eighty days of written request therefor. the Applicant shall dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately 18 'P0047851.DOC 1 Proffers (BOS Recisions) 000419 0000041 6 8. PARKS OPEN SPACE: I P0047851.DOC 1 Proffers (DOS Revisions) 000419 000004! 7 acres of land more or less as depicted on the MDP as Land Bay C, for use only as a future elementary school site. 7.2 The Applicant shall extend sewer and water lines to the boundary of the property to be dedicated for school purposes when sewer and water lines are constructed to the Core Area 7.3 The Applicant shall, upon written request therefor, dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately five (5) additional acres of property adjacent to and on the southerly side of Warrior Drive, otherwise depicted on the MDP as preservation area, identified as Land Bay F, for public use that is compatible with residential character of the development of the Property and permitted in the R4 District pursuant to the County Zoning Ordinance. 7.4 The Applicant shall be permitted to retain an easement on any such dedicated property, and on any preservation, open space, or other property to be dedicated, for the construction of permanent stormwater management facilities and utilities, as well as temporary easements for the construction of utilities and structures, for the Villages at Artrip. The Applicant shall coordinate any such facilities with the County and the School Division. The Applicant shall be further permitted to retain the right to construct stormwater management facilities for both quality and quantity purposes, on the property dedicated for school purposes. 7.5 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the following amounts for each dwelling unit constructed, for educational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7.5.1. For each single family detached dwelling, the sum of $14,437.00. 7.5.2. For each single family attached dwelling, the sum of $9,985.00 7.5.3. For each multifamily dwelling, the sum of $3,297.00. 7.6 Without delay in the processing of other applications and issuance of permits for development of the Property, the time for any dedication required hereunder shall be extended by the time required to process any application necessary to create the subdivided parcel of property to be dedicated to the County for school purposes, and the Applicant shall file and diligently pursue any subdivision application needed to effectuate said dedication. 9. LIBRARIES: 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $847 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $137 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 10. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $144 to be used for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 11. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 11.1 The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to one or more homeowners' association(s) (hereinafter "HOA that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella HOA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, private road and open space maintenance, and similar matters common to the development of the Property, and shall establish an architectural review board subject to its jurisdiction. 11.2 Upon formation of the first HOA, the Applicant shall commission a professional management company to prepare a study of the anticipated revenues and expenses of the HOA and POA as further set forth below, for the first two years of operation, or for such longer period as may be required until such associations become self sufficient, and to establish an operating budget for each. The Applicant shall provide to the HOA and POA funds in an amount determined by such study necessary to cover operating deficits that the associations may have during such initial operations. 11.3 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use P0047851 OOC 1 Proffers BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 8 12. WATER SEWER: specifically including the "Village Green" areas as depicted on the MDP, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) private streets serving the residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs, including curbside pick -up of refuse by a private refuse collection company, (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument, (vi) stormwater management facilities, and (vii) the swimming pool and associated civic center /clubhouse. 11.4 The commercial elements of the development shall be made subject to one or more property owners' association(s) (hereinafter `POA that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters. 11.5 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, a POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of commercial lots; (iii) private streets serving the businesses and /or residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs to include dumpster and contract carrier services provided by a private refuse collection company, and (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within commercial or other lots, or parcels, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection at the property boundary. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. rP0047851. DOC 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004; 9 13. ENVIRONMENT: 13.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2 -3, or such requirements as may be applicable at the time of plan approval, for the purpose of providing the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 13.2 Stream preservation buffers shall be constructed in general conformance with the MDP, so as to create buffer requirements established by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to protect Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to Opequon Creek from disturbance. No clearing or grading shall occur within those buffers, except for the construction of road crossings, trails, water lines, sanitary sewer, or other utilities. 13.3 During construction on the property, the limits of clearing and grading shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the Frederick County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, for the project as a whole, to prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved. 13.4 The Village Pond located within the Core Area shall be improved and preserved as a visual amenity and may be used for storm water management purposes for both quality and quantity. 13.5 The fifty -foot woodland conservation area depicted in Land Bays D and E on the MDP, adjacent to Canter Estates, shall remain undisturbed; provided that the Applicant may provide for adequate stormwater management outfall within such conservation area. Any such outfall shall be designed so as to minimize the impact on such area. 14. TRANSPORTATION: 14.1 Transportation improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with each phase of the development as set forth below, specifically including, without limitation, the improvements identified for the intersection of Warrior Drive and Tasker Road. Design of the roadway system shall be phased as set forth in these Proffers and shall be substantially consistent with the study entitled "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of The Villages at Artrip," prepared by Patton, Harris, Rust Associates, dated December 15, 2004 (the "TIA The exact location and design of proffered improvements shall be subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof. The Applicant 'P0047851. DOC 1 Proffers (a05 Revisions) 000419 000004 10 shall construct at its expense pedestrian actualized signalization at each of those locations for which such signalization is identified in the TIA, upon issuance of warrants therefor unless such signalization has been accomplished by others. 14.2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for residential uses on streets to be placed into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 144 -17 (A) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. For the purposes of these Proffers, construction of any road or street referenced herein shall mean construction consistent with the requirements of that section. 14.3 The Applicant shall construct the following road improvements as its road phasing for Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, if construction of that road is initiated from Wakeland Manor. 14.3.1. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall construct an extension of Warrior Drive from Point A to Point B as depicted on the MDP as a full four -lane divided roadway, including construction of a full section of a roundabout or traffic signalized intersection, as may be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation, at the intersection of Warrior and Parkins Mill Road. If a signal is not warranted at the time of the construction of the roadway, the Applicant shall bond the installation of that signal until warrants are satisfied. In conjunction with such construction, the Applicant shall further connect Warrior Drive into the adjacent property known as Wakeland Manor, so as to match the pavement widths of that portion of Warrior as constructed by others. The bridge crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon on the southernmost edge of the Property at Point A shall be constructed to accommodate the ultimate design of Warrior Drive. 14.3.2. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall further construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill Road Extended, from its intersection with Warrior Drive at Point B to Point B1, as generally depicted on the MDP and within existing dedicated right -of- way, and shall construct the improvements to the Tasker Road Warrior Drive intersection as identified in the TIA. 14.3.3. The Applicant shall block all vehicular access from Parkins Mill Extended to Falabella Drive in Canter Estates Section V until the County directs that such connection be made; I P004785' DOC 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 provided, however, that the Applicant may construct a connection to Falabella prior to such direction as an emergency access to the Property, according to plans approved by the Director of Public Works the purpose of which shall be to make vehicular access possible for emergency purposes and to impede all other access. 143.4. Warrior Drive shall be constructed as an urban section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor with an ultimate right of -way 100' in width. Parkins Mill Road shall be constructed as a rural section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor with an ultimate right -of -way 80' in width. 14.3.5. Upon initiation of said construction, the Applicant may further undertake grading, infrastructure construction, roads, and similar pre construction activities and preparatory work necessary for building commercial or residential structures, upon issuance of permits therefor. 14.4 Prior to the issuance of the 326 residential building permit, the Applicant shall further construct Warrior Drive as a full four lane section roadway, from Points B to D as depicted on the MDP. 14.5 The Applicant may construct a model home or sales center on the Property concurrently with the construction of the bridge connection to Wakeland Manor, and consistently with applicable County ordinances and regulations. The Applicant shall be permitted to obtain an occupancy permit therefor once the bridge is open to the public, bonded for final completion, but not yet accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 14.6 In addition to the foregoing, the Applicant shall design and bond for completion the following improvements to Warrior Drive: 14.6.1. If the location of the connection of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe has been identified the Applicant shall complete the remainder of Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E as a full section of a four lane divided roadway to that point, by the issuance of the 601st residential building permit. 14.6.2. If the location of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe has not been adequately identified prior to the issuance of the 501 residential building permit, the Applicant shall design and provide performance guarantees pursuant to applicable Virginia law regarding the posting of such guarantees for the construction of Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E as a full four -lane divided roadway to a location that is approved by the P0047BSI.DOC (1 Proffers (805 Revisions) 000419000004; 12 P0047851. DOC 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004. 13 County, so as to assure the availability of funds sufficient to complete Warrior to a connection with Crosspointe. 14.7 Road phasing if construction of Warrior Drive is initiated from Crosspointe: 14.7.1. In the event that others have constructed Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Center to the Property boundary prior to the initiation of development of the Property and Warrior is to be constructed from that boundary to the south, then prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive as a full four -lane divided roadway from Point E to Point C 14.7.2. Prior to the issuance of the 326 residential building permit, the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive from Point C to Point A as a full four -lane divided roadway (and make its connection to Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor as provided for if Warrior is commenced from the south), and shall complete Parkins Mill to Point B1, whereupon the Applicant will be permitted to build out the remainder of the residential units and commercial square footage. 14.7.3. The Applicant shall block all vehicular access from Parkins Mill Extended to Falabella Drive in Canter Estates Section V until the County directs that such connection be made' provided, however that the Applicant may construct a connection to Falabella prior to such direction as an emergency access to the Property according to plans approved by the Director of Public Works the purpose of which shall be to make vehicular access possible for emergency purposes and to impede all other access. 14.8 All left and right turn residential and commercial entrances to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road shall be limited to those locations as generally depicted on the MDP. 14.9 Warrior Drive shall be constructed with a trail section throughout the Property, and such trail shall be extended to the property boundaries of Crosspointe and into Wakeland Manor with the extension of Warrior thereto to connect with Warrior as constructed by others. 14.10 The Applicant shall extend Parkins Mill Road Extended to Falabella Drive in Canter Estates, including a pedestrian trail on the south side Parkins Mill Extended, excluding the site to be dedicated to school purposes, when Parkins Mill Extended is constructed as otherwise provided in these proffers. Deleted: and construct an entrance to the school site at Point RI connecting the ennanre of Canter Estates to the school site Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 14.11 The Applicant shall design and shall construct its internal road network as public or private roads substantially as they are depicted on the MDP. In the event that the Virginia Department of Transportation declines to accept neo- traditional road designs for any such internal streets, the Applicant may construct such streets as private roads. 14.12 All public right -of -ways shall be dedicated to Frederick County as part of the subdivision approval process, consistently with applicable Virginia law. 14.13 All public streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation specifications, and subject to review and approval by the Frederick County and VDOT. 14.14 All private streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation standards therefor as set out on Sheet 3 of the MDP, and as modified thereby, and shall be owned and maintained by the HOA as defined herein that is served by such streets or roads. 14.15 No construction traffic shall be permitted through Lot 121 in the adjacent Lakewood subdivision, or through Canter Estates, Section V. In no event shall a permanent interparcel connection be made through Lot 121. Emergency access may be provided through such lot if approved by the Director of Planning. 14.16 The County not object to the grant of permission to the Applicant to construct a 2 -lane gravel access road as identified on Sheet 3 of the MDP, across the adjacent property owned by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, for construction access to the Villages at Artrip, including construction of roads, bridges, utilities, and stormwater management facilities. The County will use its best good faith efforts to assure permission to construct such access road, if such efforts are required. After completion of construction, the Applicant may employ such access road as an emergency access to the Property. 14.17 For purposes of these proffers, a road shall be deemed constructed or completed when it has been constructed to a point at which the road is open to the public, remains bonded for final completion, but has not yet been accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION 15.1 The Applicant shall preserve the Artrip Family Cemetery. The Applicant shall further create a 0.5 acre preservation park surrounding the Cemetery, as generally depicted on the MDP. 1P0047851 DOC 1 Proffers (8O5 Revisions) 000419 0000041 14 16. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 16.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (`CPI -U published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 30 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 5% per year, non compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE P0047851. DOC I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004t 15 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: <4>MODIFICATIONS TO MONETARY PROFFERS IN THE EVENT OF ALTERATIONS TO COUNTY FISCAL IMPACT MODELINGIl <4 >Notwithsranding any provision of these proffers to the contrary, if Frederick County modifies its fiscal impact modeling policies regarding the calculation of monetary contributions for the mitigation of development impact, so as to provide credit for the economic benefits to the County derived from the development of commercial space within the Property, then the Applicant shall be entitled to receive such credit as may be provided in such policies: and provided further that if the County modifies such policies so as to provide credit for the dedication of real propeny for public uses, then the Applicant shall be further entitled to receive such credit for property so dcd:cated. STATE OF MARYLAND; By: COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY: to -wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2006, by My Commission expires: P0047851.DOC 1 ProtTcrs (BOS Revisions) 000419000004: 16 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, Limited Liability Company Jeffrey Abramson Title: Managing Member Notary Public John H. Foote (703) 6804664 Ext. 114 jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680 -2161 Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Michael: WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICII TERPAK PC September 8, 2006 Re: Resubmission of Artrip Rezoning Application As we have discussed, attached you will fmd a resubmission of the Artrip rezoning application, based in material part on our meeting of May 18 This resubmission includes several items. 1. Dewberry has made modifications to Warrior Drive that are intended to smooth its functioning as a four -lane divided through carrier from north to south, as was suggested by Supervisor Shickel. Although Tower presently shows a roundabout at Point B on the MDP, as we have noted, this is discretionary with the Board of Supervisors as the proffers are presently written. It may be converted to a signalized intersection if that is deemed more appropriate. For aesthetic reasons, Tower prefers the roundabout, and believes that it functions more safely and more smoothly than does a signalized intersection, but the option remains. 2. Tower believes that this is a true neo- traditional development without parallel or precedent in Frederick. Attached to this resubmittal is a copy of the Matrix drawn from Andres Duany, the principal student of such developments, which identifies the elements of a neo- traditional community and demonstrates how this proposal satisfies those elements. When this community is completed, it will be a model for the County and for every other jurisdiction surrounding Frederick. While you are correct to observe that there are varying degrees of compliance with the Duany Matrix, we are comfortable that this is the only project in the County that remotely resembles it. 3. Tower intends that its commitments be accomplished by acceptable levels of development, and so the proffers reflect this. 4. With respect to the fiscal impact model, the discussions we have had with the County have revolved around the proffer for public schools. It should be reiterated that the County has PHONE 703 68o 4664 1 FAX 703 68o 6067 1 WW W.THELANDLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Michael T. Ruddy September 8, 2006 Page 2 told us from the initiation from the application that it would be processed under the old fiscal impact model, but we are aware of the County's interest in additional funds to offset the impact on schools, since those constitute the principal part of the locality's budget. In order to determine what is a reasonable and fair proffer for public school purposes, in the absence of better guidance, Artrip has analyzed the situation as follows. Based on the County's current Fiscal Impact Model as it relates to schools, a single family detached dwelling should proffer $23,290, of which $19,189 (82 is attributable to schools. There are similar percentages for each unit type. I believe, however, that it is or should be recognized that there is substantial public value in the contributions that Tower is making that are indeed voluntary. These include, at a minimum, the dedication of property for the new school, and the road to that site including the extension of utility services. This has a conservative value to the County of $2M. They also include the construction of Warrior through the property to a standard that would not be required for the development of the Artrip land alone, and do so in a manner that will not otherwise occur, at a cost of more than $4M above that which would be technically required to service the development. Both of these advance long term public needs that have been identified by County agencies. Warrior has been on the books since I first began working in Frederick in 1989. Frederick County does not have a transportation component in its proffer model, and yet Tower will be spending millions of dollars on the construction of a major segment of Warrior. Taking all contributions together, this project will provide approximately $6M for capital improvements beyond those that are required to service it alone. We note, too, that the current commercial credit in the existing FIM is approximately $8,600 per unit. Even if this credit is an inaccurate reflection of the actual value to the County of commercial development, owing to defects in the modeling process itself, Tower believes that it is entitled to a credit for that development since it will indisputably bring economic benefits to the County coffers, and to the neighborhood that such development will serve. Tower has therefore proposed a revision to the proffers that materially increases the amount of money proffered for schools, to reflect the impact of each household on the school system for each type of housing proposed. These calculations are based on the total number of students at each school level (339) that the Villages at Artrip is estimated to generate. Thus, each single family detached dwelling would proffer the increased sum of $14,437 per home; single family attached the sum of $9,985; and each multifamily home the sum of $3,297. This is approximately 75% of the current FIM suggestion for each unit type, and constitutes a very substantial increase from the $337 per unit previously proposed. We have been made aware that the County is considering modifications to the FIM process that would incorporate revised credits for the benefits of public land dedication and commercial development not now recognized. We have added a proffer that would permit this project to take advantage of those credits, should the Board choose to include them. Michael T. Ruddy September 8, 2006 Page 3 The total proffer amount proposed is now $7,324,148, when the proffers for fire, parks, libraries, and administration are included. When coupled with the value of the commercial property, the additional road improvements, and the school site, the proposed capital contribution to the County plainly exceeds the FIM currently in place. I am unaware of any County project that has proposed a similar contribution to offset its capital impacts. At present, the estimated number of each such unit type is 172 single family attached, 246 single family attached, and 375 multifamily units. Because Tower is not required to develop this specific numbers of those units, but is rather required to mix unit types and not exceed the proffered limit, this will likely result in additional funds depending on the unit type constructed. We trust that you will share this information with the Board, and we will be contacting you about further meetings and the scheduling of this case for Board consideration. JHF /ame cc: Jeffrey Abramson Stuart Margulies David Borchardt Arnold Kohn David Frank Jim Brown John Callow Sincerely yours, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY, EMRICH WALSH, P.C. John H. Foote THE REGIONAL STRUCTURE THE CURRENT PROPOSAL Is the TND location consistent with a comprehensive regional plan that preserves open space and encourages public transit Yes. The County has long planned this area as part of its Urban Growth Area and it is within the Sewer and Water Service Area with ample public facilities. Is the TND connected in as many locations as feasible to adjacent developments and thoroughfares Yes. The property is so located it cannot reasonably be accessed from across the Opequon, or from the property owned by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The staff has requested that no connection be made to the adjacent subdivision on the south west property boundary. Connection will be made ultimately to Canter Estates. Does highway approaching the TND either pass to its side or take on low -speed (25 mph maximum) geometries when entering the neighborhood proper There are no highways adjacent to or approaching the Villages at Artrip. Design of Warrior Drive through the property accommodates pass through and local traffic. It is this project that provides a portion of a long- and much desired road improvement. In regional transportation planning, are any decisions to add new highway or new lanes tempered by a full understanding of the phenomenon of induced traffic Yes. The traffic analysis for this project does reflect that induced traffic was considered and has been accommodated. Are plans for large sites divided into neighborhoods, each roughly a five minute walk a quarter from edge to center? (Centers can be peripherally located in response to a site condition, such as a beach, major thoroughfare, or railroad station.)* Yes. THE NATURAL CONTEXT Are wetlands, lakes, streams, and other significant natural amenities retained and celebrated Yes. TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT (NEOTRADITIONAL COMMUNITIES) THE VILLAGES AT ART RIP PLANNING MATRIX' September 8, 2006 This matrix is taken from Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, Duany, Plater Zyberk, and Speck (North Point Press 2000). {00032114.DOC 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004} Are significant natural amenities at least partially fronted by public spaces and thoroughfares rather than privatized behind backyards Yes. Is the site developed in such a way to maximize the preservation of specimen trees and significant groups of trees, locating greens and parks at tree -save areas Yes. Does the plan accommodate itself to the site topography to minimize the amount of grading necessary to achieve a viable street network? Yes, the layout follows the contour, and steps down with the slopes to minimize grading. Are significant hilltops celebrated with public tracts and /or civic buildings, and are mountaintops and major ridge tops kept clear of private development? There are no such physical features on the site. Are any large areas of open space connected into continuous natural corridors? Such corridors either shall be located between neighborhoods, or may pas through neighborhoods in the form of thin greenways.* Yes. There are significant natural buffers between Wakeland Manor, Canter Estates, and Crosspointe. LAND USE Does each neighborhood provide a relatively balanced mix of housing, workplace (home and office), shopping, recreation, and institutional uses Yes. The development is centered on the Core Area, which will include a commercial component and civic features such as a common, and a pool and clubhouse. Do commercial activity and housing density increase toward the neighborhood centers Yes. The commercial component is in the center of the development, and density feathers out from the Core Area. Is each neighborhood center the location of retail space? (A corner store subsidized if necessary is required in all neighborhoods containing at least 500 residences and /orjobs.)* Yes. There is no "corner store" in each neighborhood, but the commercial component is within easy walking distance of every proposed home. Is each neighborhood center the location of office space, ideally located in mixed -use buildings Yes. The commercial component accommodates retail and office uses. Is there a dry, dignified place to wait for transit at each neighborhood center No transit is available to this site. Are lots zoned not by use but by compatibility of building type? Yes. The County's R -4 Zone permits the flexibility necessary to mix housing types and to avoid "Euclidean" development {00032114.DOC 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004} {00032114.DOC 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004} patterns. The MZP directly reflects this. Do most changes in allowable building type occur at mid -block rather than mid street so that streets are coherent on both sides? Yes. PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND SPACES is there a civic space such as a square, plaza, or green at each neighborhood center Yes. The residential component located to the south of Warrior will have direct pedestrian access to such areas. Does each neighborhood reserve at least one prominent, honorific site for a civic building, typically at the neighborhood center Yes. The development is too small for a number of such civic buildings, but the location of an elementary school adjacent to the Core Area meets this criterion. Are elementary schools, day -care centers, and recreational facilities located within one mile of most dwellings, sized accordingly, and easily accessible on foot Yes. The school site has been noted. It is too soon to know whether a day care facility will be located in the commercial area, but it can be accommodated. There will be a pool and other recreational areas accessible by foot. Are there small playgrounds distributed evenly through each neighborhood, roughly within one eighth mile of every dwelling Yes. The primary concept for this community layout is based on recreational linkage with primary and secondary common greens allowing for play areas throughout the village. Do all public tracts within the neighborhood correspond to well- understood open -space types, such as a park, green, square or plaza Yes, primary and secondary greens and open space linkages to the core village are provided. THE THOROUGHFARE NETWORK Are streets organized in a comprehensible network that manifests the structure of the neighborhood Yes. Are cul -de -sacs avoided where natural conditions do not demand them Yes. There are very few cul de sacs planned. Do blocks average less than 600 feet in length and less than 2,000 feet in perimeter Yes, our average block length is 405' with a perimeter average of 1,620' in the core vil lage. Are all streets within the neighborhood faced by building fronts or public tracts, rather than serving as collector roads with no purpose other than handling traffic Yes. Are most street vistas terminated by a public tract, a view of a natural feature, a deflection in the street, or a carefully sited Yes. {00032114.DOC 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004} building? Do most streets that curve maintain roughly the same general cardinal orientation (except where steep grades dictate otherwise)? Yes. STREET DESIGN Is there a full range of streets, including most or all of the following:* Yes. Main street, approximately 34 feet wide, with marked parking on both sides; Through avenue (optional), including a 10 -to -20 foot treed median separating two one -way lanes, each approximately 18 feet wide, with marked parking on one side; Through streets, approximately 27 feet wide, with marked parking on one side; Standard streets, approximately 24 feet wide, with unmarked parking allowed to stagger from side to side; Local streets, medium density, approximately 26 feet wide, with unmarked parking on both sides; Local streets, low density, approximately 20 feet wide, with unmarked parking on one side; Commercial rear alleys, approximately 24 feet wide within a 24 -foot right -of -way; Residential rear lanes, approximately 12 feet wide within a 24 -foot right -of -way? Yes No. This feature is optional for TND. Yes Yes Yes No not permitted in Virginia No not permitted in Virginia Yes Alleys will be a minimum of 18'. Are street geometries based upon a design speed no greater than 30 mph within the neighborhood, 20 mph on local streets Yes Are unconventional (traditional) roadway geometries such as forks, triangles, and staggered intersections provided to calm traffic? Yes. Are curb radiuses at intersections a maximum of 15 feet 25 feet in rural areas Yes, minimum curb radii will be 25' for public streets and 15' for private roadways. {00032114.00C 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004) with a typical measurement of 10 feet at local intersections? (Larger radii are allowed where required by the turning radiuses of emergency equipment, provided that such equipment is the appropriate size.)* Are one -way streets and streets with more than one lane in each direction avoided in all but the most urban circumstances, with densities of over 50 units per acre? (If four -lane streets cannot be avoided in low- density areas, such streets must skirt neighborhoods rather than passing through them.)* Yes for streets with more than one lane in each direction. There are no one -way streets. THE PUBLIC STREETSCAPE Do all streets other than alleys and lanes have a sidewalk on at least one side 4 to 5 feet in width, 12 to 20 feet wide on retail streets (both sides)? (Exemptions are possible in extremely low- traffic or slow traffic conditions).* Yes. Does every non commercial street include, between the road -bed and the sidewalk, a tree strip 5 tol0 feet in width, of indigenous shade trees planted approximately 30 feet apart, 10 -foot minimum height at planting Yes, VDOT recommends a minimum 6' wide planting strip. Does every retail street include indigenous shade trees planted at an average of 30 feet on center (10 -foot minimum height at planting), located in sidewalk -level planters, typically paced in line with the party -walls between shops (optional in the presence of conflicting arcades or awnings)? Yes Are street materials simple, with asphalt cartpaths and trowel- finished concrete sidewalks? (Brick sidewalks are unnecessary, but commercial sidewalks should include a four -to -six foot brick strip connecting the planters, for root health.) Yes Are all streetlights, mailboxes, trash receptacles, and other pedestrian obstructions placed within the tree strip, except main street benches, which should Yes {00032114.DOC 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004} back up to building fronts? Are all unsightly transformers, lift stations, utility meters, HVAC equipment, and other machinery located not in the front streetscape but at the rear lane or alley? Yes Are streetlights of low height and wattage, and provided frequently toward neighborhood centers (approximately 30 feet on center) and Tess frequently toward rural edges (at intersections only)? Yes For neighborhoods that are located adjacent to nature, dos the streetscape become more rural as it approaches the neighborhood edge, with curbs becoming open swales and trees becoming less informal in their placement? Yes THE PRIVATE STREETSCAPE Do all retail buildings front directly on the sidewalk, with no setback Yes. Are all shop entrances located directly at the public streetfront (no malls or galleries), with any rear entrances for employees only? Yes. Are storefront signs no greater than 24 inches tall (or 24 inches wide if vertical), and blade signs no greater than 12 inches tall (or 12 inches wide if vertical), with translucent signs and sign awnings prohibited? Signage per ordinance requirements Are residential buildings placed relatively close to the street, such that houses are generally set back the equivalent of one- quarter the width of the lot? (This results in shallower setbacks toward neighborhood centers.) Yes, except for the single family lots which are specifically intended to be somewhat deeper and larger. Do all main entrances present a positive image, rather than being voids between buildings? Yes. Do the front setbacks permit the encroachment of semipublic attachments, such as bay windows, balconies, stoops, open porches, awnings, and arcades? (Commercial awnings may overhang the public sidewalk, and arcades should cover all but two feed of the sidewalk width. Yes {00032114.DOC 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004} Both may place supports on the sidewalk.)* Are bay windows and balconies between 6 inches and 3 feet deep, stoops between 3 and 6 fee deep porches between 6 and 12 feet deep, awnings between 6 and 10 feet deep, and arcades between 10 and 20 feet deep? This is undetermined and depends upon the builder. Do buildings have relatively flat fronts and simple roofs, with most wings and plan articulations at the rear? Yes Are all buildings other than small homes at least 2 stories tall, except in rural areas, where buildings taller than 3 stories are prohibited? Yes Does each house on a corner lot have its front door facing the larger street, the exceptions being end -unit row houses, which must always turn the corner, and houses against high -speed roadways? Yes PARKING Do most residential lots smaller than 60 feet wide (and apartment house lots) access their parking via a rear land (or alley), with front driveways prohibited Yes Are all garages that are served from the street front set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front of the house, or rotated so that the garage doors do not face adjacent streets? Yes Are all parking lots located behind buildings or street walls, such that only their access is visible from adjacent streets No Are all surface parking lots planted with indigenous shade trees, at a minimum ratio of one tree per ten cars? Tree planting per ordinance Does the transition from rear parking to main street shopping take place in a pleasant pedestrian passage lined by shop windows? No Are the on -site parking requirements reduced to account for on- street parking availability, nearby public parking lots, mass transit, and the sharing of spaces due to complementary parking schedules Yes {00032114.DOC I 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004} Are structured parking lots located strategically as "anchors" in order to generate pedestrian activity on sidewalks? (Parking lots should generally not lead directly into the buildings they serve, but instead deposit pedestrians onto sidewalks.) No. There are no structured parking lots. HOUSING Is there a diversity of housing types located within close proximity to each other? Ideally, there should be a 5% minimum representation of at least five of the following eight categories:* Apartments above commercial space; Multifamily apartment buildings; Two and three family houses; Row houses; Live /work buildings (row houses or houses with first -floor offices or shops at front); Cottages on small Tots (30 to 40 feet wide); Houses on standard lots (40 to 70 feet wide); Houses on large lots (over 70 feet wide) Yes. Do all commercial buildings have a second story (or more) for housing or offices? Yes Is each house lot pennitted to contain a small ancillary dwelling unit in the rear yard, such as an apartment over the garage? This is not permitted by the County's zoning ordinance. Is subsidized housing stylistically indistinguishable from market -rate housing, and provided in an increment of approximately one subsidized unit per ten market -rate units The project docs not contain a subsidized housing component, and the Applicant does not believe that Frederick County wishes to have one in this development. PRIVACY Do all houses served by alleys have a 340- 6 foot tall privacy fence, wall, or shrub on the rear property line Yes Do all row houses have 5 -to -7 foot tall privacy walls or fences on shared side property lines No. The inclusion of such fences or privacy walls is not consistent with the creation of a community feel, and walls neighbors from each other. {00032114.000 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004} Are all first -story apartments raised a minimum of 2 feet if located within 10 feet of the sidewalk, with windowsills above the eye level of passing pedestrians This is undetermined, and depends upon the builder. Are window muntins (wood strips that hold the panes of glass in a glazed door or window) encouraged on residential buildings (for privacy), but discouraged on retail fronts? Yes ARCHITECTURAL SYNTAX Is regional architectural syntax used as a basis for ecologically responsible design? Yes Are window proportions, roof pitches, building materials, and colors limited to a harmonious range, as regionally determined? Yes Is the ratio of fenestration to wall of building facades kept below 35 except at retail frontages, which are a minimum of 65% fenestration? This is undetermined at this time and will not be known until the unit mix and final architecture is complete. Does each building facade display no more than two -wall materials, textures, or colors (plus trim)? (If two materials are used, the heavier [looking] material shall be located below the lighter. Yes Items marked with an asterisk are identified by Duany as critical design elements. {00032114.DOC 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004} TO: DATE: March 2, 2006 MTR/bhd Board of Supervisors COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP_ Deputy Director RE: Postponement of the Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, RZ #12 -05 The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, RZ12 -05. and corresponding Master Development Plan, MDP #09 -05, have been formally requested to be removed from the Board of Supervisors March 8, 2006 meeting by the applicant. This request for a postponement was received by staff via e- mail correspondence on Friday, February 24, 2006. No time frame for the consideration of this rezoning request has been provided by the applicant. At such time the applicant requests that the application be placed upon the Board's Agenda for consideration, staff will ensure that the Public Hearing is re- advertised and that the application materials are forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Please contact me if you have any further questions regarding this rezoning application. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Board hearing on Artrip Subject: Board hearing on Artrip Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:22:19 -0500 From: "Foote, John" <jfoote @pw.thelandlawyers.com> To: "Mike Ruddy" <Mruddy @co.frederick.va.us> CC: <dfrank @Dewberry.com> Please take this as a formal request that this matter not be placed on the Board's upcoming agenda. In discussions with Board members, I believe that there are additional issues that were not issues for the Commission that will require some time to address. John H. Foote Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich Terpak, P.C. 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Glen Park I Prince William, Virginia 22192 0 703.680.4664 f 703.680.2161 c 703.801.5075 Confidentiality notice: Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e -mail and delete all copies of the message. Thank you very much. I of 1 2/24/2006 4:40 PM 11/16/05 13:22 FAX 10a6s02161 WALSH CULUCCI John H. Foote (703) 680-4664 Ext. 114 jfoote@pw.thelandlawyecs.com Fax: (703) 680 -2161 Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Michael: JIf'ijhf Re: Artrip RZ 12 -05 cc: Jeffrey Abramson Stuart Margulies David Frank Jim Brown John Callow WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH TERPAK PC November 16, 2005 As you know, the applicant in this case has proposed sign 5:ant modifications to the rezoning proposal, to reduce density and to relocate a potential ele r ie:ntary school site, among other things. In consequence we would greatly appreciate it if the Nanning nning Commission would consider deferring further consideration of this case until its Decetober 21st meeting. This would give us time to redraft the MDP and the associated proffers and di scuss them again with you_ Thank you very much for your attention to this. Sincerely yours, WALSH, COLUCC:I, LUBELEY, EMRICH TEItPAK, P.C. Foote PRONE 703 680 4664 1 PAX 703 68o 6067 www.THELAN1!LAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE. WILIJAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 I LOTDOUN OFFICE 70I 737 3 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14J UUY /UUY Artrip RA proffers and MDP Subject: Artrip RA proffers and MDP Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:43:54 -0500 From: "Frank, David" <dfrank @Dewberry.com> To: "Mike Ruddy" <Mruddy @co.frederick.va.us> Good afternoon Mike, After speaking with the team we have submitted the documents as you received them on Friday. It was not going to be possible with our schedules to make any changes to the MDP and get the prints into your agenda package. Even though there are no walks identified passing through the Landbay leading from the core area to the school site, it seems reasonable to suggest this as a development condition. It is the design intent of the layout to incorporate the school into the pedestrian friendly community, and could be agreed to during the planning commission hearing. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. You should be receiving the 45 copies of the revised proffers and MDP this afternoon, as well as a newly signed and notarized set of the revised proffers. Thank you again for all your time and effort on this application. David L. Frank, CLA Project Manager Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Drive Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 678 -2700 (540) 678 -2703 fax (540) 974 -4393 mobile dfrank/a)dewberrv.com e-mail www de wberrv.co m website Visit Dewberry's website at www.dewberry.com This email transmission may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this email message in error, notify the sender by email and delete the email without reading, copying or disclosing the email contents. The unauthorized use or dissemination of any confidential or privileged information contained in this email is prohibited. 1 of 1 1/31/2006 9:14 AM John H. Foote (703) 680 -4664 Ext. 114 jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680 -2161 Michael T Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Artrip RZ 12 -05 Dear Michael: WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH TERPAK PC September 26, 2005 As you requested, the Applicant in this case has revised the proffer statement based on our discussions and the results of the Planning Commission's last hearing. At your request, we are attaching a redlined and a clean version of the proffers (and will have a signed copy of the proffers for the Planning Commission meeting. The following is a bullet list of the significant changes to the proffers: D Perhaps most importantly, Tower has removed the language that would have permitted issuance of building permits and the use of roads in Canter Estates for Phase I before the completion of the bridge to Wakeland Manor.. You will find that this has been accomplished by the deletion of the language to the contrary in proffer 14.3.1.1. Tower has clarified proffer 3.1.3.1 to reflect the extent of completion of Warrior Drive from I -81 to the Tasker intersection. D Tower has revised proffer 4.5 to make the sign package an Appendix to the Proffers. Tower has revised proffer 5.1 to clarify your issues regarding sidewalks. Tower has agreed that it will dedicate the additional five acres to the County pursuant to proffer 7.2, with the limitation that the use be compatible with the community. PHONE 703 68o 4664 1 FAX 703 68o 6067 1 WWW.THELANOLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 5 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Michael T. Ruddy September 26, 2005 Page 2 of 3 to M P Tower has removed the reversionary provision of former proffer 7.5 such that it will not possess a right of first refusal on the school site. Tower has clarified that there will be a 50 -foot woodland conservation area adjacent to Wakeland Manor, in Land Bays D and E, as you have requested. In proffer 14.3.1 Tower has clarified that Warrior Drive is an urban section, and Parkins Mill is a rural section, road. It has also clarified its rights with respect to construction of a model home or sales center, but restricted that to a time when the bridge is useable by the public, in order to avoid reliance on Canter Estates, as you have requested. Tower has modified provisions of proffer 13 regarding Land Bay F because that dedication is now associated with the Schools proffer. These provisions are now found in the proffers with respect to the dedication of the additional five acres, now under the schools section. Tower has added the "missing link" on road construction requirements for Warrior Drive into Wakeland Manor on the alternative road phasing plan, as had been done previously with respect to the primary phasing, in proffer 14.4.1. Tower has revised proffer 14.5.2 to clarify the circumstances in which it may initiate development from Warrior or Parkins Mill. This does not alter its obligation to complete all the road work as otherwise phased, but it may prove easier to initiate construction one way or the other, as events prove out during final engineering and marketing. Tower has also related this more clearly to proffer 14.6.2. Tower has modified proffer 14.10 to reflect sidewalk or trail on both sides of Parkins Mill Road to connect to Canter. I believe that this responds to the requests that you made of us and we thank you for your kind assistance. It is our understanding that you will provide this letter, the revised MDP, and the revised proffer to the Planning Commission prior to its next meeting on this case. JHF /jhf Sincerely yours, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY, EMRI TERPAK, P.C. Foote Michael T. Ruddy September 26, 2005 Page 3 of 3 cc: Jeffrey Abramson Stuart Margulies David Frank Jim Brown John Callow Revisions.0n the way Subject: Revisions on the way Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:18:29 -0400 From: "Foote, John" <jfoote @pw.thelandlawyers.com> To: "Mike Ruddy" <Mruddy @co.frederick.va.us> CC• "Stuart Margulies" smargulies @towercompanies.com "Frank, David" <dfrank @Dewberry.com "Brittingham, Rich" <RBrittingham @Dewberry.com <michael.glickman @phra.com> Michael We have been merrily working away on revisions, and I am finishing a revised proffer statement and IAS. The changes are not extensive, but they are substantively significant. The sum is that Tower proposes to halt development at Phase II until Warrior is completely built through, as Roger and Rick said bothered them, and as your staff report notes. Tower will also double its commitment to commercial prior to the end of Phase 2 to 20,000 SF because that is what can be done practically (and they worry about it) and what the intersection at Warrior and Tasker can handle and remain LOS C according to Glickman and Callow. The rest of the commercial has to await people and traffic. We will also add the five acres for the school site if it is desired. I have now had a chance to talk directly with several members of the Commission, to make sure we were not misreading what we heard. While Chairman Chuck has expressed concerns that he had not mentioned before that are unrelated to these changes, Rick and June at least appear to be comfortable with our ideas though I do not presume to speak for them. I am trying to get hold of Roger so I can check with him. I would also note that plotting 45 full size MDP's is very difficult at this stage. We can simplify this submission by printing only 11" x 17" copies of the MDP. There are only minor text changes to the plan, and based on what we are doing we can't imagine that it warrants additional agency reviews. We are only modifying to accommodate issues that have been expressed. We would appreciate your blessing to not print full scale MDP's. It will be very costly and time consuming for these print to be run in time for the submission. John H. Foote Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich Terpak, P.C. 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Glen Park Prince William, Virginia 22192 0 703.680.4664 f 703.680.2161 c 703.801.5075 Confidentiality notice: Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e -mail and delete all copies of the 1 oft 9/8/2005 9:20 AM y 09/07/05 17:28 FAX 7036802161 WALSH COLUCCI ;s' John H. Foote (703) 6804664 Ext. 114 jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680 -2161 COMMENTS: WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH TERPAK PC FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information transmitted in this facsimile message is sent by an attorney 01 his/her agent. It is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity addressee. If the recipient is a client, this message may also be for the purpose of rendering legal advice and thereby privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copy of this telecopy is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the address below via the mail service. (We will reimburse postage.) Thank You! DATE: September 7, 2005 TO: Jeffrey Abramson, (301) 984 -7601 Stuart Margulies, (301) 984 -7601 David Frank, (540) 678 -2703 Michael T. Ruddy, (540) 665 -6395 FROM: John H. Foote RE: Attached letter TOTAL PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING COVER: If all pages were not received, call (703) 680 -4664. p li SEP 8 20 IONE I 703 h 680 4664 1 FAX 703 68o 6067 I WWW.THELANDLAWYERS.COM U t 4310IPRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 328 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3 -NT ATTORNEYS AT LAW Z001/003 09/07/05 17:28 FAX 7036802161 WALSH COLUCCI John R Foote (703) 6804664 ExL 114 jfoote(pw.thelandlawyers.c Fax: (703) 680 -2161 Mr. Wellington H. Jones Engineer Director Frederick County Sanitation Authority P. O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (00013050.DOC 1 WALSH COLIICCI LIISELEY EMRICH TERPAK PC August 18, 2005 RE: Artrip and the Adjacent Authority Property Dear Wendy: As David Frank and I discussed with you in your office a week or so past, the Tower Companies are seeking to rezone the Artrip property to the County's R4 Zoning District We have been to the Planning Commission once, and are scheduled to be heard again on October 5 Assuming that we are successful in obtaining the rezoning, one of the critical concerns that we face is access to the site for the purposes of initiating construction of the project. At present, the land is inaccessible by any reasonable means except across the Authority's adjacent property. It is our understanding that you have no objection to the Tower Companies to the benefit of Winchester Artrip LLC or their successors aad assigns obtaining access across that ground for use until there is a road connection to the north or south of the property, as Tower intends to construct. I also understand that the Authority would support a conveyance of approximately five acres of its property to the School Board to be joined to the approximately 11 acres that Tower would dedicate for building a new elementary school. The details of such a transaction would need to be worked out, and we are well aware of the existing of the reversionary clause in the deed by which the Authority acquired the property. I have spoken with Dave Holliday, and he advises me that while he cannot commit to executing a release of that clause, he, personally, would not be opposed. There may well be means of accomplishing this without significant difficulty, should the moment of need arise. I am coming to Winchester soon to have lunch with my old friend Dave, and can discuss it with him further My folks would greatly appreciate it if you could confirm this for us, so that, among other things, the good Messrs. Ruddy and Lawrence will be well informed on this. Thanks for your courtesy and consideration. ATTORNEYS AT LAW PHONE 703 68a 4664 PAx 703 68o 6067 1 WWW.TNELANDLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOGE/GUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 Z1002/003 09/07/05 17:28 FAX 7036802161 WALSH COLUCCI Mr. Wellington H. Jones September 4, 2005 Page 2 of 2 cc: Jeffrey Abramson Stuart Margulies David Frank Michael Ruddy (00013051000 1 Jones [.cncr 000419 000004} Sincerely yours, WALSH, COLUCCJ, LUBELEY, EMRICH TERPAK, P.C. Foote 003/003 Artrip Proffers (August, 2006) Page 1 of 1 Mike Ruddy From: Funkhouser, Rhonda Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.Ingram @VDOT. Virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:06 AM To: 'john.callow @phra.com' Cc: Copp, Jerry; 'Mike Ruddy'; Ingram, Lloyd; Alexander, Scott Subject: Artrip Proffers (August, 2006) John, After reviewing the proffers (dated August 2006) proposed in the Villages at Artrip proffer statement I have the two following concerns: Under section 14.6.1- I believe that it is critical the 'and complete" be reinstated into the text of the proffer. Bonding the completion of Warrior Drive from point "D" to point "E" (the property line at Crosspointe) has the potential to leave several loose ends a few years from now when the roadway is needed. Who will hold the Bond? Who will be charged with the responsibility of administration oversight and construction when this road needs to be built. It would be much cleaner for everyone if the work was completed by the developer while the contractor and equipment are on site. One item 1 did not find in the proffer statement was the improvements needed at the intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior Drive. While CVS has installed a traffic signal at that intersection additional signal heads and some turn lanes improvements will be required. During one of Mr. John Foote's presentations to Frederick County there was a verbal mention by him that these improvements would be addressed, but 1 cannot find this item be mentioned in the current document. If the issues mentioned above can be adequately addressed it appears that VDOT can support the remaining portions of the proffer statement of August, 2006. Thanks, Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984 -5611 (540) 984 -5607 (fax) 10/2/2006 Artrip Revised Proffers Subject: Artrip Revised Proffer. Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:41:25 -0500 From: "Ingram, Lloyd" Lloyd.Ingram @VDOT.Virginia.gov> To: "'dfrank @dewberry.com <dfrank @dewberry.com> CC: 'Eric Lawrence' <elawrenc @co.frederick.va.us "Copp, Jerry" <Jerry.Copp @VDOT.Virginia.gov "Ingram, Lloyd" L1oyd.Ingram @VDOT.Virginia.gov> David, I have tried to contact you several times today in response to your voicemail in regards to our thoughts on the revised Transportation Proffers. We have two issues of major concern. The first one being the intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior improvements. While CVS is signalizing the intersection, additional work will be required once the Artrip development generates traffic. This work will include additional signal heads as well as additional turn lanes. It is felt this will be the responsibility of the Artrip development. The second item of concern is under Section 14.3.1. It is not clear as to how many lanes of roadway is being built between the southern bridge approach and the existing Wakeland Manor end of pavement. I was under the impression from some of the comments made by Mr. Foote that he had been in contact with Centex Homes at Wakeland Manor and the full four -lane roadway was going to be built by Centex to meet Artrip's four -lane section. This isn't clear under this proffer section. Therefore, we request clarification. If you require additional information, please contact me. Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984 -5611 (540) 984 -5607 (fax) 1 of 1 12/20/2005 1:43 PM PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625- 2).DOC Subject: PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625- 2).DOC Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:36:34 -0500 From: "Foote, John" <jfoote @pw.thelandlawyers.com> To: "Mike Ruddy" <Mruddy @co.frederick.va.us <bsanker @towercompanies.com <ajkohn @towercompanies.com <simontito @aol.com <dborchardt @towercompanies.com <dfrank @Dewberry.com <RBrittingham @Dewberry.com "Foote, John" <jfoote @pw.thelandlawyers.com <gma @towercompanies.com <jsa@towercompanies.com <jbrown @dewberry.com <john.callow @phra.com <abramsonrd @bipc.com <smargulies @towercompanies.com> «PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625- 2).DOC» Mike Herewith are the changes that we would make to the proffers, and to which we will verbally agree this evening, with the promise that these will be included in the proffers submitted to the Board. As to the three units in the Core Area, we believe that the proffers and MDP already accommodate them because of the unit type listing on the first page of the MDP. Tower has a number of unit types that correspond to the general types shown on the MDP, and a proffer commitment to do at least three different ones. Other changes are fine. We would like the language in 14.16 as I have rewritten it. We have an agreement from Wendy to access through there, but our guys are properly paranoid because it is construction access. John H. Foote Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich Terpak, P.C. 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Glen Park I Prince William, Virginia 22192 0 703.680.4664 f 703.680.2161 c 703.801.5075 Confidentiality notice: Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication Is strictly prohibited. This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e -mail and delete all copies of the message. Thank you very much. 1 oft 12/21 /2005 2:06 PM PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625- 2).DOC 2 of 2 C PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625- 2).DOC Name: PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625- 2).DOC Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) Encoding: base64 Description: PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625- 2).DOC 12/21/2005 2:06 PM RE: Artrip Subject: RE: Artrip Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:10:22 -0500 From: "Foote, John" <jfoote @pw.thelandlawyers.com> To: "Mike Ruddy" <Mruddy @co.frederick.va.us> We are inclined to use the first and not the alternative. We would provide access to t Original Message From: Mike Ruddy mailto :Mruddy @co.frederick.va.usl Sent: Mon Nov 28 13:29:21 2005 To: Foote, John; Frank, David Subject: Artrip Gentleman: Thanks for your time this morning. Sorry I had to depart prior to fully concluding the effort. A couple of additional thoughts: The simpler, the better at this stage. Two phases would be preferable with the construction from A to D and B2 completed with /prior to the first phase. An alternative on our discussion this morning and to the above may be three phases with 200 and 400 breaks as follows: prior to first phase (0 200) A to 92, prior to 2nd phase (200 -400) B to D, and prior to 3rd phase (400 -793) D to E built or bonded. This may be a working compromise. 50 percent of the phase 1 units would be in the core area. Access to the proposed school would be provided. The change to include Landbay F makes the application much more complicated than it was previously, not simpler. Initial concerns include loss of five acres of previously dedicated open space, environmental issues, access, and most significantly Lakeside Drive. Reconsideration of this change at this stage would be preferable. Original concept appeared to be well received. Finally, any new application officially submitted after December 1, 2005 will be subject to the County's updated fiscal model. New residential applications should address the $23K fiscal impact per single family residence. While this does not include your project, the impacts of new residential units and the Boards policy should be recognized. Hope to hear more from you on any changes to the info submitted this morning soon. Tomorrow would be good. Thanks. Mike. This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you 1 of 1 11(28/2005 2:41 PM Artrip Rezoning Important dates Good Morning John and David: Subject: Artrip Rezoning Important dates Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:11:46 -0400 From: Mike Ruddy <Mruddy @co.frederick.va.us> To: "Foote, John" <jfoote @pw.thelandlawyers.com "Frank, David" <dfrank @Dewberry.com> I'm touching base with you to make you aware of some important dates that relate to the resubmittal of the Artrip Rezoning for the Decemeber 7, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Due to the Veterans Day holiday on the 1lth of November, the applicant cut -off for the 12/7 Planning Commission meeting is Monday, November 14. Staff's cut -off for the agenda is Friday, November 18. This is slightly early due to the Thanksgiving Holiday the following week. This schedule leaves you with approximately two remaining weeks to provide the modified package to the reviewing agencies and receive their comments. This is very important at this stage of the review process (and the Chairman specifically requested at the PC meeting that this be done). Hopefully, you are progressing with the modifications. In particular, with the schools based on the correspondance I forwarded to you last week from FOPS. As always, I am available to meet with you. I would like to ensure that I am fully aware of any changes that are being made. Any advanced copy of proposed additional changes would be appreciated. Thanks and see you soon. Mike. 1 of I 11/7/2005 10:51 AM REFERENCE: Artrip Property Dear Mr. Foote: FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY P.O. Box 187t7 Winchester, VA 22604.8377u JAMES T. ANDERSON, Chairman DARWIN 5. BRADEN, Vice- chairman ROBERT P. MOWERY, C.P.A., .Sec- treasurer JOHN STEVENS RICHARD A. RUCIMAN, P.E. Mr. John H. Foote Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Enrich, Terpak, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway Suite 300 Prince William VA 22192 September 19, 2005 S r -p 2 n This will confirm the points set forth in your letter of August 18, 2005. agents of Tower Companies or their successors to access the referenced property at the end of Lakeside Drive. This access is for purposes of co Additionally. I will recommend the Authority dedicate five acres of our new elementary school. This is provided it is agreeable with the parties Authority with a reversion clause. Should you need further information, please call me. /ths cf:: Michael Rudy Sincerely yours, W. H. Jones, P. E. Engineer- Director WATER AT YOUR SERVICE 2005 Wellington H. Jones t'.E. Engineer Director Ph.. (540) 868 -1061 Fax. (540) 868 -1429 It is agreeable to the Authority for property through the Authority's nstruction. Lakeside Detention Facility for a that dedicated that facility to the Mr. David L. Frank, CLA Dewberry Davis LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Suite C Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Rezoning Application for the Village at Artrip Frederick County, Virginia Deal Mr. Frank: May 19, 2005 We have reviewed your responses to our initial review comments dated December 20, 2004, and offer the following: 2 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 Your response to our comment #2) related to completion of the bridge over the unnamed Opequon tributary indicates that the project will provide four (4) paved lanes for the full length of Warrior Drive prior to the issuance of the 6S 1 residential permit in Phase 111 of the project. The actual revised proffer indicates that the applicant will design and bond the traffic improvements prior to the issuance of the 681" residential building permit. The proffer statements related to residential development should indicate that the infrastructure associated with roads and drainage shall be constructed in accordance with Frederick County's current erosion and sediment control ordinance prior to issuance of building permits. Your response to our continent #3) concerning the use of Lot 121, Section VIII in Lakewood Manor as temporary access is not satisfactory. As we had previously indicated, Frederick County will not approve the use of this lot as a permanent or temporary access to the proposed project site. This conclusion applies to any access including limited u se by certain construction equipment. We will not grant a temporary construction access through this lot. In your response to our comment #8), you have indicated that the HOA will be responsible for maintaining the BMP facilities that will not be maintained by the county. First, Frederick County will not maintain any of the 13MP facilities 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Village at Artrip Rezoning Comments Page 2 May 19, 2005 proposed for this project. Secondly, this requirement should be indicated in the proffer statement. FIES /rls Your response to our comment (49) does not address the impact on solid waste disposal. It is suggested that you reference the impact on our local landfill as well as the requirement to provide curbside trash pickup as indicated in the proffer statement. We will grant our approval of the subject rezoning when the above issues have been satisfactorily addressed. cc: Planning and Development File A: \villag eatartriprrtrvnn3,pd it• Sincerely, CU,, L. Harvey E+ Strawsnyder, .Ir. P.E. Director of Public Works Administrative Assistant to DATE: January 27, 2006 SUBJECT: Villages at Artrip dkr M psi Frederick County Public Schools To: Mr. John H. Foote Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich Terpak, PC FROM: Stephen M. Kapocsi Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent If I can be of further help to you with the project, please let me know. e -mail: Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us the Superintendent kapocsis@frederick.k12.va.us I would like to thank you and Mr. David Frank for meeting with Mr. Albert Orndorff, assistant superintendent for administration, and me to review a revised schematic site plan developed by Dewberry Davis. The proposed proffer of a school site at the Villages of Artrip project (on the identified location discussed on January 13, 2006) will accommodate an elementary school at 750 program capacity with the required outside physical education and play areas. 540- 662 -3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604 -2546 FAX 540 -662 -3890 OCT 1 9 2005 I r Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Mr. Mike Ruddy, MCP Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 SW den� M 4). E'raFil -s t Frederick County Public Schools Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us October 17, 2005 e -mail: kapocsis@frederick.k12.va.us Dear Mr. Ruddy: Thank you for meeting on October 12, 2005, with Mr. Al Orndorff and myself concerning questions that Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS) has relative to the Villages at Artrip project. It would be helpful for the FCPS if the following information was provided by the project applicant: An electronic file showing any topographical and boundary surveys of the proposed elementary school site. The files should be sent to Mr. William Shelton, P.E., Civil Engineer, Oliver Webb, Pappas Rhudy, Inc., 200 Country Drive, Plaza One, Bldg E, Blacksburg, VA 24060. Copies of any formal /legal agreements with adjacent landowners that are considered to be contributing land to the proposed school site. Files should be sent to my office. It is my understanding that the Villages at Artrip project will go back to the Planning Commission on December 7, 2005, Please have the applicant respond in a timely manner so that the school board can have appropriate professional consultation on the applicant's proposal relative to the elementary school site and a response from the school board's administration staff may be procured. Respectfully yours, 1 Stephen M. Kapocsi Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent SMK:dkr' cc: Mr. Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration 540- 662 -3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604 -2546 FAX 540 -662 -3890 ANY: FAX 703 6 eb -",R l 6 l Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Telephone: 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 FAX T3 NSMISSo® COUNTY of FREDERICK Date: TO oZ 0, Number of Pages (includi g cover sheet) File Date Time Destination Mode TXtH e Page Result User Name No. Oct. 20. 12:14PM P. 1 Immediate TX Result Report Oct. 20. 1U@5 12:14PM 7036802161 G3TES) Fax Header) 0 P. 2 OK 2396 Batch M Memory L Send later Eo rward warding ECM S Standard D Detail F FI ne Reducti on LAN —Fax Delivery Q RX Notice Req. A RX Notice FAX TRANSMISSION COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Telephone: 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 Date: /I 7 -1—$3 4 Number of Pages (including cover sheet) Remarks: FCP 6 &/7 /gam Ajted, jr,LA,62 lea From the desk of: 7 /c ALL/Lc Date Time Destination Oct. 20. 11:52AM 1 Immediate TX Result Report Oct. 20. 1005 11:53AM Batch M Memory E ECM S Standard Reduction LAN —Fax A RX Notice Mode 540 678 2703 G3TES File TXtime Page Result User Name No. 024" P. 2 OK 2394 L Send later D Detail Del leery Fax Header) Forwarding Fine O RX Notice Rea. ru"ip rrojca loft Subject: Artrip Project Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:04:50 -0500 From: "david worthington" <worthington .david @worldnet.att.net> To: <mruddy @co.frederick.va.us> Mr. Ruddy, yesterday I had the opportunity to walk the Artrip project with a representative from the developer and Kelly McDaniel of the Potomac Conservancy. While we were impressed by some of the actions the developer is taking, i.e., tree preservation areas, maintaining ponds, tree buffers we did notice that a large wooded area next to the Opequon was proposed to be graded into three ball fields. I am concerned about this action for the following reasons: 1. The area contains some steep slopes and these will have to be graded during construction to accommodate the ball fields. This construction action, even with proper sedimentation controls, will lead to significant erosion and potential siltation of the Opequon. 2. The trees that will be removed for the ball field will no longer provide slope support nor soil retention and erosion of this area will occur after the construction is complete. This will also lead to sediment into the Opequon. 3. The grassy fields that will replace the natural forest will have to be fertilized to maintain them and the resulting nitrogen and phosphorus runoff will end up in the Opequon causing further pollution problems. 4. All of this pollution will have a detrimental affect on our actions to reduce the amount of pollution in the Opequon watershed. 5. The cost to regrade the wooded area into ball fields will be quite expensive as the land is not conducive to flat areas and there will be a lot of tree stumps and roots to remove. 6. The wooded area is directly behind an elementary school and 1 can think of no better area for our children to learn about the environment and gain a respect and admiration for it. Ball fields, while used for a portion of the day, cannot replace the learning experience that a woodland can provide. 7. Does the school really need three ball fields for their students? I live across from an elementary school and while the playing field is used some during the day the rest of the time the fields sit idle. 8. Even on weekends the fields are normally idle, except for when people from outside our neighborhood use the fields for impromptu soccer tournaments. 9. Our local children usually play in their yards or ride bikes in the neighborhood rather than access the fields. Plus wooded areas are great places for children to play and learn about nature. I had one in my backyard as a kid and I remember many a day playing in the woods and exploring nature. 10. The wooded area would provide for a green corridor for the wildlife that will be displaced by this project. We must take wildlife into account during our planning actions. The developer by his design concept has though outside the box in order to provide an enhanced and community oriented project. It would be a shame if we stamped our standard requirements on this project and affected their approach. Instead, it is my opinion that we need to look outside the box as well and mold our requirements to fit the need of this community, this project and the environment. Therefore, I strongly urge the County to look at maintaining the wooded areas discussed above and for reducing the size and number of ball fields required at this location. In addition to the above, I have a few other concerns or issues as well: 1. The applicant has several storm water retention ponds. The City of Winchester has found that local homeowner associations do not maintain these and eventually the City is eft with the responsibility to maintain them. These large, typically grassy areas require costly maintenance that could easily be replaced by more natural uses. I am taking a stormwater management pond adjacent to my property and with the help of the Potomac Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited and restoring it as a wetland. I strongly encourage County Staff to 2/15/2006 5:03 PM ry wp wo Jco1 2 of 2 explore this possibilities with this project and all future others. The County can save money and provide a more naturalistic area if they take this step. 2. The applicant's plan calls for 10 foot asphalt trails. This wide of a paved trail in natural woodland area settings is improper unless the trail is also being used for emergency access. I encourage the County Staff to look at ways of reducing this width to limit the affect on the environment that we are trying to protect. 3. How do the green corridors provided by this project tie into the adjacent areas? Have we landlocked our wildlife into a boxed area 4. With the idea of this project to be a "walking community" can the parking areas for the school be reduced? This applicant is trying to encourage people to use other than motorized transportation to get around and again it would be a shame for us to stamp our standard responses and affect the approach of this project. I would be happy to address the above issues with you and I can be reached at (540) 665 -3939 or (540) 722 -2100. I and others would also like to meet with you to discuss possible revisions to the County Ordinances to make them more environmentally friendly. We are also interested in having the concepts proposed by this developer encouraged throughout the UDA. I appreciate your taking the time to read my e-mail and look forward to hearing from you. Take care, David Worthington 2/15/2006 5:03 PM Mike Ruddy From: Mike Ruddy [mruddy @co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 10:28 AM To: Foote, John Subject: Artrip Proffer Statement Comparison Hi John: After reviewing the comparable proffer statement, I thought it would be helpful to forward to you some brief comments that would help clarify some points in the latest proffer statement. Please address them as appropriate. I have also noted several very important points that should be addressed fully. I have been advised that both the staff and applicant's presentation should be as brief as possible at the upcoming BOS meeting. Therefore, I want to make sure that as many outstanding points /issues as possible are taken care of This will help the staff report and the overall presentation. The following proffers should be addressed: 1.2.1 Further define net leaseable to specifically state net leaseable square feet of building /structure floor area or usable commercial floor area as previously identified in Mr. Bob Mitchell's comments of 08/03/05. 3.1.5 Further clarification /definition minimum standard of community civic center and pool may be helpful. 3.1.5 Change in timing to 601 permit from that approved by the PC (325) would not appear to be acceptable. Should reinstate original phase 11 timing to ensure community facilities are timely with the development. 4.1.4 Is the "additional materials" addition supposed to be applicable to 4.1 as a whole or just to 4.1.4, roofing? Clarification may be needed if so. Page 1 of 2 7.2 Does not make sense as changed and is undesirable. Should reinstate original as approved by PC or advance for benefit of schools. 7.6 Appears to be a combination of two separate issues. Should reinstate original as this is a subdivision issue not a permitting issue. 14.3.3 Interconnectivity would be desirable. The connection will be made. Therefore, physical barriers blocking access between projects may not ultimately appropriate in this location. 14.6.1*** D to E should be completed /constructed by the applicant. Bonding is not acceptable. Should reinstate original as approved by PC or modified to ensure who and when it would be constructed is clear. Suggest design and bond by 501 BP and construction completion by 601st BP, Phase III. Completion to Point E is critical. 14.6.2 Additional language suggests approach not endorsed by County Treasurer. Bonding approach preferable as in original. 14.9 Should reinstate original to provide for the trail into Wakeland Manor consistent with the road improvements to the 10/2/2006 As always, thanks for your help and happy Friday! Mike. 10/2/2006 Page 2 of 2 intersection where the road and trail would connect to the pavement of that portion of Warrior constructed by others. Additional clarification on this road and trail connection to the portion of Warrior constructed by others may be helpful. 14.10 Should reinstate original as pedestrian accommodations are required with the road construction. 14.16 Not acceptable as the proffer commits the Board to permitting /guaranteeing access over a property owned by others. Should reinstate original 16 This proffer should be removed as it is confusing and speculative. Appendix B Comprehensive Sign Package should be included in proffer. Pursuant to Lloyd's e-mail earlier this morning, additional clarification on improvements to signals and intersections identified in the TIA may be helpful. F,rederickSounO;Department ofi'Planninge& Developmen` TO: John Foote Walsh, Colucci, Emrich Terpak, P. C. David Frank Dewberry FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Final Points Villages at Artrip Rezoning DATE: December 19, 2005 The following points are offered as a final comment on the rezoning application for the Villages at Artrip. As you will see they are the more minor administrative points I referred to, but didn't specifically call out, in the staff report which need to be cleaned up. Please incorporate the changes into the Proffer Statement and on the MDP and provide them to me hopefully in advance of the Planning Commission meeting on the 21 of December. The requested changes are quite straightforward. However, please call me if you have any questions. Proffer Statement. 1.4 Not fewer than three housing types shall be provided in the core area. The MDP only shows two housing types in the core area. You may want to modify the geographic area of the core area on the MDP to include a portion of the small lot single family housing type area, thus providing three housing types in the core area consistent with this proffer. 1.9 The applicant shall make reasonable attempts to preserve... Provide measure to ensure the protection as in proffer 13.3. Additional construction fencing may be appropriate to ensure the protection of this specific specimen Delaware Pine. 1 would like to make sure that reasonable attempts will indeed protect the tree. 3.1.4 Please ensure that all the community improvements identified are shown on the MDP. Specifically, the Recreational Community Center and trails should be shown on all sheets of the MDP, especially Sheet 1. 4.1.4 Miscellaneous materials that may be used shall consist of... "For roofing" should be added to the first sentence in the location identified by the above. 5.1 The Pedestrian/Bicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive shall be... Please include "and along Parkins Mil/ Road" to this sentence to clarify the trail location shown on the MDP. 13.5 adjacent to Wakeland Manor should read "adjacent to Canter Estates 14.3.1 Please reinstate the "as a full section of a four lane divided roadway" language into the first sentence immediately after Warrior Drive. This provides needed clarity and certainty and avoids any ambiguity in the road construction program. 14.3.2 Please add "Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit" as the first part of the first sentence of this proffer to maintain consistency with the above proffered commitment (Proffer 14.3.1) and provides needed clarity and certainty. 14.6.2 Please add "as a full section of a four lane divided roadway prior to the issuance of the 35t residential building permit" language into the first sentence after "from Point D to Point E 14.7.1 Please add "as a full section of a four lane divided roadway" language into the first sentence after `from Point E to Point C'. 14.7.2 Please add "as a full section of a four lane divided roadway" language into the first sentence after `from Point C to Point A Also, "and make its connection to Wakeland" should be substituted for "including" as this specific improvement is not part of or included in, this section of the improvement from Point C to Point A. 14.16 This proffer should be removed as it has no validity. The FCSA or their property is not a part of this application. Alternately, clean this proffer up to deal with only the portion of property proposed to he dedicated to the County that presently is owner by the Tower Companies and is a part of this application. Master Development Plan. Please adjust the alignment of the access to the dedicated school site and adjacent Land Bay to intersect with Canter Estates (Falabella Drive) in a direct alignment, perpendicular to Parkins Mill Road, rather than the 45 degree angle currently depicted on the MDP. Please clarify the approximately five (5) acres of area dedicated for public use identified as Landbay F and described in Proffer 7.3. Specifically, the land to be dedicated should extend entirely to the limits of the Villages at Artrip property, both to the southwest and southeast of the identified area. This would be consistent with the area depicted on the previous MDP. It is important to ensure that the land to be dedicated has the ability to be used in conjunction with adjacent properties and encompasses the tributary of the Opequon Creek. Presently, the MDP appears to show an area to be dedicated that could be interpreted to not extend to the southern property line of the project as the property to be dedicated appears to be surrounded entirely by open space. The MDP should be modified to show the dedicated area, Landbay F, extending to the southern property lines. It may be desirable for you to reinstate the area identified as a tree save area within Landbay F should you feel that this element of the project is important. May 9, 2005 Dear Mike: Comment: Comment: 611 West Juba! Early Drive 540 678 2700 t i Suite C 540 678 2703 fax Dewberry y Winchester, VA 22601 www.dewberry.com Michael T. Rudy, AICP Deputy Planning Director County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester VA 22601 Re: Additional Preliminary Comments Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application On behalf of Winchester -Artrip LLC, applicant, we are resubmitting for additional review and comment the revised the Rezoning Application Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan. Upon receiving a letter from your office dated 02/14/2005, the applicant has revised the Rezoning Application Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan and offers the following responses to you comments: 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. Response: The revised submission attempts to address the Planning Office comments made here and in our meetings, to increase the Applicant's level of commitment to specific design elements with respect to the critical "Core Area" of the proposal, to refine commitments to other Landbays outside the Core Area, and to refine the draft proffer statement to reflect construction requirements for significant roadways, and dedication of land to public use for an elementary school. 2. The mixed use concept is intended to promote 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. Response: No comment necessary. Dewberry Davis LLC Comment: 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. Response: The Applicant shares a desire to create a unique community in Frederick County, and to advance the County's long -term planning and transportation goals, and the plan and associated proffers have been developed with precisely this in mind. Comment: 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. Response As noted, the revised Rezoning Application and Master Plan have refined the design concept for The Villages of Artrip community Core Area. The Core Area as depicted in the revised Master Development Plan dated May 20, 2005 will consist of a minimum of at least two different residential building types, commercial /retailloffice /restaurant space ultimately totaling 118,550 square feet, and community open space areas integral to the ecological design concept for the Village Pond. Comment: 5. throughout the application there are requests to modify certain elements of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as enabled by Section 1.65 -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 MIP 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 Village rezoning application for your information. Dewberry Response: See comment response #5. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan have consolidated residential design criteria in Appendix A of the draft proffer statement. This revised proffer statement requires all residential development to strictly adhere to the Frederick County ordinances, and where applicable to the design guidelines of Appendix A of the proffer statement where innovative housing alternatives are proposed in future Subdivision Design Plans presented for review and approval by Frederick County. These modifications to standard design guidelines are critical to the creation of a viable neo- traditional development. Detailed justification of each revision does not, under such circumstances, seem required but can be discussed further with the Planning staff. Comment: 6. A listing has been provided within the narrative that identities 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. Comment: 7. It would be desirable for the applicant to expand upon the brief justify action 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 older project benefits or modifications such as the overall project density. Response: The revised Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan has committed to the full construction of the bridge for Warrior Drive from the Wakeland Manor subdivision, the full construction of Warrior Drive to the applicants property to meet with the section of Warrior Drive proffered with the Crosspointe Rezoning Application, and the dedication of an elementary school site. This application is therefore justified in proposing the residential densities requested in this application. Comment: 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. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan have modified the commercial component of the central core of the community. As a result of an extensive market study on the commercial viability of retail in this location, which accounted for already approved retail nodes in immediate site vicinity, the revised Master Development Plan has reduced et Dewberry the total square footage of retail /office space, and in turn reduced the total parking lot surface area supporting the non residential component. The Rezoning Application currently proposes the development of a total of 118,550 square feet of retail/office space. The Applicant is also proffering to conduct a parking study at the time of final development plans, should it be required to demonstrate the propriety of parking reductions that may be sought. The applicant requests the modification to reduce or increase the parking requirements by 20% to better align with current or future market trends. Comment: 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. Response: The revised Rezoning Application proffer statement has added a list of building materials to be acceptable for the commercial and residential construction. Comment: 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. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan no longer has multiple versions planned for former Landbay D Comment.: 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. 11 Dewberry Response: As noted in comment #4 response, the Rezoning Application is committing to the development concept for the Core Area. This area, as reflected graphically in the revised Master Development Plan, will insure that the concept design remains intact in the community Core through the development process. Comment: 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. Response: See response to comment #9. II. Transportation. Comment: 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. Response: The revised Rezoning Application, proffer statement and Master Development Plan have added language and graphic typical sections indicating that the connections to the existing segments planned for Warrior Drive will occur as a result of this application. The following comments relate to the details of the proposed transportation improvements. Comment: 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 Warrior 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 IS r Dewberry time frame. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan now indicate that the full section of Warrior Drive will be completed as each phase progresses. The full pavement section will match the existing pavement section of Warrior Drive constructed through Wakeland Manor. Conversations have been had with representatives of Centex Homes, developer of Wakeland Manor, and Centex has indicated a willingness to assist in constructing the linkage of Warrior Drive to the south. Conversations with Glaize Development, the developer of Crosspointe are on -going and have been cordial. Comment: 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. Response: We are aware of the need for bicycle travel opportunities in Frederick County. It is the intent of this development to provide for bicycle travel in trails adjacent to but separated from the northern boundary of Warrior Drive. Comment: 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. Response: In the process of revising the Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan in response to all agency comments, the Applicant will continue to provide for pedestrian and bicycle circulation separated from the proposed vehicular transportation improvements. Typical sections for proposed trails are included in the Master Development Plan. Comment: 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. Response: Upon further review, the applicant finds that it is appropriate to reserve a 50' the Right -of -way for a possible future connection of Lakeside Drive to Warrior Drive. However, the design and construction of this road does not appear appropriate at this time, when considering that the future access and environmental impacts from the south approaching the applicant's property raise a significant number of planning and design issues. Without adequate information, design and construction of this roadway is premature but the right -of -way will be reserved. Dewberry Comment: 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. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan ccommodate for the ultimate design of Warrior Drive as detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by PHRA and accepted by VDOT. This includes the construction of Warrior Drive so as to not leave any unconnected segments of this major collector from the terminus points proffered by the Wakeland Manor and Crosspointe Development Plan Applications. Parkins Mill Road will be constructed to the extent of the applicants property limits as depicted on the revised Master Development Plan. All final road designs, public and private, shall be in accordance with current VDOT design standards and engineering principles, to include accommodations for storm drainage and trail interconnectivity where planned and appropriate, except to the extent modification of those standards for private streets is authorized. Comment 7. Consideration should he 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 MDII. 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. Response: The applicant proposes to extend Parkins Mill Road to the limits of the applicant's property. Comment: 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. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan have added the dedication of land for an elementary school site. This dedicated site would also serve as a community facility through the creation and use of soccer fields and playground equipment. Additional tot lots and a 25 meter outdoor pool and bath house are shown on the revised MDP. III. Proffer Statement. Comment.: 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 I Dewberry would seek to ensure its completion with a commitment to a project that is in conformance with the initially presented MDP. Response: Revisions to both the Proffer Statement and the Master Development Plan have addressed the staff's expressed concerns and have committed to specific development details within the Core Area and other portions of the development. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 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. Response: See answer to Comment 9 of Part I of this letter. Comment 3. It has been suggested that the alternative development standards included in the proffer statement be detached from 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. Response: The revised Proffer Statement is providing a comprehensive description, Appendix A, in order to clarify the details of the alternative development standards. Appendix A will function as a stand alone design guide for the future site engineering and subdivision process. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 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. Response: The integration of commercial and residential uses should in theory justify a reduction in the number of parking spaces required. However, the speculative nature of this development and the unknown timing of Warrior Drive's connection to Crosspointe require the above flexibility with respect to parking. Comment: 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. Dewberry Response: The Applicant proposes to develop the property in three Phases, and is now committing to the construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial development prior to the initiation of Phase III. Because the economic viability of the project for commercial uses is so dependent upon the completion of Warrior Drive through Crosspointe as well as through Wakeland Manor, the Applicant does not believe that it is reasonable, or even possible, to commit to additional commercial development prior to the connection of Warrior Drive to I -81 and through Wakeland Manor. It can be fairly anticipated that such development will occur once the necessary road connections are in place, and if the market permits earlier development, it will be constructed Comment: 6. Please correct the reference in proffer 3.1.5 regarding the early construction of Warrior Drive and its connection to area roads. Response: The revised proffer statement accommodates this concern. Warrior Drive is extensively treated elsewhere. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 7. Connection should be provided for the provision of necessary community facilities in relationship to the phasing program. A summary of the requirements of 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. Response: Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 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. Response: Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 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. Response: The revised proffer statement has modified proffer 5.1 to reflects a Hiker biker trail width of ten feet. Comment: 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 t' Dewberry 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. Response: The revised rezoning application and proffer statement proffers monetary and land contributions to off -set impacts that the proposed development may have on the community. In addition to the proffered monetary contributions, the Applicant would construct the ultimate design of the connection of Warrior Drive from the Wakeland Manor Subdivision to the Crosspointe Subdivision, which includes an off -site $3 million bridge improvement in the Wakeland Manor right -of -way dedication accessing the Applicant's property. This capital improvement to community facilities significantly contributes to the greater transportation needs of Frederick County. The Applicant is further willing to provide land for construction of an elementary school. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 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. Response: In the process of revising the Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan, open spaces have been created in the vicinity of the specimen tree noted. It is the intent of the Applicant to attempt to preserve this tree during the preparation of final engineering documents and construction. Comment: 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. Response: Specific attention has been given to the wooded slopes near the Opequon Creek boundary in the Master Development Plan revisions. Additional separation has been achieved in some areas of noted concern. Specifically, the limits of development have been moved further away from Opequon Creek to further protect the identified environmental resource. Comment: 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 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. jJ Dewberry Response: The Applicant acknowledges that prior to building permits, related road improvements must be designed, bonded and platted consistent with Frederick County land development policy. Comment: 14. Specific language should he 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. Response: The proposed Warrior Drive roundabout will be designed to all applicable VDOT design criteria and standards. The review and approval process will involve key VDOT personnel having expertise in roundabout design and construction. As the County is likely aware, VDOT has materially changed its policies on the use of roundabouts because evidence has demonstrated that they can be safer and more effective in moving traffic than stop signed or signalized intersections. Should VDOT decide not to have a roundabout, then the intersection with Lakeside Drive will be signalized. The Applicant proffers to build Lakeside Drive north of Warrior Drive (Parkins Mill Road) to the Applicants property line; or the Applicant will provide the right -of -way required to connect to Cantor Estates where construction at the property line cannot be completed at the point in time when build out is finished. Comment: 15. It may he appropriate to consider advancing the substantial completion of the transportation improvement package for the entire project with the initial phase of the projects development. Response: The phasing of the transportation improvements and have been revised to satisfy the needs of VDOT as determined through the analysis of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for this rezoning application. Comment: 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. Response: Proffer 15.4.1 has been revised to reflect the revised Rezoning Application and MDP. The Applicant proffers to build Warrior Drive from Wakeland Manor to the Warrior Drive roundabout location as a full- section. Comment: 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. Response: The revised Proffer Statement has specified where appropriate the width of the Right -of -Way to be dedicated for the future construction of Warrior Drive, Parkins Mill Road and Lakeside Drive. le Dewberry Sincerely, David L. Frank, CLA Project Manager Encl. The applicant has revised the Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan in response to multiple reviewing agency comments. We offer the following resubmission as a result of these application modifications. The applicant appreciates the opportunity to resubmit the revised Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan to your office for additional review and comment. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to review or discuss the resubmission of this Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan. 11 Dewberry 10/21/04 12:35 FAX 7036802161 John H. Foote (703) 680 -4664 Ext. 114 ifoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680 -2161 WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH TERPAK PC FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information transmitted in this facsimile message is sent by an attorney or his /her agent. It is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity addressee. If the recipient is a client, this message may also be for the purpose of rendering legal advice and thereby privileged_ If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copy of this telecopy is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the address below via the mail service. (We will reimburse postage.) Thank You DATE: October 21, 2004 TO: Eric R. Lawrence, (540) 665 -6395 Ben Lineberry, (540) 984 -5607 Charles Segerman, (301) 984 -7601 John Callow, (703) 777 -3725 FROM: John H. Foote RE: VDOT Attendance 10/12/04 TOTAL PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING COVER: If all pages were not received, call (703) 680 -4664. COMMENTS: Begin Typing Here R :ALSH COLIICCI Z001/002 PHONE 703 680 4664 r FAX 703 680 6067 1 WWW.THELANDLAWYERS,COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 I LO[1DOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10/21/04 12:35 FAX 7036802161 NALSH COLGCCI U 002/ 002 u h-:# v VDDI lo fig °I I Oafie (43/44 7 ego _fug J %2 :e-st• co (sy) 665-5651_ 5 t PC PcAgnii suo 66r S 11i2 9 6/61/,-) Vhc7 5` F "y i6c9D 1EnL.L udEeiEwi ig.._ III/ 5W0 miisevoci III c12'4a•_LKC Ers,,, r� 9±±54 ccc _/e ptt— 5 (Fio I i Al /cA4t c iuC,",4,, Zat 7cA U ?J 7 3.6.'6 iT -f C'A GCaw PH' f/ to307-3 di 6 1 a r CA4 `T tc0 6'723 -27 CO ..b .6,—_ a d i t r ��CA1L fax t1 'tD g 4L Warta- ill I I av-rl bvtC� H a l I l nF i 10/21/04 12:35 FAX 7036802161 NALSH COLGCCI U 002/ 002 if Dewberry July 7, 2005 Eric Lawrence, AICP Planning Director County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester VA 22601 611 West Juba! Early Drive Building B, Suite C 1 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -6501 RE: The Villages at Artrip Rezoning application Master Development Plan Dewberry Project 1276 -014 Dear Eric: On behalf of The Tower Companies we have formally submitted the revised Rezoning Application for the Villages at Artrip to your office. On our June 20 application the Planning Department requested additional input from the Department of Public Works on the solid waste impact concerns raised in an earlier comment letter on our project. We have added a satisfactory response letter from the Department of Public Works on this specific issue to all copies of the June 20 application that have been graciously stored in your office. A copy of this letter, dated June 22', is attached. As a result of our efforts over the past year, we have satisfied all of the requirements and requests for this application and the land owner formally requests placement on the August 3 Planning Commission public hearing agenda. We have appreciated the opportunity to work through the application process with your planning staff and look forward to continuing die land planning for this project through the public hearing process with your planning department. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any additional questions. Sincerely, id L. Frank, CLA Project Manager Cc: Jeffrey Abramson, The Tower Companies Dewberry Davis LLC 540 678 2/. 540 678 2703 fax www.dewberry.cem Copies: Date: Number: Description: 107 Kent Street 6/21/2005 Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application Reference: 6/21/2005 Master Development Plan 6/21/2005 2 Fee Checks 6/21/2005 Resubmission Comments: I,111I. JUL 6 2 f To: Frederick County Planning Dept. Date: 6/20/2005 Project No: 1276014 107 Kent Street Project Name: Villages at Artrip Winchester, VA 22601 Reference: 26BH0002 Carbon Copy: Attention: Mike Ruddy U Atlanta, GA 4 e, o? 611 West Jabal. Early Dr. Bldg B Suite C. Winchester, VA 22601 Baltimore, MD We Transmit: El as per your request under separate cover by mail YI by messenger by pick up by overnight carrier IE II Dewberry ICJ Chicago, IL Fairfax, VA El Fredericksburg, VA the following: El prints specifications change order shop drawings rcproducibles samples produce literature C3 computations C7 descriptions 1 enclosures are not as noted, plasenuti07ueiSu■ce COUNTY PLANNI ?JG DEVELOPMENT Dewberry Davis LLG is an equal opportunity employer and: as such,7complie3'Wit ection of Executiv Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11357. Gaithersburg, MD Lanham, MD for: Transmittal Phone 540.678.2700 Fax 540.678.2703 a your approval C' your review and comment L1, your file /use revision and submission ∎I distribution idl Transmittal 4542 !a Leesburg, VA as requested by as submitted for approval by El as approved by Manassas. VA yE Winchester, VA please acknowledge receipt of enclosures return enclosures to us Sent by: David Frank Dear Mr. Frank HES /rls E 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 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. cc: Planning and Development File JUL 7 2005 It�� FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEVELOPMEN June 22, 2005 Sincerely, h.L b1acu Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TIME OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COMPLETED. COMMENTS: Candice Bernie Mark Susan Eric Kevin John Document Approval Form INITIALS DATE TIME Received by Clerical Staff (Date Time): 1 u'.10 1 11) 1 OS 97 D ,I!! I_ 1 1 2005 L 0 1 A N1