The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About16-05 CommentsCOMMONWEALTH H o f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE GREGORYA. WHIRLEY EDINBURG, VA 22824 ACTING COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER October 14, 2005 Mr. Evan Wyatt C/0 Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Ref: Willow Run Dear Evan: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 621, 622, and 37. These routes are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT in general can support the proposed Willow Grove L.L.C. Rezoning Application (dated September 1, 2005 with transportation revisions received by VDOT October 7, 2005) with the following comments: Due to the complexity of the rezoning and the question of the connection to ]ubal Early Drive, VDOT reserves the right to make additional comments once the fate of the city connection has been determined. The applicant appears to have offered proffers that address the mitigation of the impacts on the Route 37 & Route 622 interchange. The location of the intersection of the major spine roadway will need to be determined prior to Master Plan Development approval, as well as the possible improvements to the eastbound Route 622. Exhibit #4 lacks the left turn lane into Willow Run Drive as deemed necessary in the TIA exhibit. The timing of the construction of the minor spine roadway and the associated Route 622 improvements are not identified in the proffers and this should be clarified. The left turn lane is also missing in exhibit #5. VirginiaDOT org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING OCT 1 S 2005 Ju 3�4.01�G Mr. Evan Wyatt Ref: Willow Run October 14, 2005 Page #2 E The TIA appears to show that with the connection to Jubal Early Drive and Route 621, Route 621 falls to a LOS "D" and if this proves to be true the developer should be prepared to make improvements to the intersections of Merrimans Lane with Breckenridge Lane as well as Route 50. The proffers identify 110,000 sq. ft. of commercial building but in the TIA this square footage is broken into 3 categories. Are these goals that should be proffered or should the TIA reflect the worst case scenario? VDOT is satisfied with the applicants approach to the Interchange Justification Study, the dedication of property of the diamond design of the proposed east side on the interchange and the financial approach to funding the construction through the per unit contribution to Frederick County. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trio Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right - of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Lloyd A: Ingrafin` Transportation Engineer LAI /rf Enclosure: Comment Sheet I COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA GREGORY A. WHIRLEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACTING COMMISSIONER P.O. Box 2249 Staunton, Virginia 24402 -2249 June 20, 2005 Mr. Richard Shickle, Chairman Board of Supervisors of Frederick County 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Shickle: EZ% �, Thank you for your recent letter regarding a possible interchange improvement on Rte. 37. We understand that the City of Winchester and Frederick County support a new interchange at future Jubal Early Drive extending where existing Rte 621 (Merriman's Lane) crosses over Rte 37. VDOT District and Residency staff agree that this interchange may be able to solve many traffic issues related to future growth in this area. VDOT recently supported the inclusion of this proposed new interchange in the Draft MPO Long Range Plan, and we have no objection to it being included in the County Comprehensive Plan. There are several issues that need to be evaluated and discussed, but we believe these issues can be successfully worked out as long as this interchange concept provide the best long term solution for Rtc 37 and the overall roadway network. Before VDOT staff can submit this new interchange proposal to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for approval, several steps must be taken as described in the attached memo. An important initial step is to conduct a 20 year traffic study to evaluate the proposed interchange. VDOT staff met with representatives of the Willow Run development and their traffic consultant a few months ago to scope this traffic study. We hope that this traffic study will be continued so that we can begin working our way through these issues and gain CTB approval in a timely manner. Our district planner, Bob Ball, will be available to work with Jerry Copp, Residency Administrator, and County Staff on this. Please feel free to contact him at (540) 332 -9067. www.Virgir)iaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING N EZ% �, Thank you for your recent letter regarding a possible interchange improvement on Rte. 37. We understand that the City of Winchester and Frederick County support a new interchange at future Jubal Early Drive extending where existing Rte 621 (Merriman's Lane) crosses over Rte 37. VDOT District and Residency staff agree that this interchange may be able to solve many traffic issues related to future growth in this area. VDOT recently supported the inclusion of this proposed new interchange in the Draft MPO Long Range Plan, and we have no objection to it being included in the County Comprehensive Plan. There are several issues that need to be evaluated and discussed, but we believe these issues can be successfully worked out as long as this interchange concept provide the best long term solution for Rtc 37 and the overall roadway network. Before VDOT staff can submit this new interchange proposal to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for approval, several steps must be taken as described in the attached memo. An important initial step is to conduct a 20 year traffic study to evaluate the proposed interchange. VDOT staff met with representatives of the Willow Run development and their traffic consultant a few months ago to scope this traffic study. We hope that this traffic study will be continued so that we can begin working our way through these issues and gain CTB approval in a timely manner. Our district planner, Bob Ball, will be available to work with Jerry Copp, Residency Administrator, and County Staff on this. Please feel free to contact him at (540) 332 -9067. www.Virgir)iaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING e • Sincerely, ett Moore, P.E. t unton District Administrator Is cc: Mr. Malcolm T. Kerley, P.E. Dr. Phillip Stone 0 0 \ COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 October 7, 2005 Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP Greemvay Engineering 151 Windy Hilt Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Willow Run Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Evan: o T9�UTT OCT 1 1 2005 By - 360C WC7 We have completed our review of the proposed Willow Run rezoning dated September I, 2005. and offer the following conmtents: l) Suitability of the Site, page 3 and 4: The discussion included within this section references the Phase I Environmental Assessment Report and the need to delineate the Development Sensitive Areas (DSA). We sugguest that in addition to the topics presented as Flood Plains, Wetlands, Steep Slopes, etc., that you add a detailed discussion devoted to karst features. Based on our recent site visit, it was apparent that the major karst feature located on the Marshall site has been filled using excess material derived from an adjacent subdivision. However, there were other karst features highlighted in the ECS reports that should be included in this discussion. Also, we would reconunend that a detailed geotechnical investigation be expanded to study the entire area being developed. The Phase I environmental site assessment report highlights several sensitive topics which exist on the Marshall property. A separate discussion should be added to the impact analysis to address the ultimate disposition of these issues. In addition, the existence of an open dump site observered during our recent site visit should be added to this discussion and included in the ESA report.. 2) Steep Slopes, page 4: The discussion of the major karst feature shall be modified to reflect the current conditions. 3) Transportation, page 6, 7 and 8: Please provide this office with a copy of the traffic impact analysis (TIA). Without a copy of this analysis, we cannot adequately evaluate the conclusions presented on pages 6 and 7. Also, it is not apparent that the TIA included the impact of constructing (or not constructing) an interchange at the intersection of Jubal Early Drive and Route 37. The discussion of the transportation network indicates that the site can be accessed from Cedar Creek Grade, Merrimans Lane and through the extension of Juba[ Early Drive and Cidermill Lane. However, it appears 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Willow Run Rezoning Comments Page 2 October 7, 2005 that the extension of the latter roads is dependent on approval from the City of Winchester. Without their cooperation, the Western Jubal Early Drive Lane Land Use Plan cannot be achieved. The discussion indicates that the proffered transportation improvements will mitigate the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. However, it appears that this conclusion may be flawed if all of the improvements are not implemented for one reason or another. It appears that there is a possibility that the construction of Jubal Early Drive from Meadow Branch Drive to Route 37 may not occur. Also, the construction of an interchange at Jubal Early Drive and Route 37 is very questionable. Indicate what impact these situations would have on the traffic patterns on Cedar Creek Grade. 4) Sewage Conveyance and Treatment, page 9: The calculations indicate that the proposed development at buildout will generate a sewage flow of 197,350 G.P.D. Indicate how this flow impacts the mmtilized capacity at the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility. 5) Drainage, page 10: The discussion indicates that the proposed development will utilize retention facilities to acconunodate stornnvater management. To insure the success of these facilities in the karst environment, it will be necessary to line the basins. We also reconunend that a geoteclnical investigation be performed at the site of each basin to insure adequate stability of the underlying soil /rock. We applaud the use of BMP facilities for the commercial property. Detailed operation and maintenance requirements sltall be prepared by the designer and provided to the organization that will be responsible for the maintenance. These maintenance plans sltall also be developed for each stormwater retention facility. 6) Solid Waste Disposal, page 11: The calculations should be corrected to reflect the comparison of the complete total waste generation at buildout (3,629 tons per year) to the current waste generation at the landfill of 200,000 tons per year. Based on our calculations, the anticipated solid waste generated by the proposed development would result in an annual increase of approximately 1.8 percent at the landfill. We certainly support the requirement to implement curbside trash pickup within the proposed development. 7) Proffer Statement, E). Transportation Enhancements, pages 5. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10: a. Item 1: It is stated that the applicant will obtain the necessary right -of -way for the construction of Willow Run Drive (Major Spine Road). A time line should be established for the acquisition and recording of this right -of -way. At a minimum, it should occur prior to submittal of the Master Development Plan. b. Item 2: This paragraph proffers the design and construction of Willow Rum Drive in Phase I of the development. The proffer indicates that the road will be 0 0 Willow Run Rezoning Comments Page 3 October 7, 2005 completed prior to the issuance of the 100th residential building permit. However, Frederick County will only issue one (1) building permit until Willow Run Drive is completed as designed. This construction shall also include any related infrastructure as well as drainage improvements. It is anticipated that additional road construction will be required to access the actual building lots considering Willow Run Drive will be designed as a major feeder road. C. Item 13: This paragraph indicates that the applicants will proffer $1,000 per residential lot for the purpose of constructing a northbound on -ramp from Jubal Early Drive onto Route 7. Confirm that this amount will be added to the monetary proffers outlined in Section F, Monetary Contribution. Also, provide the basis for the $1,000 amount. d. Item 18: The discussion highlights the construction of an additional travel lane on the north side of Cedar Creek Grade near the intersection of the Minor Spine Road. However, there is no indication in the rezoning application when this road will be constructed. Indicate via phasing references when this road will be constructed. 8) Proffer Statement, H). Community Curbside Trash Collection, page 12: We certainly support the applicants offer to provide conunercial trash pickup and disposal for all residential land uses. However. we recommend that the last sentence in this paragraph end at `HOA ". Eliminate the statement "until such time .... by Frederick County or other municipal providers." 9) Proffer Statement. J). Environmental, page 14: Explain why the geotechnical analysis is limited to just 100 feet from the major karst feature. It may be prudent to conduct a geotechnical investigation which encompasses all of the proposed residential developments considering the potential for sinkhole development within the karst limestone. Sincerely, Harveyev E� Jr.. P.E. Director of Public Works HES /rls cc: Planning and Development file C: \Program Fnes \w'ordPerfec( Office lI \Rhumla \TE\IPCO\IAIENTS \N \'Wowr rezcom.n'pd •0 •0 FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE NEED FOR THE INCLUSION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN "THE WEST JUBAL EARLY LAND USE PLAN" WHEREAS, a request to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) to incorporate parcels owned by the White and Marshall families was approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in February 2004; and WHEREAS, a UDA expansion request has been submitted for the 262 acre Solenbergen'Bridgeforth property; and WHEREAS, a new community of over 600 acres is being land - planned in a portion of the county that was previously agricultural farmland; and WHEREAS, the planned land use will be primarily residential with a mix of commercial and residential uses; and WHEREAS, "The West Jubal Early Land Use Plan" estimates up to 2,400 dwellings that could be built in this area; and WHEREAS, the capital facilities impact model yields up to 1,680 students from "The West Jubal Early Land Use Plan' ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia requests that "The West Jubal Early Land Use Plan" include 25 -30 acres for a multi- campus school site; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the school site be consistent with the Community Facilities and Services policies in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Resolution dated this 18` day of January , 2005. awrence K. Van Hoose, Chairman Frederick County School Board Steph M. Kapoc er c 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL WILBUR C. HALL (1692 -1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 -1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE O. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. HAND - DELIVERED A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFF SIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW I a 7 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET LEESBURG, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 703777`1050 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 590682 -3200 FAX 54tr662 4304 E-MAIL awy¢r5Q11811RIOIlaI1anco111 November 8, 2005 Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Willow Run Proffer Statement Dear Susan: 'r_ . r NOV g 2005.f i ._1 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 -0848 I have reviewed the above - referenced proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the proposed Proffer Statement is in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and is legally sufficient and enforceable as a Proffer Statement, subject to the following comments: SECTION A- RESIDENTIAL LAND USE 1. In Paragraph A(2), the Applicants proffer to prohibit the development of garden apartments, otherwise permitted in Section 165 -65 of the Zoning Ordinance. The paragraph goes on to provide that all of the housing types set forth in Section 165 -65, "current and future," shall be allowed. I question the advisability of including "and future" in the proffer. It is possible that Section 165 -65 of the Ordinance could be amended in the future to permit multifamily dwellings other than "garden apartments." 1 would recommend that this proffer limit the housing types to the types permitted in current Section 165 -65. It should also be noted that this proffer 0 E HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy November 8, 2005 Page 2 does not limit the number of any of the particular building types permitted in the RP district. Presumably, therefore, there could be 850 townhouse units. If the County desires for there to be a mixture of housing types, that should be set forth in this proffer. 2. In Paragraph A(4), the enforcement and administration of the age - restricted covenant is to be assigned to the homeowners association. It should be noted, although I do not believe it is necessary to be included in the proffer, that as a proffered condition of the rezoning, the County will also have enforcement and administration powers with respect to the age - restricted provisions. 3. In Paragraphs A(5) and A(6), the Applicants proffer to "utilize "a "Carriage House" and a "Village House" residential unit within the development. First of all, Section 165 -59 (13)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the permitted type of residential structures in the RP Zoning District. Section 165 -65 details the dimensional requirements for the permitted types of residential structures. Neither "Carriage House" nor "Village House" are housing types identified in Section 165 -59 (13)(1) as permitted housing types. If "Carriage House" and "Village House" are merely another way of describing two of the housing types in Section 165-59 (13)(1), then the proffer should reference the housing type by the title identified in the ordinance. Otherwise, it does not appear that the proffered housing types are currently permitted under the Zoning Ordinance in the RP District. Further, a proffered minimum lot area would only be appropriate if the minimum lot area being proffered is larger than the minimum lot area permitted in the ordinance. Also, I do not know what the term "dimensional standards" means in the last sentence of these two proffers. B. COMMERCIAL LAND USE 4. In Paragraph B(1), I am not clear why the Applicants are proffering a maximum square footage of building improvements in the property to be zoned B -2. In fact, the County may be interested in the Applicants proffering a minimum square footage of building improvements in the Commercial District. 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy November 8, 2005 Page 3 5. In Paragraph B(2), the staff should review whether "standing seam metal" and "dimensional shingles" are appropriate materials to be included in the proffer. 6. In Paragraph B(4), it should be noted that the Applicants are not committing to any construction of commercial structures until building permits for over 70% of the entire residential development have been issued. Also, it would appear thatif a "commercial market does not exist ", the commercial development may never occur. Who determines that a "commercial market does not exist "? Further, it is not clear to me what monetary contribution is to be made if the commercial development does not occur. Is it a recalculation of the monetary contribution for each non - age - restricted dwelling unit in the development, or is it contemplated that the commercially zoned property would be rezoned residential and the references to dwelling units that would be constructed on the property originally zoned commercial? In any event, I would think that this proffer would not be satisfactory if the County is interested in having a commitment for commercial development. 7. In Paragraph B(5), I would recommend that the staff review the commercial uses to be excluded from the B -2 zoned property to determine if the County wants all of these commercial uses excluded, including the limitation on the size of a food store. D. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8. In Paragraph 1)(1), the Applicants proffer to develop the property under a single Master Development Plan. I would recommend that it be expressly set forth in this proffer that there will be no development activity on the property until approval of the Master Development Plan by the Board of Supervisors. 9. I am not clear for the reasons for the provisions set forth in Paragraph D(2). The application for approval of a Master Development Plan, and any revision of a Master Development Plan, is required to be signed by all owners of the property. Since it will be a proffered condition of the zoning on the property that the 0 E HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy November 8, 2005 Page 4 development of the property has to comply with the single Master Development Plan, it does not seem to me that it going to take an agreement between the Applicants and subsequent developers to accomplish this. Perhaps this is intended as more of a notice provision to notify developers in the project that the property must be developed in accordance with the approved Master Development Plan. E. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS 10. While I believe it is implied, the proffers should include an express statement that the Applicants will dedicate the right of way for Willow Run Drive and Juba] Early Drive, including the portion of Willow Run Drive located on property currently owned by Jova Properties, LLC. Further, the proffer should specify a time, satisfactory to the County, by which the dedications would be made. 11. The proffers related to Jubal Early Drive should set forth a requirement as to when the various stages of construction will be completed. 12. With respect to Paragraphs E(7) and E(8), (second and third phases of Jubal Early Drive), 1 am not clear what is meant by the provision that the undeveloped portion of the right -of -way shall count "towards the overall open space for the Willow Run Community." How can a portion of a road right -of -way count towards a permanent open space requirement if it is contemplated that in the future it will be converted to a street? 13. The proffer to enter into signalization agreements as provided in Paragraph E(14) and E(17), should provide that the provisions of the signalization agreement shall be as determined by VDOT. F. MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS 14. It is my understanding that the monetary contributions set forth in Paragraph F(l) and F(2) are based upon a calculation under the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model, and that that calculation has allocated the ... o • HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy November 8, 2005 Page 5 monetary contribution among specified County capital projects. I would recommend that the printout of that calculation be included as an exhibit to the proffer, so that it is established for the record how the monetary contributions are to be allocated. (Virginia Code Section 15.2- 2303.2 requires the local governing body to account annually to the Commission on local government as to the collection and expenditure (by category) of proffered monetary contributions.) G. COMMUNITY RECREATION 15. It should be noted that the proffer concerning the construction of a community center building, contained in Paragraph G(l), does not provide for the construction of the community center until building permits for almost half of the total development have been issued. I. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 16. Paragraph I(2) provides for the creation of an Architectural Review Board to insure that all "design guidelines" are met for exterior additions and alterations to existing dwelling units. I am not clear as to what "design guidelines" are being referenced. In any event, the design guidelines seem to only apply to additions and alterations to existing dwelling units, and there does not seem to be any proffered design guidelines as to the dwelling units to be constructed. 17. In Paragraph I(3) it should be noted that there is no minimum to the assessment referenced. Presumably, that assessment could be minimal. J. ENVIRONMENTAL 18. It should be noted that Paragraph J(3), concerning the resource protection area, only restricts the location of residential lots. While it may not be of concern to the County, it is noted that there is no restriction upon the proximity of commercial development to Developmentally Sensitive Areas, and it appears that a small portion of one of the areas to be zoned B -2 is located in a Developmentally Senitive Area. • • HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy November 8, 2005 Page 6 19. It should be noted that the landscaping plan for the wetland areas, referenced in Paragraph J(4), is not a part of the proffer, but the Applicants are merely proffering to "develop" a landscaping plan. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. In particular, and without limitation, the staff will want to review the appropriateness of the limit on the number of residential units in the development, and, as to the transportation proffers, the details of the road improvements, the timing of the road improvements, the extent of the construction to be performed by the Applicants, and the appropriateness of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. truly yours, Robert T. Mitchel,I, Jr. RTMlks 0 E CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA Rouss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 540- 667 -1815 TDD 540- 722 -0782 MEMORANDUM TO: Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering CC: Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Planning & Development Director FROM: Tim Youmans, Winchester Planning Director RE: CITY COMMENTS FOR PROPOSED WILLOW RUN MIXED USE COMMUNITY REZONING APPLICATION DATE: November 10, 2005 Thank you for providing an opportunity for the City of Winchester to review and comment on the conditional rezoning for the proposed Willow Run Mixed Use Community. The following comments are based upon analysis of the following submitted materials: •A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run, dated July 12, 2005; *Alternative Build -out Scenario for: "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run, dated April 2005 ", this report dated July 12, 2005; and, • Willow Run Community Rezoning Application —Mixed Use Development, dated September 1, 2005 (with revisions to Proffers # 5 and 18 dated October 27, 2005 and received via fax on November 3, 2005). Comments herein are those of City Planning staff and should not be taken as an official position of the City Planning Commission or the Winchester Common Council ( "City Council ") At the writing of this memo, a City Subdivision application to permit the extension of W. Jubal Early Drive to the County line and establishment of a three -way intersection with Meadow Branch Avenue is pending consideration before the City Planning Commission prior to being forwarded to City Council for action. Decisions of these two bodies could differ considerably from this staff position and would supersede or expand the positions contained herein. Transportation impacts are the primary concern of the City. The overriding concern is the degree of assurance that W. Jubal Early Drive (JED), if approved by the City for extension from its current transition into Meadow Branch Avenue, will connect to a new interchange at Rte 37 as called for in numerous transportation plans including: The Win -Fred MPO's Long -Range Transportation Plan; The Winchester Area Transportation Plan; the City of Winchester Comprehensive Plan; and the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJEDLUP) update of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The City acknowledges the efforts of the applicant to undertake an Rte 37 /JED Interchange Justification Study, dedicate and construct JED through the rezoning site, dedicate land for the northbound on- and off -ramps in the area of the present- 0 0 MEMO to Evan Wyatt 11/10/2005 Page 2 day Merrimans Lane overpass, and offer a cash contribution of $1,000 per residential lot for construction of the N.B. on -ramp subject to CTB approval of the new interchange. The City also acknowledges that the applicant has proffered to let the JED / Merrimans Lane connection be a gated emergency access, but this is only if requested by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. However, if the CTB rejects the new JED /Rte 37 interchange, the City believes that the impacts arising from the development permitted with the conditional rezoning request would have a detrimental impact on existing and proposed City roadways and neighborhoods. Specifically, the traffic impact analysis shows significant impacts on Merrimans Lane. Figures 10 of the Traffic Impact Analysis depicts Phase 2 traffic for the year 2010 showing background ADT traffic volumes of 6,770 without the new development. Figures 14 of the Traffic Impact Analysis depicts Phase 2 traffic for the year 2010 showing Build -out ADT traffic volumes doubling to 13,578 on this narrow, winding two -lane roadway with the new development. Of great concern is the detrimentally reduced Level of Service (LOS) resulting at the intersection of Merrimans Lane and Amherst St (Rte 50) in the City due to build -out development caused by this rezoning. Figure 11 depicts 2010 background PM peak hour DOS's of C or D at this intersection. Figure 15 depicts 2010 build -out PM peak hour LOS's of F (except for one D) at this intersection. Figure 15a offers suggested improvements on Merrimans Lane including additional turn lanes and signalization at the Merrimans Ln/Breckinridge Ln intersection and additional left- and right -turn lanes at all four approaches to the Merrimans Lane /Rte 50 intersection. None of these mitigating measurers appear to be proffered. City Council has recently approved a subdivision at the intersection of Merrimans Lane and Amherst St that will severe the direct connection of Merrimans Lane and Amherst St. The revised roadway configuration in this area calls for Merrimans Lane to swing eastward and intersect newly constructed Meadow Branch Avenue approximately 400 feet south of the current intersection with Amherst St. Vehicles heading north on Merrimans Lane will be required to make a left turn from a single left/thru lane onto Meadow Branch Avenue at an unsignalized intersection and then approach the signalized intersection of Meadow Branch Avenue and Amherst Street. The traffic impact model for the Willow Run project should be updated to reflect this configuration since it has been approved by City Council and has been bonded for 100% private developer construction by the developers of the recently approved CVS Pharmacy. Figure 15 of the Traffic Impact Analysis depicts a detrimental 2010 build -out PM peak hour LOS of F (down from a 2010 background LOS of D without the build -out) at the eastbound approach to the JED/Valley Ave intersection. Other approaches to this intersection see Peak Hour LOS drop to D and E. Figure 15a suggests improvements at the JED/Valley Ave intersection consisting of dedicated right -turn lanes at two of the approaches and an additional thru lane at a third approach. None of these improvements are proffered in response to the detrimental impacts caused by development arising from the rezoning of Willow Run. While the impacts on City roadways associated with 2010 Alternative Build -out analysis (.i.e. with no JED connection in the City) are fewer, there are still a number of reduced levels of service not mitigated through proffers. Examples are depicted in Figure 6 of the Alternative 0 0 MEMO to Evan Wyatt 11/10/2005 Page 3 Analysis and include, among others, the PM Peak Hour LOS'S of `F' at the Breckridge Lane /Merrimans Lane intersection, and 'E'at the Harvest Dr /Cedar Creek Grade intersection. Although there are some concern about the possible temporary impacts associated with traffic patterns resulting during interim phases, the focus herein is primarily on ultimate build -out permitted by the rezoning. The October 27, 2005 amendments to Proffers 5 and 18 help to understand the potential impacts relative to phased connection to JED in the City. In general, the City feels that commitments to constructing at least part of the JED /Rte 37 interchange instead of incrementally improving the Cedar Creek Grade /Rte 37 interchange will provide greater benefit to the residents of the rezoning area as well as the adjoining neighborhoods, both in the City and the County. The improvements to Cedar Creek Grade can more appropriately be addressed by proffers in conjunction with rezonings of the properties along that roadway frontage at a future date. Thank you again for providing the City with an opportunity to comment on the rezoning request for this development. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the comments in this response. 9 0 NN COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 October 6, 2005 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Dear Evan: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Willow Run Property. The rezoning application seeks to rezone 359.97 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District and B2 (Business General) District. Overall this site presents the exciting opportunity to create a new community in an undeveloped area of the County. I have provided a number of comments which are included below. While general transportation comments are included in this letter, detailed comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the Alternative TIA are included as attachments. I would very much welcome the.opportunity to discuss my comments with you so that we can both work towards development of an exemplary community in Frederick County. 1. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The subject properties cover 359.97 acres. The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6 -79) states that "in the Urban Development Area, parcels of 100 acres or more should only be allowed to develop residential uses under the R -4 (Planned Community) Zoning District ". I would strongly recommend that you investigate rezoning to the R -4 District. This district is intended to create new neighborhoods with an appropriate balance of residential, employment and service uses. This district enables greater design flexibility, including the introduction of new housing types, which is not allowed in the RP (Residential Performance) District. 2. Western Jubal Early Area. As you are aware, the Solenberger /Bridgeforth properties, south of the subject sites, have requested to be included in the Urban Development Area (UDA). This request has yet to be acted upon by the Board of Supervisors. It would clearly be in the best interest of the county to plan the entire 600 acre Western Jubal Early Area as a whole. It is a particular concern that the development of the subject sites as currently proposed could prejudice the ability of the Solenberger /Bridgeforth properties to develop. I have provided specific 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 0 0 Page 2 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 examples in my comments. See comments 26, 31 and 42. As Greenway Engineering is also representing the Solenbergers and Bridgeforths in their UDA expansion request, I hope that full information on this rezoning application is being provided to them. 3. Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP). The subject properties are within the area covered by the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 11, 2004). I have based many of my comments on this adopted plan. However, as you are aware, the Board of Supervisors is considering revisions to that land use plan. The latest draft plan was endorsed by the CPPS on April 4, 2005. The Planning Commission provided comments to the Board of Supervisors on this draft on May 4, 2005. It is possible that a revised plan may be adopted before this rezoning application is submitted. Therefore, in a number of relevant places, I have referred to policies in the draft plan (4/4/05). 4. WJELUP — Residential Density. The WJELUP (2/11/04) envisions urban and suburban residential uses. The residential designation is intended to continue the established land use pattern in the vicinity. The gross residential density for development within WJELUP anticipates up to four dwelling units per acre, with full density credit being provided for DSA designated land. The proposed Willow Run density of 2.36 units per acre (850 units on 360 acres) is low in relation to the density called for in the WJELUP. Considering the current demand for housing in the existing UDA, this is perhaps an inefficient use of the site and fails to achieve intended density. A density similar to that called for in the WJELUP would make a mix of uses in the development more viable. 5. Housing Type. The applicant is proposing all housing types allowed in the RP (Residential Performance) District except for garden apartments. However the application mentions 658 single family detached units and 192 single family attached units. The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model was run on the basis of these numbers although this particular housing split was not proffered. This should be clarified. Also, in my opinion, garden apartments are not out of character with the area. The Summerfield apartments are adjacent to the site to the east and the Mews condominiums are located just to the north in the Meadow Branch area. I suggest that the applicant reconsider the inclusion of garden apartments, particularly in the mixed -use areas. As stated above, the applicant could also consider other housing types that may be permitted should they seek an R4 designation. 6. Age Restricted. The application gives no indication of the total number (other than the minimum) of age- restricted units. This is important given that many of the 0 0 Page 3 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 proffers are tied to non - age - restricted units. The application is silent on where these age- restricted units will be located and in what phases these will be built. The application is also silent on when the units will be designated as age- restricted. Perhaps it is at the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage. Please clarify. 7. Residential Phasing. Only the non - age - restricted units are limited to 200 per year. (This far exceeds the customary 50 -70 units per year seen in Frederick County.) If the entire development was age- restricted, the entire development could be built in one year. I suggest that the total number of units be restricted to 70 per year. I also recommend that the phasing be aligned with the phasing in the TIA. The TIA clearly set out for two distinct phases — Phase 1 with 400 single family detached units (85 of them age - restricted) and Phase 2 with 258 single family attached units and 193 single family attached units, plus commercial development. If that is the applicant's intent, it should be set out in the proffers, otherwise the TIA is not based on the actual application. Also, the TIA has general locations for the two residential phases in order to assign vehicle trips. I can find nothing in the application or proffer statement to indicate the location of any residential phasing. The TIA clearly conflicts with the rezoning application. 8. WJELUP — Mixed -Use. The WJELUP (2/11/04) designates areas of mixed residential and commercial land uses along the planned route of the Jubal Early Drive extension. The plan clearly calls for the integration of land uses within the mixed use areas. It is further expected that residential and commercial uses will be designed and configured in a complementary and unified manner to ensure development of a visually distinctive and functionally efficient community. The proffered GDP does not show any mixed -use area. It is possible that the applicant is planning a mixed -use area with residential and commercial uses designed and configured in a complementary and unified manner. However, the GDP only shows isolated commercial areas. The application needs to clearly designate and detail a mixed -use area. I would suggest that the applicant consider proffering a more detailed plan of the mixed -use area. In the absence of a plan for the mixed -use areas, as designated on the WJELUP, this application is not in conformance with the WJELUP. 9. WJELUP — Mixed -Use Location. The WJELUP (2/11/04) designates a large mixed -use area along and on both sides of Jubal Early Drive. The GDP shows two isolated commercial areas that may form part of an integrated mixed -use area, but again it is unclear from the application, whether the mixed -use areas called for in the WJELUP are in the appropriate location. 0 Page 4 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 10. WJELUP — Mix of Uses. The WJELUP calls for a minimum of 25% commercial component in the mixed -use area. The applicant has not demonstrated that this 25% commercial component has been met. The WJELUP also calls for a mixture of housing types in the mixed -use areas. The application does not show any housing mix. As stated above, I would suggest that the applicant consider providing a more detailed plan of the mixed -use area. This should also show the interconnection of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The applicant should be able to demonstrate how the mixed -use area will be the focal point of the new community. 11. WJELUP — Mix of Uses. The positioning of the recreational use in proximity to the commercial area is welcome and provides for greater overall vitality. The recreational uses would contribute even more to the vitality of the area if they were public. 12. New Commercial Site. The westernmost commercial site shown on the GDP was not designated for any particular land use in the WJELUP (2/11/04). It is not unreasonable, given its location adjacent to Route 37 and Merriman's Lane, that it should be designated for commercial use. However, this must be viewed as commercial development above and beyond what was called for in the WJELUP for the mixed -use areas and should not count towards the commercial component of the mixed -use area. 13. Commercial Floorspace. The application mentions 50,000 square feet of office use, 50,000 square feet of retail use and 10,000 square feet of restaurant use. The Fiscal Impact Model and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) were run on this basis. However, a general floorspace maximum of 110,000 square feet is proffered. The TIA will need to reflect the maximum possible density of 110,000 square feet of retail use. In addition, as a minimum commercial floorspace is not proffered, the Fiscal Impact Model will need to reflect zero commercial development. 14. Impact Analysis Statement (Access, p. 3). The application notes access from Cedar Creek Grade, Merriman's Lane, Cidermill Lane and through the extension of Jubal Early Drive. The application does not mention access through the extension of Sterling Drive in the City of Winchester. As this road is designed to access the site, an explanation of why this access in not being pursued is sought. 15. Impact Analysis Statement (Floodplains, p. 4). The application notes that the FEMA floodplain maps for Frederick County do not cover this entire site. I would point out that FEMA maps prepared for the City of Winchester, specifically Maps # 510173- 0001 -B and 510173- 003 -13, do cover the subject sites. The application mentions a Phase I Environmental Assessment Report and a Wetlands Delineation Page 5 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 Report. The Planning Department has not been provided a copy of either of these reports. In the absence of this information, I cannot determine whether the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) on the proffered Generalized Development Plan are accurate. This information will need to be provided before this rezoning application can be accepted. 16. Impact Analysis Statement (Wetlands, p. 4). As stated above, the Planning Department has not been provided a copy of the Wetlands Delineation Report and therefore cannot verify the accuracy of the (DSA) on the proffered GDP. 17. Impact Analysis Statement (Mature Woodlands, p. 5). Following a site visit, it is clear that some woodlands merit particular attention. I would suggest that the preservation of key woodlands, including the trees and the associated stone wall along Orchard Lane, be considered at the rezoning stage. This could be an enhancement of the GDP. 18. Impact Analysis Statement (Soil Types, p. 5). The information on soil types is inaccurate. The subject sites are located on Map Sheet #35 of the Soil Survey of Frederick County Virginia. The soil types also include 17E — Frederick - Poplimento- Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes. The Soil Condition Exhibit is correct. 19. Impact Analysis Statement (Soil and Bedrock Conditions). The applicant has not included information on soil or bedrock conditions which could create construction difficulties or hazards. This is clearly required in the rezoning application. Given the known location of a large sinkhole, the applicant will need to provide further geotechnical information at the rezoning stage. 20. Impact Analysis Statement (Soil and Bedrock Conditions). A recent site visit has revealed that the large sinkhole has been filled. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (165 -31) restricts the disturbance of sinkholes. Filling of the sinkhole is also contrary to the WJELUP (2/11/04) which designated this a developmentally sensitive area that should be preserved. As you will recall, the applicant participated in the creation of the WJELUP, so was clearly aware of the sinkhole and its designation. The proffered GDP shows this as a developmentally sensitive area. The applicant will need to address how the impact of this fill will be mitigated and how the area will now be protected from further sinking and either preserved or developed, if that is even possible. 21. Transportation (Phasing p. 6). The impact analysis statement, and the TIA, divide the development into two phases - the first includes the development of 400 0 0 Page 6 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 residential units, the second includes the total build -out of 850 residential units and 110,000 square feet of commercial, retail and restaurant uses. The two phases are not defined in the proffer statement or shown on the GDP. It is unclear where the first 400 houses will be located. Please provide information about the two phases. 22. Transportation (Alternate Build -out Analysis p. 6). The applicant has provided a 2010 Alternate Build -out Analysis should the connection to Jubal Early Drive not be permitted by the city of Winchester. In this scenario, only 10,000 square feet of commercial floorspace is proposed (given 600 non - age- restricted residential units). It is unclear where this commercial development will be located, since three B2 Districts are sought. Also, reducing the amount of commercial land would be contrary to the WJELUP as it relates to the mixed -use areas. 23. Transportation (Level of Service and Proffered Transportation Improvements p. 7). Specific comments concerning these issues are covered under the comments on proffers and the analysis of the two TIAs. 24. WJELUP - Transportation. The WJELUP (2/11/04) is fundamentally linked to the extension of Jubal Early Drive and the new Route 37 interchange at Jubal Early Drive. If Jubal Early Drive cannot be extended from the City, or if the interchange is no longer proposed, it would be not possible for the application to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 25. Transportation. The application should address the railroad crossing that would accompany Jubal Early Drive extended. 26. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment (p. 8). The application states that the applicant will provide a new sewer force main and a new sewer pump station with capacity for the Willow Run community that is expandable to serve additional development in the area. The applicant should consider a proffer to cover this commitment and its timing. Also, when sizing the sewer force main and pump station the applicant will need to consider the SolenbergerBridgeforth properties and the fact that the emerging WJELUP allows up to 2,400 residences, plus commercial development, in the overall WJELUP area. 27. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment (p. 9). The application states that the phasing plan limits the number of permits that can be obtained on an annual basis. This ensures that the build -out cannot occur until 2010 at the earliest. This is incorrect. There is no limit on the non - age - restricted units. Therefore, an 850 unit age- restricted community could be built in the first year, long before the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility is projected to be completed. Also, in this era 0 0 Page 7 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 of evolving nutrient reduction regulations, the county has a heightened awareness of the potential impacts that may result from future rezonings. 28. Drainage (p. 10). Given the known sinkhole on the site, the geotechnical analysis for the property should be prepared before the rezoning stage. , 29. Historic Sites and Structures (p. 12). The applicant has been advised that a Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) recommendation is required with this application. 30. Impact on Community Facilities (p. 12). The impact model submitted with the application was based on 658 single family detached houses, 192 single family attached houses, 50,000 square feet of office, 50,000 square feet of retail and 10,000 square feet of restaurant. The proffers only include a maximum of 850 residential units and 10,000 square feet of commercial floorspace (assuming 600 non - age- restricted units). The applicant can either clearly proffer what is in the impact model or revise the impact model to reflect what is currently proffered. 31. Impact on Community Facilities (p. 12). The draft WJELUP (4/4/05) calls for a site for school facilities to mitigate the impact of large number of school children as a result of development in this area. As the applicant is aware, the Frederick County School Board on January 18, 2005 passed a resolution requesting 25 -30 acres for a multi - campus school site in the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan area. While this resolution took account of the wider Jubal Early area, including the Solenberger /Bridgeforth properties, the resolution needs to be addressed in this application. This development is larger than the SolenbergerBridegeforth properties, yet the applicant appears to be leaving the responsibility to provide the entire school site to the SolenbergerBridgeforth properties. Please confirm that the adjacent property owners are aware of their future responsibility. 32. Impact on Community Facilities (p. 13). The reduced proffer for each age restricted unit only takes fire and rescue impacts into consideration. The model shows impacts to fire and rescue, parks and recreation, public library and administration building. These all need to be considered. 33. Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The GDP shows RP zoning for parcel 52- A -310. This is incorrect as that parcel is not part of this application. 34. Proffer Statement - General. It is not appropriate, nor allowable, to proffer items that conflict with ordinances. Proffers are intended to enhance regulations, not to detract from, conflict with, nor undermine them. 0 0 Page 8 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 35. Proffer Statement A3. The proffered phasing plan only applies to non -age- restricted units. Therefore, 850 age - restricted units could be built in year one. Consider rewording this proffer. (Also, there is no phasing plan to match that contained in the TIA.) The County cannot act in a police role between landowners. Permits applied for first will be dealt with first regardless of any private agreements between landowners. This is especially important when improvements are tied to building permits. The proffer statement should be clear and set out responsibilities based on land area and phasing. A phased plan with a map would resolve many of these issues. 36. Proffer Statement A4. When will the age- restricted units be designated? Where will they be located? How many units will be age - restricted? None of these questions are answered in the proffer statement, yet the TIA uses definite numbers, locations and phases to determine traffic impacts. There is a disconnect between the proffer statement and the TIA. 37. Proffer Statement A5 and A6. The application proffers two new housing types, the Carriage House and the Village House. The introduction of new housing types is not allowed in the RP District and should not be included in the proffer statement. The applicant would need to seek a rezoning to the R4 District, as suggested in comment #1, in order to introduce new housing types. I would note that RP District allows single family lots as small as 3,750 square feet, with, as you are aware, a required community center. 38. Proffer Statement B3. The phasing for the commercial development does not match the phasing in the TIA. The phasing for the commercial development as written in the proffer statement does not commit the applicant to anything. 39. Proffer Statement B4. This proffer allows the applicant to develop the entire Willow Run project with no commercial development. A miniscule 10,000 square feet of commercial land use is proffered with the 600'' non -age restricted dwelling unit. The applicant might develop 599 non -age restricted units, thus no commercial development would occur. This is contrary to the WJELUP (2/11/04). The second part of the proffer which would provide a monetary contribution to make up for the lack of 110,000 square feet of commercial floorspace is vague. It is difficult to see how this proffer could be enforced as there are multiple owners of the site and hundreds of building permits would already have been issued before this proffer would come into play. More importantly, a monetary contribution would not overcome the lack of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 0 0 Page 9 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 40. Proffer Statement B5. It is unclear why the applicant has proffered to restrict so many B2 uses. Some of these uses are part of a vibrant, local community. The applicant should especially reconsider restricting fire stations and rescue squads. The Draft WJELUP (4/4/05) states that it may be necessary for future development to provide a site for other public facilities to mitigate the impact of the large number of residents resulting from the development in this area. 41. Proffer Statement C1. The proffered GDP identifies the major road systems. However, the applicant may not be able to connect to Jubal Early Drive and thus the GDP could be fundamentally incorrect. It is premature to submit this application until it is clear whether the connection to Juba] Early Drive can be made. In addition, the WJELUP (2/11/04) clearly designates Jubal Early Drive extended as the main through route. The GDP shows Jubal Early Drive /Willow Run Drive as the major through route, with the western portion of Jubal Early Drive as subservient. This road configuration is contrary to the WJELUP. 42. Proffer Statement El. The applicant will be required to provide proof of an access easement across tax map parcel 63 -A -1 when the rezoning application is submitted. 43. Proffer Statement E2. The draft WJELUP (4/4/05) calls for Willow Run Drive to be an urban divided four lane cross - section that includes landscaped medians as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This should be incorporated into the design for this road. Construction of the two -lane section prior to the issuance of the 100' residential building permit is not consistent with the TIA, which calls for the first 400 units to be built without access to Cedar Creek Grade. 44, Proffer Statement E3. Landscaping, as called for in the draft WJELUP (4/4/05) (see comment above) should be incorporated into the design for this road and the landscaping should be provided with the first two -lane section. 45. Proffer Statement E4. The phasing of the construction of Jubal Early Drive is not tied to any specific time or event such as the issuing of building permits. Revise, to tie the phasing to verifiable events. 46. Proffer Statement E4. The WJELUP (2/11/04) designates Jubal Early Drive as an urban divided four -lane- cross - section that includes landscaped medians as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This should be designed and built along with the first two -lane section. 0 0 Page 10 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 47. Proffer Statement E5. It is unclear from Exhibit 2 how Meadow Branch Avenue will intersect with Jubal Early Drive extended. The applicant should clarify if they intend to fund any of the realignment of Meadow Branch Avenue. 48. Proffer Statement E5. Timing the completion of this section of roadway to opening for public use is too vague. Please tie to a verifiable event such as the issuance of building permits. 49. Proffer Statement E7. There is no timing for this proffer. Please tie to a verifiable event such as the issuance of building permits. 50. Proffer Statement E7 and E8. It is unacceptable to the County to allow the undeveloped portion of Jubal Early Drive to count towards the overall open space for the Willow Run Community. The roadway will eventually be completed and the residents would then have a deficit of open space. 51. Proffer Statement ES. Gating Jubal Early Drive at Merrimans Lane was not modeled in the TIA and it is therefore impossible for the County to evaluate this proffer. 52. Proffer Statement E10. VDOT will need to verify that enough land has been reserved for a new Route 37 interchange. 53. Proffer Statement E10. The applicant should be prepared to pay an equitable share of the proposed interchange. $850,000 may not represent their fair share. 54. Proffer Statement Ell. While the initiation of this study is proffered, its completion is open -ended and may never happen. 55. Proffer Statement E16. The applicant should consider a continuous right turn lane westbound on Cedar Creek Grade from the City of Winchester to the interchange with Route 37. 56. Proffer Statement E16. The TIA shows a second through lane eastbound on Cedar Creek Grade. This is not proffered, but appears, based on the TIA, to be necessary. The WJELUP (4/4/05) also calls for Cedar Creek Grade to be a four lane divided highway with a bicycle lane. The design should be established and the road built to meet that design or part of the design. 57. Proffer Statement E18. The timing of this proffer is unclear. It is based on the construction of the minor spine road, but this road is not proffered. 0 0 Page 11 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 58. Proffer Statement E19. The GDP shows the bicycle trail connecting to the trail in the City of Winchester. This is not reflected in the proffer statement. Revise the proffer to reflect the full connection of the trail to trails in the adjoining neighborhoods as called for in the WJELUP (2/11/04). Also, the applicant should look into the emerging county bike plan in order to determine if other connections are appropriate. 59. Proffer Statement E20. Alleys may not work in the RP District, given the access and setback requirements. 60. Proffer Statement Transportation. It would be very useful for the applicant to address access by construction vehicles at the rezoning stage. 61. Proffer Statement Fl. The Capital Facilities Impact Model was based on specific commercial development. As this commercial development is not proffered, any monetary contribution should be based on a purely residential scheme. 62. Proffer Statement Fl. It is unclear how the County will know which units are age- restricted. Perhaps this could be required information at the MDP stage. 63. Proffer Statement F2. The reduced proffer for each age- restricted unit only takes fire and rescue impacts into consideration. The model also shows impacts to parks and recreation, public library and administration building. 64. Proffer Statement GI. Proffers should go beyond ordinance requirements. It appears that this proffer in not guaranteeing anything above that which is already required by county ordinance. 65. Proffer Statement G2. The minor spine road is not proffered, nor is it shown on the GDP as stated in the proffer statement. Therefore, the location of the trail along this road is unclear. The applicant should connect the trail to the Green Circle as called for in the WJELUP. 66. Proffer Statement G3. County ordinances require sidewalks on both sides of the road in residential developments. The applicant appears to be proffering a lesser standard of asphalt pedestrian trails. If the applicant is proffering trails in addition to the required sidewalks, these should be 10 feet in width and have asphalt surface, as per County Parks and Recreation standards. 0 Page 12 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 67. Proffer Statement J1, J2 and J3. The applicant will need to revise these three proffers in light of the fact that the large sinkhole has been filled. 68. Proffer Statement J4. Very little of the wetlands are south of Jubal Early Drive. Why does this proffer not apply north of Jubal Early Drive? This proffer is also missing information on when the landscape plan will be prepared and who will review it. It is also unclear who will put in the landscaping and how it will be maintained. 69. Surveyed Plat. Please supply a surveyed plat of the subject properties, which shows all property lines and proposed zoning boundary lines. Metes and bounds should be provided to verify exact locations of lots and zoning boundaries. It appears that this information may be included on the proffered GDP, but in its current form, it is not legible. 70. Deed. Please provide a deed to the property verifying current ownership. 71. Verification that taxes have been paid. Please provide a receipt from the Treasurer's office which verifies that real estate taxes for the properties have been paid. 72. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Public Schools, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, City of Winchester, Winchester Regional Airport, Round Hill Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. Note: the proffer statement has been sent to the Frederick County Attorney by the Planning Department. 73. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $39,050 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. 74. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Please have the property owners complete the special limited power of attorney form which authorizes you to represent them during the application process. 0 0 Page 13 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 In summary, this preliminary application conflicts with the WJELUP and does not match what is proposed in the TIA. An application consistent with the WJELUP, with traffic impacts that are acceptable and manageable, would achieve the vibrant, mixed -use community envisioned by the County for this area. All of the comments in this letter and any agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can formally accept this rezoning application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, n Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE /dlw Attachments Rezoning Comments U C Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984 -5600 Applicant's Name: Greenwav Engineering Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, VA 22603 (540) - 53501828 Telephone: 540- 662 -4185 Location of property: East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621), North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) South and West of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits Current zoning: RA District Zoning requested: RP District & B2 District Acreage: 359.97± (347.44± RP District & 12.20± B2 District) Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached letter from VDOT to Greenwav Engineering dated October 14, 2005 10/14/05 VDOT Signature & Date: Notice to VDOT — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 0 Project Name Willows Run Community Address 151 Windy Hill Lane Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments LJ Applicant Greenway Engineering State Zip VA 22602 Fire District 15 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System No Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway /Aisleway Width Not Identified Applicant Phone 540 -662 -4185 Rescue District 15 Election District Shawnee Residential Sprinkler System No Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards No This project will further tax the combination Fire and Rescue services in Frederick county. The additional dwelling units will ultimately create more "incidents" or calls for service. Upgrades to our current system are imperative to maintain a consistent level of expected service through -out community. Therefore requirirut additional personnel, equipment and fire and rescue stations. Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature Yes Limburg Title ro }r9�o �4nn oJl City Winchester Tax ID Number 53 -A -90 Control number Date received Date reviewed Date Revised RZ05 -0009 9/912005 10/12/2005 Comments Fire and Rescue Company Name of Fire & Rescue Comuany: Address & Phone: Round Hill Vol Fire & Rescue Co PO Box 1368 Winchester- VA 22604 540- 667 -6855 Applicant: Please fill ouY `the information as accurately as possible in order to assts[ the -. Winchester Regional Airport with their review. , Attach a copy of your apphcahon form, location map, proffer statementgimpacf analysis and any o, er pertipint informatiod Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540 662 - 4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester- VA 22602 Location of property: East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621). North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) South and West of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits Current zoning: RA District Zoning requested: RP District & B2 District Acreage: 359.97± (347.44± RP District & 12.20± B2 District) Fire and Rescue Company's Comments: C�,MM�nS Fire & Rescue Company's Signature & Date: Notice to Fire & Rescue Company — Please Return This Form to the Applicant I D� P M WT[ OCT 2 12005 t'd Oir2G- L99 -ObS 38IJ AlINnwwo3 I aunoa dIO :Zt SO ira 130 Rezoning Comments • Frederick County Sanitation Authority t Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665 -1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Telephone: 540- 662 -4185 Location of property: East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621). North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622). South and West of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits Current zoning: RA District Zoning requested: RP District & B2 District Acreage: 359.97± (347.44± RP District & 12.20± B2 District) Sanitation Authority Comments: / , V-E fi e:U12yW60 T /f /S R.EazDiY //y6 ,�J,FI�yEST /�iIW CDQ/CIiR W1Tiff 77f.4 W4 4FIi4 5F iti�R R.E/LJ�RkSe Sanatation Authority Signature & Date: sE/a epj Notice to Sanitation Author o— Please Return This Form to the Applicant �1 1 � � �5T T - )EP 1 6 2005 1 W 0 FREDERICK-WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY PO Box 43 Winchester, VA 22604 Tel. (540) 722-3579 Fax (540) 722-1103 October 18, 2005 Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Attn: Evan Wyatt Dear Evan: SUBJECT: WILLOW RUN REZONING Upon my review of the rezoning request, I have no comments with regards to the submittal. I will, however, make a general comment, with regards to the potential limitations of future capacity at the Frederick-Winchester Service Authority facilities, due to load caps instituted under the Bay Program. Si erely, Jesse W. Moffett Executive Director Frederick-Winchester Service Authority JWM :ncg OCT 2 0 2005 3eeo0 &) Rezoning Comments Frederick — Winchester Health Department Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665 -1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Greenwav Engineering Telephone: 540- 662 -4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621), North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622). South and West of the Citv of Winchester Corporate Limits Current zoning: RA District Zoning requested: RP District & B2 District Acreage: 359.97± (347.44± RP District & 12.20± B2 District) Fred - Winchester Health Department Comments: 7� O'Lr 02 cc 4� mil' Ae �r Health Department Signature & Date: Z6 0 $� Notice to Health Department — Please Return This Form to the Applicant Comments 0 Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail.to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665 -5678 Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2 nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 540- 662 -4185 ( Location of property: East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621) North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), South and West of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits Current zoning: RA District Zoning requested: RP District & B2 District Acreage: 359.97± (347.44± RP District & 12.20± B2 District) Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: See Attached i Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: 10/03/05 Notice to Department of Par & Recreation — Please Return This Form to the Applicant WILLOW RUN REZONING COMMENTS • Plan appears to provide for required open space; however, no calculations for required or usable open space have been provided. • The residents of the age restricted housing units will undoubtedly spend time outside of the development and have an impact on the recreational services provided by the county. Therefore, staff believes a monetary proffer for these units would be appropriate. • Plan appears to provide for the required recreational units; however, specific requirements have not been stated in the plan. • To ensure a connection to Cedar Creek Grade, the Transportation Enhancements should offer an area for a 10' wide asphalt bicycle /pedestrian trail along Willow Run to Cedar Creek Grade. • In addition to providing the Proffer Model, staff recommends the Proffer Statement include a list of proposed monetary proffers by agency. • If this project includes the planning for or construction of a new interchange at Route 37, the proposed Transportation Improvement Program proffer should offer the ability to facilitate a 10' wide bicycle trail to cross over Route 37 at this location. Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent W pents M �, k { L yi - Frederick County Public Schools Visit us at www Srederick ki2.va.us September16, 2005 Mr. Evan Wyatt Crreenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Dear Mr. Wyatt: RE: Willow Run Rezoning e -mail: kapocsis@frederick.k12.va.us This letter is in response to your request for comments regarding the rezoning application for the proposed Willow Run rezoning project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 850 single - family homes with 10 percent (85 units) being age restricted will yield 130 high school students, 107 middle school students, and 299 elementary school students for a total of 536 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and fixture school needs should be considered during the approval process. Respectfully yours, Stephen M. Kapocsi Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent SMK:dkr cc: William C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools S E P 2 0 2005 AI Omdorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Charles Puglisi, Director of Transportation 1 --21�, 540 -662 -3889 Bxt 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604 -2546 FAX 540-662-3890 C WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662 -2422 September 23, 2005 Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re: Rezoning Comment — RP District & B2 District Willow Grove, L.C. Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Wyatt: After review of the proposed rezoning request for Willow Grove, L.C. for proposed residential performance and business use, we offer the following comment: The proposed site does lie within airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport and is in close proximity to the approach path for Runway 14/32. Residential occupants should be forewarned that they might experience noise from over flights of aircraft departing to and from the Winchester Regional Airport. We appreciate the opportunity to review these plans and your cooperation in ensuring the continuing operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, S. R. Manuel Executive Director SEP 2 6 2005 BY — _ - • Rezoning Comments 0 • #�:�arm�.,6,i.k'k:X:. �,3't�.i �.suu�u. �.f:, a.-i"te'.swOW�. Winchester Regional Airport Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 662 -2422 Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road (Rt. 645, off of Rt. 522 South) Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Greenway En¢ineering Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Telephone: 540- 662 -4185 Location of property: : East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621), North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) South and West of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits Current zoning: RA District Zoning requested: RP District & B2 District Acreage: 359.97± 347.44± RP District & 12.20± B2 District Winchester Regional Airport's Comments: Winchester Regional Airport's �3 Signature & Date: Notice to Winchester Regional Airport — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK NOV 0 2 2005 October 28, 2005 Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 157 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Willow Run Rezoning Proposal Location: East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621), North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) and west of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits. Property Identification Numbers (PINs):53 -A -90, 91, 92, 92A, 9213, 94, 53 -3 -A, 63 -A -2A Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Wyatt: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of October 18, 2005. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report the Virginia Department of Historic Resources as well as information provided by the applicant. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County identifies the 740 House (Willow Grove #34- 89), the 750 House (Baker, Jacob House #34 -90) and the Penbrook -Cove Farm ( #34 -1236) as being on the property. It is the intent of the applicant to rezone this property to the B2 (Business General) and RP (Residential Performance) Zoning Districts. The HRAB expressed concern that the 740 and 750 houses on the property might be removed. While the current owner does not intend to demolish the structures at this time, future owners' intentions are unknown. Information from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) file states that the VDHR State Review Board determined that the Baker, Jacob I - louse (750 House) is eligible for the Virginia Landmarks Register and the State and National Register of Historic Places. Department of Planning and Development 5401665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP Re: Willow Run Rezoning Proposal October 28, 2005 Page 2 The HRAB recommends approval of the project so long as the following be considered to mitigate impacts on the historic resources: Evergreen trees or other measures should be considered along Cedar Creek Grade (along the lot in Willow Run adjacent to Cedar Creek Grade) to minimize (not to overshadow) the perspective view of the,adjaeent historic Homespun. The applicant stated that a Phase I archeological survey had been done on the site around the Penbrook -Cove farm complex but the foundation of the burned house had not been located. A more detailed study should be conducted to locate the foundation of the house that burned down at this complex, as well as additional studies around the foundations of the existing buildings. A Phase I environmental study should be conducted on the site (followed by further studies if warranted Phase II archeological /environmental) before construction on the site begins. The applicant should utilize the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to determine additional areas of interest for archeological studies. e The property owners should consider preserving the 750 and 740 houses; these houses are landmarks on the site and should have permanent protection through the rezoning proffers. As stated previously, the 750 House (Baker, Jacob House) is eligible for the State and National Registries because of its architecture. The property owners should pursue placing the 750 House on the State and National Registries. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely, Irk CI � Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/bad cc: Rhoda Kriz, Harold Lehman, HRAB Members Gene Fisher, Shawnee District Supervisor Susan Eddy, Senior Planner BOARD OF RUSHES OFF. Dan C Stickley, Jr. Ch.r Nancy H. Hess V- Cl ,, Kris C. Tierney r =wra D. Eveland Newman $ rewry ".rd A .amen John P. Ackerly III Joseph E. Callahan Vincent Callahan Faye C. Cooper John D. Crim II Beverley H. Fleming Kay D. Frye Smie M. Hill Richard R. G. Hobson Donovan E. Hower Kathleen S. Kilpatrick Richard B. Meese Allen L. tnuderhack John W. Mountcastle Alexander L. Rives James L. White Doreen S. Williams Patricia L. Zoafine Howard J. Kiaell E—x D',. 6 0 18 August 2004 Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 66602 RE: Willow Run Mixed Use Development Dear Evan: This is in response to your letter of 9 August 2004 concerning the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation's interest in the remnant of core area land that is part of the First Winchester battlefield in Frederick County. This property is part of the Willow Run Mixed Use Development proposal. As we discussed, the federal funds the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation receives from congress may not be used to purchase land on the First Winchester battlefield. (The battlefield was not included in the 1996 enabling legislation for the National Historic District, hence we are not able to use our appropriated funds to purchase land there.) Because of this the Battlefields Foundation does not funds for the property in question nor has it had plans to acquire this land. While we do not like to see any battlefield land compromised, given the lack of context and the relatively small size of this fragment of First Winchester the Battlefields Foundation would not pursue other funding sources for land acquisition. We hope that if the development project proceeds and Jubal Early Drive is extended as planned that due consideration be given to both the historic and environmental issues on this property. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and providing the opportunity to consider the possible impacts to the land. Please contact me if you have any questions about this response. Sincerely yours, - - 47�u uA Howard J. Kittell Executive Director Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation Post Office Box 897 New Market, Virginia 22844 ph: 540.740.4545 / 888.689.4545 he: 540.740.4509 www. ShenandcahAWar.org James A. Davis Rezoning Comments • • City of Winchester Mail to: Winchester City Planning Department Attn: Planning Director 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 667 -1815 01m , LJM NOV 1 0 2005 Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Hand deliver to: Winchester City Planning Department Attn: Planning Director Rouss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 540 - 662 -4185 Location of property: East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621) North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) South and West of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits Current zoning: RA District Zoning requested: RP District & B2 District Acreage: 359.97± (347.44± RP District & 12.20± B2 District) City of Winchester's Co en See- µ�8I OS City of Winchester's Signature & Date: Notice to City of Win chesterZealetu rn This Form to the Applicant �'e,0 IV 6