Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-06 Comments
Patrick R. Sowers From: Funkhouser, Rhonda Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd Lloyd.Ingram @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:51 AM To: Patrick Sowers C Ronald A. Mislowsky; Ingram, Lloyd; Copp, Jerry; Alexander, Scott; cperkin s @co.frederick.va. us Subject: Carriage Park Rezoning Route 7, Frederick County The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 7. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed the transportation proffers offered in the Carriage Park Rezoning Application dated January 25, 2006, revised January 27, 2007 and offers the following comments: Proffer 12.2: This proffer raises some concern with VDOT, specifically whether there is sufficient crossover spacing between the proposed crossover and the existing Valley Mill /Route 7 crossover. There is also an access management concern as Route 7 is a primary route designed to carry large volumes of traffic efficiently. This proposed crossover would add an additional potential conflict point. This would also result in three possible signalized intersections on Route 7 within 2500'. With no proposed connection to Valley Mill Road, the existing Valley Mill Road and Route 7 crossover would have to remain in place. Currently, VDOT has not determined if the proposed crossover location will be the connection of the future Route 37 south bound ramp. Proffer 12.3: Acceptable. Proffer 12.4: VDOT is disappointed this proffer has digressed from an open connection to the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park to a gated emergency access, thus eliminating residents of the mobile home park the opportunity for access to a safer connection to Route 7. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the Z.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Phone #(540) 984 -5611 Fax #(540) 984 -5607 1 Mike Ruddy From: John Bishop [Jbishop @co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:11 PM To: 'Mike Ruddy' Subject: Carriage park issues Mike my issues per the new materials you gave me are as follows: 1. They contend that the route 37 ramp with route 7 needs to move outward to where they are showing their entrances. VDOT indicates that either location is below the ideal and would require a design exception. The developer's simple assertion that their proposal is better without being willing to fully study it does not justify impacting additional homeowners for this ramp configuration. 2. The TIA materials do not give any indication of traffic impacts on route 7. 3. The TIA materials do not give any indication of the impacts to the intersection of valley mill and route 7. If this new intersection were to be approve there would very likely need to be improvements and consideration to that location to address potential conflicts and safety issues. 4. In short the proposed plan does nothing more than show they can deliver their homeowners to route 7 without their entrance roadway having below level of service C. It does not in any way appear to address the impacts of their development on the county road system beyond this entrance roadway. This includes impacts to route 7 itself, not to mention the surrounding road system and nearby entrances. 5. Based upon testimony before the Board of Supervisors by the property owners to the south (perhaps worth quoting the minutes), staff has no reason to believe that the proposed connection to existing valley mill across that property can ever take place. 6. The gated access to the mobile home park is unacceptable, VDOT also mentions this concern. I know they are probably worried about sales with this, so perhaps we could work something out where it is gated for a time, but that goes away. 7. I don't know if the conversation on their part is still that the roadway their proposing is to replace our plan for valley mill. If so, I would argue that the 50 right of way is insufficient. Even if we were to agree that with the surrounding system two lanes is enough there will still need to be turn lanes for their subdivision streets and the intersection with 7. 8. Once again I would state that if this is the new relocated valley mill there will also need to be bike and pedestrian accommodations. John A. Bishop, AICP Transportation Planner Frederick County Planning Development 107 North Kent St. Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 Ph: 540- 665 -5651 F: 540 -665 -6395 jbishop@co.frederick.va.us 3/5/2007 Page 1 of 1 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL OCT 2 3 2006 A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892 1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 -1999) 7 s 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777 -1050 TELEPHONE 540- 662 -3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540 -ee2-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E MAIL lawyers @hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON October 23, 2006 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. HAND DELIVERED Michael T. Ruddy, A1CP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mike: Re: Carriage Park Proffer Statement PLEASE REPLY TO P. 0. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 -0848 1 have reviewed the above referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. The Proffer Statement makes reference to a Generalized Development Plan. While I had a copy of a Generalized Development Plan dated January 1, 2006, when I reviewed a prior version of the Proffer Statement by my letter dated April 3, 2006, 1 do not have a copy of the Generalized Development Plan as revised on August 10, 2006, so I was unable to refer to that revised Generalized Development Plan in this review. Michael T. Ruddy October 23, 2006 Page 2 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL 2. The words "and shall include the following:" should be deleted from the end of the second paragraph on page 1 of the Proffer Statement. 3. While Proffer 2.1 refers to a "proffered GDP for clarity I would recommend that there be a separate proffer which states that the development of the property will be in substantial conformity with the GDP. 4. 1 would recommend that Proffers 2.2 and 2.3 be combined into a single proffer which would state as follows: "Construction of the 165 residential dwelling units shall be phased over a minimum three -year period commencing with the Date of Final Rezoning "DFR The Applicant shall not make application for more than 53 building permits for residential dwelling units per year, commencing with the DFR, provided that this limitation shall be cumulative, but provided, further, that the Applicant shall not, in any event, make application for more than 75 building peunits in any 12 -month period." 5. In the monetary proffers referenced in Proffers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and in 12.7, 12.8, and 12.9, I question the use of the terminology that the proffer is "for capital improvements to capital facilities for This may imply that the proffers are only available for improvements to existing capital facilities. It is my recommendation that the language of the monetary proffers merely designate the category for the use of the monetary proffer. For example, the monetary proffer for schools would merely state "for school purposes The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model and the provisions of the Code of Virginia determine how monetary proffers for various categories can be expended. 6. The monetary proffers for schools and parks and recreation should not be limited to schools and recreation facilities located in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Michael T. Ruddy October 23, 2006 Page 3 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN St MITCHELL 7. The intent of Proffer 9.3 is unclear to me. I understand the concept of establishing a start -up fund for a property owners' association, but I do not understand the provision in the second sentence of making those funds available prior to the transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility from the applicants to the property owners' association. This would seem to be saying that the applicants can establish a start -up fund, and then use it themselves before they turn the facilities over to the property owner's association. It should be made clear that these funds will be available to the property owner's association only. 8. As to Proffer 11.1, I would refer to the stormwater management proffer from the earlier Proffer Statement for this project. I question why this proffer has been revised in this manner. The proffer, as currently stated, is really not a proffer because it is not proffering to do anything more than what is required by ordinance. 9. In Proffer 12.1, it is proffered that transportation improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent with a specific TIA "and any amendments thereto." The specific date of those amendments need to be identified in order for this proffer to be enforceable. Further, 1 question the meaning of the last sentence of this proffer. There are certain transportation improvements which are specifically delineated in the Proffer Statement to be the responsibility of the Applicant. Is this last sentence talking about transportation improvements other than those delineated in this Proffer Statement? If so, who determines whether a transportation improvement is "required" for this project? If this is referring to transportation improvements on the site, as opposed to off -site, the statement is not necessary since that would be the obligation of the Applicant in any event. 10. In Proffer 12.2, 1 question whether the word "may" in the last sentence should be "shall 11. With respect to Proffers 12.5 and 12.6, it should be noted that this is a project in which the Applicant is anticipating a three -year build out. The proffers in 12.5 and 12.6 address improvements which the Applicant may need to do as far as 10 years in the future. By that time, this Applicant (which is a limited liability Michael T. Ruddy October 23, 2006 Page 4 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL company and which may have no assets other than this Property, which may be developed and sold in 10 years) may not even be in existence or have any assets in 10 years. Therefore, consideration should be given to the appropriateness of a bond being provided for a period of 10 years in the event the need for the subject improvements is determined. 12. In Proffer 12.7, it needs to be delineated as to who has a right to choose among the two alternatives. 13. Proffer 12.10 is not a proffer, but merely a mathematical calculation. 14. Staff should particularly review the provisions of Proffer 12.11 to determine it applicability and appropriateness. 15. In Proffer 13.1, I do not understand what is being referred to by the word "limits" in the first sentence. Further, the width of the buffer needs to be specified. 16. In Proffer 13.2, I would suggest that the last sentence be revised to read "an easement for operations and maintenance, acceptable to the Virginia Civil War Trail Program, shall be provided to the Civil War Trail Program for this use." 17. I do not understand the need or reason for Proffer 14.1, and unless that can be demonstrated, this proffer should be deleted. 18. In Paragraph 17.1, I am not sure that the provision that the cap of 4% per year be non compounded is appropriate as a CPI is normally applied to show the increase in the index over the prior year's index. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Michael T. Ruddy October 23, 2006 Page 5 me. RTM /ks HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact truly yours, Robert T. Mitch TO: COMPANY: E r /e FAX 1S 0 1 74 Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Telephone: 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 G V' SMOSSNON COUNTY of FREDERICK Date: —Y((n Number of Pages (including cover sheet) 6 From the desk of: L�� Date /Time: Oct. 24. 2006 10:17AM z x Communication Result Report Oct. 24.1006 10:19AM File Page No. Mode Destination Pg (s) Result Not Sent 4839 Memory TX 96650493 P. 6 OK Reason for error E. Hang uo or line fail E. 3) No answer E. 5) Exceeded max. E —mail size FAX TRANSMISSION COMPANY: e A FAX it G D 4 4 43 E. 2) Busy E. 4) No facsimile connection COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Placnmg and Development 107 North Ken: Street suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601.5000 Telephone: 540/655 -5651 PAX: 540/665 -6795 Ie: m Nmbe erPegu OndWiegeoi., :be<..) 6 mark..: From the desk of. 44444 Fax Header) P. 1 August 3, 2006 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Preliminary Comments Carriage Park Rezoning Application Dear Patrick: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 Thank you for forwarding to this office the Carriage Park rezoning application materials for our continued review. The TIA for this project is dated May 6, 2005, and the version of the proffer statement is dated February 2, 2006. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to address the issues associated with this rezoning application. Please also consider all comments previously offered by Mike Ruddy during various meetings on this project over the past few months. As customary, it is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 1) Preliminary Matters a) The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204.C. requires that the CEO of the adjacent locality is notified if the property is within 1/2 mile of the boundary of the adjoining locality. Please demonstrate if this provision of the State Code is applicable with this application. 2) Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement a) The introduction to the project in the impact statement identifies a specific mix of housing types (69 single family detached, and 92 single family attached/ townhouse units): The TIA is based on a mix of 53 single family detached and 94 townhouses. The proffer statement simply states that the property will be developed to accommodate a maximum of 165 single family dwellings, types excluded. Please provide clarification and consistency between these three documents (Impact Statement, TIA, and Proffer Statement). b) Please provide clarification as to what elements of the GDP are proffered. The proffer statement states a maximum of 165 single family units, while the GDP offers a housing mix which totals 161 residences. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Preliminary Comments Carriage Park Rezoning Application August 3, 2006 Page 2 of 4 c) It is more appropriate, and indeed necessary, to identify and address the environmental features that exist on this site as part of the rezoning exercise. Areas with environmental constraints may exist on the property that warrant particular attention and should be a consideration of the rezoning application. In particular, there appears to be areas with critical slope and drainage issues on the property. d) Access to this property is described to be via a new entrance on Route 7. Route 7 is an arterial roadway with speed limits of 55 MPH. Establishment of a new entrance onto Route 7 is strongly discouraged. As you are aware, efforts are underway to enhance and relocate Valley Mill Road so that it serves as a major collector roadway. This enhancement wilt provide for a more efficient transportation network, providing an important link between Senseny Road and Route 7, by way of Haggerty Boulevard. All efforts should be made to implement a safer and more efficient use of Valley Mill Road as the primary access route to the proposed development. e) The proffer statement, in addressing transportation, states that the applicant will privately fund all transportation improvements required for this project. I1 would be appropriate to identify these improvements within the proffer statement. The proffer statement (12.2) describes the right -in /right -out entrance on Route 7. A deceleration lane is offered, but not an acceleration lane. In considering that the traffic on this segment of Route 7 travels at speeds exceeding 55 MPH, it stems appropriate to consider extended length deceleration and acceleration land controls. g) While proffer statement 12.4 offers a gated inter- parcel connector with the adjacent mobile home park, it may be appropriate to offer flexibility in this inter parcel connection in the event that the mobile home park is redeveloped into a compatible use in the future that would benefit from access through the proposed development. Such a connection would further promote limited and safe access to Route 7. h) The Carriage Park application is adjacent to several developed subdivisions, properties with pending development proposals, and other undeveloped properties. Opportunities for additional inter parcel connectivity should be evaluated and pursued with this application. In particular, to the property to the southwest. Residential development of this intensity requires pedestrian accommodations. Interparcel pedestrian connectivity should also be a consideration of this application. i) I understand that the applicant intends to offer a fiscal contribution to offset identified road improvements associated with this project. It is important to recognize in the application that, based upon the open mix (not proffered) of Mr. Patrick Sower RE: Preliminary Comments Carriage Park Rezoning Application August 3, 2006 Page 3 of 4 J) residential uses proposed in the application, 165 single family attached units would be permitted. This would generate $495,000, as opposed to the $600,000 that has been mentioned during recent discussions. At issue is whether these contributions are adequate to address impacts generated by the development proposal. Clarification should also be considered as to how the transportation funds could be utilized to improve transportation impacts generated by this project. Consistent with County policy, it would be appropriate to ensure that any proffered transportation improvements associated with the application are provided at the beginning of the project. Any monetary contribution should be provided prior to the onset of the project and not at the time of individual building permit issuance. k) Water and wastewater evaluations provided in the impact statement should be viewed in relationship to other previously approved projects within the County. A combined and updated figure for water resources and wastewater capacity would be beneficial when determining the adequacy of the capacity and resources. 1) Recent rezoning applications have proffered that a private refuse collection service will be used to collect the solid waste generated by their particular project. It would be desirable for this application to consider such an approach. This is beneficial, as it potentially reduces the individual usage of the County's convenience sites. Reference to the number of single family attached units in the Solid Waste Disposal section should be removed unless the applicant is willing to proffer a specific mix of residential uses. I understand that modifications to the transportation proffers are forthcoming. Based on our discussion on July 28` it is expected that the transportation component of this application will address: a demonstrated attempt to work with neighboring property owner on accessing Valley Mill Road from the proposed development; clarification as to when the proposed development entrance onto Route 7 would be closed or restricted; signalization and lane improvements or contributions you offered for a traffic signal at Route 7 and Valley Mill Road; and the linkage between the Carriage Park proposal and the other development applications your firm represents along the re- aligned Valley Mill Road corridor. Upon receipt of these written modified transportation components, staff will offer review comments on the same. Once you have addressed the above issues, as well as secured approval comments from the review agencies, it would be appropriate to formally submit this rezoning petition for consideration through the public hearing process. Formal submissions include all agency comment sheets, fully executed applications, proffer statements, Power of Attorneys, and review fees. Please refer to the rezoning application process for a complete listing of the elements necessary for formal application submission. Mr. Patrick Sower. RE: Preliminary Comments Carriage Park Rezoning Application August 3, 2006 Page 4 of 4 Please feel free to contact Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director, at any time regarding the above comments or the application in general. I look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this application. Sine rely, Erjb'R. Lawrence Planning Director ERL /bad cc: Clifford Athey Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director HAND- DELIVERED Dear Mike: HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892 -1972) 7 a 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST ROSCAWEN STREET THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777- 1050 TELEPHONE 540- 662 -3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540-662 -4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E MAIL lawyers @hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON July 24, 2007 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Carriage Park (Carriage Place, LLC) Proffer Statement Revised June 29, 2007 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 JUL 2 4 2007 I have previously reviewed three Proffer Statements for this project: (1) Proposed Proffer Statement revised through February 2, 2006, reviewed in my proffer review letter dated April 3, 2006, (2) Proposed Proffer Statement revised through June 28, 2006, reviewed in my proffer review letter dated October 23, 2006, and (3) Proposed Proffer Statement revised through January 25, 2007, reviewed in my proffer review letter dated March 21, 2007. I have reviewed the current above referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. 1 note that Paragraphs 1 through 11 of the current Proposed Proffer Statement are substantially the same as the last Proposed Proffer Statement which I reviewed, with the exception that Paragraph 1.1 includes a provision for a maximum J Michael T. Ruddy July 24, 2007 Page 2 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN E. MITCHELL number of dwelling units, and the monetary proffers in Paragraphs 3 through 7 vary somewhat from the monetary proffers set forth in the previous Proposed Proffer Statement. 2. In Paragraph 12.1, I would recommend that the words "by Applicant" be inserted after the word "constructed 3. With respect to Paragraph 12.2, the staff needs to determine if it is comfortable with road improvements being "as directed by VDOT or whether the specific improvements are known at this time and should be described in the proffer. 4. With respect to the possible future road improvements "if directed by VDOT" referenced in Paragraph 12.3, I would recommend that the second sentence be worded to state: "Applicant shall design and construct extended turn lanes on eastbound and /or westbound Route 7 at the signalized intersection, if directed by VDOT." 5. I would recommend that Paragraph 12.5 be reworded to state as follows: "The Applicant shall reserve the portion of the Property as depicted on the GDP for any future transportation improvements deemed needed by VDOT. Said reserved area shall be shown on the recorded deed of dedication to indicate that this area shall be available at no cost to Frederick County and /or VDOT should future transportation improvements be needed on this portion of the Property. The Applicant agrees to dedicate and convey to VDOT or the County such area in the reserved area as may be requested by VDOT or the County, within 30 days of the written request from VDOT or the County. The identified reserved area shall be permitted to count towards the required open space for the Property." 6. As any given proffer could be central to the board's approval of a proffered rezoning, I would recommend that Paragraph 15 be deleted. Michael T. Ruddy July 24, 2007 Page 3 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. In particular, I have not undertaken to comment upon the appropriateness of the specific transportation improvements as I assume that that will be done by the staff, engineers for the County, and /or VDOT. me. RTM /ks If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact TO: Bob Mitchell FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP /'1/_ Deputy Director RE: Rezoning Application Proffer Statements DATE: May 21, 2007 Please find attached to this memorandum the proffer statement from the Carriage Park rezoning application, RZ #12 -06. This revised proffer statement was submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting on May 16, 2007. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this application for a variety of reasons, including concerns with the timing and content of the revised proffer statement. This request will go to the Board of Supervisors on June 13, 2007. We would appreciate your 3rd review of the Proffer Statement with particular attention being paid to Section 12, Transportation, and Section 18, Road Abandonment. I have attached the previous version of the proffer statement for your comparison. Thank you for your continued assistance. cc: John Riley, Jr., County Administrator Attachment MTR/bhd 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 Mike Ruddy From: Patrick R. Sowers [Patrick.Sowers @phra.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:38 AM To: 'Ingram, Lloyd' Cc: 'Copp, Jerry'; 'Alexander, Scott'; 'Eric Lawrence'; 'Mike Ruddy' Subject: RE: Carriage Park Rezoning Lloyd, I'm not sure why you did not receive my e -mail after our phone conversation yesterday. As we discussed, our intent is to construct an entrance at Route 7 including a crossover and provide for signalization of the new intersection. We are certainly willing to commit to these items at tonight's meeting and will revise the Proffer Statement accordingly prior to any final vote by the Board of Supervisors. Thanks, Patrick Patrick R. Sowers Planner Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 www.phra.com aS (46 G 7 7 Ago ST ew• yo 7 c0- v ir8Po-ncCoco CP— Original Message From: Ingram, Lloyd mailto: Llcyd.Ingram @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:12 AM To: Patrick R. Sowers Cc: Copp, Jerry; Alexander, Scott; Eric Lawrence; Mike Ruddy Subject: Carriage Park Rezoning Patrick, After our phone conversation yesterday afternoon identifying the questions the latest revision of the proffers had raised with VDOT staff I had hoped that I would have received a response by now. Currently I have several meting scheduled for today and will be away from my desk and therefore felt that an email was appropriate to relay the concerns. Due to the short time I have had tc review this new document I will restrict my comments to the 2 major traffic safety concerns. 1. Between the revised proffers and the revised Generalized Development Plan it is not clear if the intention is to utilize a right -in/ right -out entrance. Previous submittals identified a cross -over on Route 7 to be built, by the developer, at the entrance site to provide a safe ingress /egress for the residents of Carriage Park. A right -in right -out entrance on Route 7 will not be supported by VDOT. 2. Previous Generalized Development plans noted a traffic signal at the Route 7 connection and this dose not appear on the latest Generalized Development plan. Regards, Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Patrick R. Sowers From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd Lloyd.Ingram @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:51 AM To: Patrick Sowers Cc: Ronald A. Mislowsky; Ingram, Lloyd; Copp, Jerry; Alexander, Scott; cperkins@co.frederick.va.us Subject: Carriage Park Rezoning Route 7, Frederick County The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 7. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed the transportation proffers offered in the Carriage Park Rezoning Application dated January 25, 2006, revised January 27, 2007 and offers the following comments: Proffer 12.2: This proffer raises some concern with VDOT, specifically whether there is sufficient crossover spacing between the proposed crossover and the existing Valley Mill /Route 7 crossover. There is also an access management concern as Route 7 is a primary route designed to carry large volumes of traffic efficiently. This proposed crossover would add an additional potential conflict point. This would also result in three possible signalized intersections on Route 7 within 2500'. With no proposed connection to Valley Mill Road, the existing Valley Mill Road and Route 7 crossover would have to remain in place. Currently, VDOT has not determined if the proposed crossover location will be the connection of the future Route 37 south bound ramp. Proffer 12.3: Acceptable. Proffer 12.4: VDOT is disappointed this proffer has digressed from an open connection to the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park to a gated emergency access, thus eliminating residents of the mobile home park the opportunity for access to a safer connection to Route 7. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Phone #(540) 984 -5611 Fax #(540) 984 -5607 1 John Bishop From: Alexander, Scott Scott .Alexander @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 10:33 AM To: Bishop, John A. Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; Funkhouser, Rhonda; 'Eric Lawrence' Subject: Carriage Park Ramp Proposal John: To follow -up on /clarify our conversation on the proposed Carriage Park ramp location: Scott By moving the proposed southbound (SB) ramps to the west, the geometrics of the on -ramp improve slightly. However, a design exception would likely still be required, as it still does not meet the 70% mainline design speed geometry. The proposal negatively impacts the SB off -ramp, inducing a tighter- radius reverse curve and possibly requiring a new design exception not previously required. In general terms, I would expect that it would be more difficult to mitigate the new off -ramp design exception (decelerating from 65 mph into curve) versus mitigating the onramp (entering curve from turn movement off Rt. 7). Additional right -of -way may be necessary to compensate. While the relocated ramp would eliminate a box culvert, it would increase the amount of property takings /condemnation required in the subdivision opposite of Carriage Park. The new location results in a crossover spacing (Carriage Park road, Valley Avenue) of approximately 750', much less than the minimum desirable spacing of at least 1,000 feet. In light of the above, I find it difficult to describe the proposal as "beneficial If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, don't hesitate to give me a call. Scott Alexander Assistant Residency Administrator VDOT Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone: 540-984-5605 Fax: 540 984 -5607 3/7/2007 Page 1 of 1 Ronald A. Mislowsky From: Funkhouser, Rhonda Rhonda .Funkhouser ©VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd Lloyd.ingram ©VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 1:46 PM To: 'Ronald A. Mislowsky' Cc: Copp, Jerry; Ingram, Lloyd; 'Clifford L. Athey Jr. (clay ©npaalaw.com)'; 'Eric Lawrence' Subject: Carriage Park VDOT Comments to Rezoning The documentation within the revised application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 7 and 659. These route are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT offers the following comments on the recent revised transportation proffers: Safety The removal of the street tie -in at Route 7 is a positive step for the safety of the public traveling Route 7 as well as the home owners of the proposed subdivision. While the proposed new location for the entrance into this subdivision will be via Route 659 is adequate, it does not address the County's ultimate design of the Eastern Road Plan. This would allow the traffic generated from this subdivision to utilize Route 7 via the relocated Route 659 and the proposed Haggerty Boulevard. Section 12.1 Agree. Section 12.2 Agree. If this roadway is planned to be taken into the State's system there appears to be some possible environmental issues that will need to be fully addressed to the satisfaction of the appropriate agency prior acceptance. Section 12.3 While agreeing with the proposal, the location of this inter parcel connector should be located at a spot that appears more conducive to fulfilling the long transportation plans of the County. This includes the logical access point to the relocated Valley Mill Road from this property. Section 12.4 Additional clarification is requested on this issue as the submitted document is somewhat vague in the description of the connection to Blue Ridce Mobile Home Park roadway's typical cross section and location and composition. Section 12.5 The proposed street tie -in at Route 659 (Valley Mill road), while a bit of an engineering challenge is the better location for the movement of traffic to and from the subdivision. The Section 12.5 proffer offers the signalization of the intersection of Route 7 and Route 659 along with improvements to the exiting lanes. Be advised that the intersection will need to meet all current VDOT standards in place at the time of "Road Plan Approval The terms of when the signal would be required would be better stated as "when the intersection meets signal warrants as determined by VDOT the signal will be installed within 120 days Section 12.6 Agree. Section 12.7 Agree. Section 12.8 Agree. Section 12.9 Agree. Long Term There is some hesitation in fully supporting this rezoning due to it's potential impact on the long term transportation goals identified in the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. While a significant amount of money is being pledged to the County for road improvements, once the rezoning is approved in its current format the incentive for the developer to participate in the relocation of Valley Mill Road will become a mute point. _J Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all 1 Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 0540) 984 -5611 (540) 984 -5607 (fax) 2 right -of -way needs, incl0 ng 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. August 3, 2006 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester. Virginia 22601 Dear Patrick: 1) Preliminary Matters Re: Preliminary Comments Carriage Park Rezoning Application 2) Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 Thank you for forwarding to this office the Carriage Park rezoning application materials for our continued review. The TIA for this project is dated May 6, 2005, and the version of the proffer statement is dated February 2, 2006. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to address the issues associated with this rezoning application. Please also consider all comments previously offered by Mike Ruddy during various meetings on this project over the past few months. As customary, it is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. a) The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204.C. requires that the CEO of the adjacent locality is notified if the property is within 1/2 mile of the boundary of the adjoining locality. Please demonstrate if this provision of the State Code is applicable with this application. a) The introduction to the project in the impact statement identifies a specific mix of housing types (69 single family detached, and 92 single family attached/ townhouse units). The TIA is based on a mix of 53 single family detached and 94 townhouses. The proffer statement simply states that the property will be developed to accommodate a maximum of 165 single family dwellings, types excluded. Please provide clarification and consistency between these three documents (Impact Statement, TIA, and Proffer Statement). b) Please provide clarification as to what elements of the GDP are proffered. The proffer statement states a maximum of 165 single family units, while the GDP offers a housing mix which totals 161 residences. Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Preliminary Comments Carriage Park Rezoning Application August 3, 2006 Page 2 of 4 c) It is more appropriate, and indeed necessary, to identify and address the environmental features that exist on this site as part of the rezoning exercise. Areas with environmental constraints may exist on the property that warrant particular attention and should be a consideration of the rezoning application. In particular, there appears to be areas with critical slope and drainage issues on the property. d) Access to this property is described to be via a new entrance on Route 7. Route 7 is an arterial roadway with speed limits of 55 MPH. Establishment of a new entrance onto Route 7 is strongly discouraged. As you are aware, efforts are underway to enhance and relocate Valley Mill Road so that it serves as a major collector roadway. This enhancement will provide for a more efficient transportation network, providing an important link between Senseny Road and Route 7, by way of Haggerty Boulevard. All efforts should be made to implement a safer and more efficient use of Valley Mill Road as the primary access route to the proposed development. e) The proffer statement, in addressing transportation, states that the applicant will privately fund all transportation improvements required for this project. It would be appropriate to identify these improvements within the proffer statement. f) The proffer statement (12.2) describes the right -in /right -out entrance on Route 7. A deceleration lane is offered, but not an acceleration lane. In considering that the traffic on this segment of Route 7 travels at speeds exceeding 55 MPH, it seems appropriate to consider extended length deceleration and acceleration land controls. g) While proffer statement 12.4 offers a gated inter parcel connector with the adjacent mobile home park, it may be appropriate to offer flexibility in this inter parcel connection in the event that the mobile home park is redeveloped into a compatible use in the future that would benefit from access through the proposed development. Such a connection would further promote limited and safe access to Route 7. h) The Carriage Park application is adjacent to several developed subdivisions, properties with pending development proposals, and other undeveloped properties. Opportunities for additional inter parcel connectivity should be evaluated and pursued with this application. In particular, to the property to the southwest. Residential development of this intensity requires pedestrian accommodations. Interparcel pedestrian connectivity should also be a consideration of this application. I understand that the applicant intends to offer a fiscal contribution to offset identified road improvements associated with this project. It is important to recognize in the application that, based upon the open mix (not proffered) of Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Preliminary Comments Carriage Park Rezoning Application August 3, 2006 Page 3 of 4 J) residential uses proposed in the application. 165 single family attached units would be permitted. This would generate $495,000, as opposed to the 5600,000 that has been mentioned during recent discussions. At issue is whether these contributions are adequate to address impacts generated by the development proposal. Clarification should also be considered as to how the transportation funds could be utilized to improve transportation impacts generated by this project. Consistent with County policy, it would be appropriate to ensure that any proffered transportation improvements associated with the application are provided at the beginning of the project. Any monetary contribution should be provided prior to the onset of the project and not at the time of individual building permit issuance. k) Water and wastewater evaluations provided in the impact statement should be viewed in relationship to other previously approved projects within the County. A combined and updated figure for water resources and wastewater capacity would be beneficial when determining the adequacy of the capacity and resources. 1) Recent rezoning applications have proffered that a private refuse collection service will be used to collect the solid waste generated by their particular project. It would be desirable for this application to consider such an approach. This is beneficial, as it potentially reduces the individual usage of the County's convenience sites. Reference to the number of single family attached units in the Solid Waste Disposal section should be removed unless the applicant is willing to proffer a specific mix of residential uses. T understand that modifications to the transportation proffers are forthcoming. Based on our discussion on July 28` it is expected that the transportation component of this application will address: a demonstrated attempt to work with neighboring property owner on accessing Palley Mill Road from the proposed development; clarification as to when the proposed development entrance onto Route 7 would be closed or restricted; signalization and lane improvements or contributions you offered for a traffic signal at Route 7 and Valley Mill Road; and the linkage between the Carriage Park proposal and the other development applications your firm represents along the re- aligned Valley Mill Road corridor. Upon receipt of these written modified transportation components, staff will offer review comments on the same. Once you have addressed the above issues, as well as secured approval comments from the review agencies, it would be appropriate to formally submit this rezoning petition for consideration through the public hearing process. Formal submissions include all agency comment sheets, fully executed applications, proffer statements, Power of Attorneys, and review fees. Please refer to the rezoning application process for a complete listing of the elements necessary for formal application submission. Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Preliminary Comments Carriage Park Rezoning Application August 3, 2006 Page 4 of 4 Please feel free to contact Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director, at any time regarding the above comments or the application in general. 1 look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this application. S elv. Er Lawrence Planning Director ERL/bhd cc: Clifford Athey Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director M RECOPY Bob Mitchell TO: FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Rezoning Application Proffer Statements DATE: July 10, 2007 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Please find attached to this memorandum the proffer statement from the Carriage Park rezoning application. RD/12-06. This revised proffer statement was recently re- submitted in anticipation of the upcoming Board of Supervisors meeting on July 25, 2007. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this application for a variety of reasons, including concerns with the timing and content of the revised proffer statement. We would appreciate your 3` review of the Proffer Statement with particular attention being paid to Section 12, Transportation. I have attached the previous version of the proffer statement for your comparison. Also attached for your review is the revised proffer statement from the Haggerty rezoning application RZ #04 -07. This request is to amend the proffer statement as it relates to transportation improvements and the GDP. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to also review and hold a public hearing on this application on July 25, 2007. Thank you for your continued assistance. cc: John Riley, Jr., County Administrator Attachments MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 HAND DELIVERED Dear Mike: HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892 7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 -1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703 7- 1 050 TELEPHONE 540 -662 -3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540 662 -4304 JAMES A. ISLEN KAR E lawyers @hallmonahan.wm STEVEN F. JACKSON March 21, 2007 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Carriage Park Proffer Statement Revised January 25, 2007 PLEASE REPLY TO P. 0. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 -0848 I have previously reviewed two proposed Proffer Statements for this project: (1) Proposed Proffer Statement revised through February 2, 2006, reviewed in my proffer review letter dated April 3, 2006, and (2) Proposed Proffer Statement revised through June 28, 2006, reviewed in my proffer review letter dated October 23, 2006. I have reviewed the current above referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. This Proffer Statement has satisfactorily addressed the comments in paragraphs 1 -9, inclusive, of my October 23, 2006 proffer review letter. 2. I have a question about the wording of the second sentence of HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 21, 2007 Page 2 paragraph U.2. The Proffer is addressing the signalized entrance to the property. The second sentence says that that entrance and signal shall be designed and constructed with "improvements as necessary on Route 7 to accommodate the future construction of the Route 37 ramp Are the details of those improvements known at this time? If so, the improvements should be described in detail or by reference to a plan showing the improvements. 3. In Proffer 12.3, I would recommend that words "and located" be inserted after the word "designed" in the second sentence of Proffer 12.3. It should be noted that 1 have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. In particular, I have not undertaken to comment upon the appropriateness of the transportation improvements as I assume that that will be done by the staff, engineers for the County, and /or VDOT. me. RTM:Ifw If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact yours, Robert T. Mitcl r rom:.Funkhouser, Rhonda$.ilto: Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Vinia.gov] On BHhalf Of Ingram, 1oyd ent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:38 AM o: 'clay @npaalaw.com' ,Cc: Copp, Jerry; 'Eric Lawrence'; Bishop, John A.; Ingram, Lloyd Subject: Carriage Park VDOT Response to Rezoning Request Mr. Athey, I have reviewed your proffer statement dated August 10, 2006 and offer the following comments: With the volumes of traffic currently utilizing Route 7, existing access points and the additional traffic generated by this site, the Residency feels access to this site provided through the Valley Mill Connector with no direct connection to Route 7 is needed. Item 12.7: The Residency suggests the wording be clarified on this proffer to reflect construction within 180 days of written request by VDOT. We feel this would insure the installation of the traffic signal based on traffic conditions. Item 12.11: Residency suggests more flexibility should be provided to the County to meet overall transportation needs in this area of the County. The applicant has been open to addressing the needs of the transportation issues arising from this proposed development. However, we are concerned that within the context of the proffers, the desire of the Residency and County to connect this subdivision to Route 7 jia the Valley Mill Road Relocation, while mentioned, it does not appear to be a priority. 'The application is requesting full build -out regardless of completing the connection to Valley Mill Road. We look forward to reviewing your next submittal. Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984 -5611 Rezonin. Comments Na f Fire Rescue E.' Address-& Company Millwood Station P 9 ire &Rescue Co. Winciie 604 ATTN: Chief )cp CM (540) 7=1535 6- ecec .d ✓CT.t. -tier c c.c. 70 'r3o 3oz 3 p pltcai terii-e!:cfilt out the'infornantion as accurately as posstbic to -order to the Eire and t al sts 'any other' ertine in app ahon: Corm, location map, coffer- ent, impacenn sbt'i S uad with the y re v iew. Attach _a co of➢t [trot matron p, p p Applicant's Name: Patton Flares Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers Mailing Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property South adjacent to Route 7y east to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park Current Zoning: RA, MH -I Fire and Rescue Company First Responder Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 45.4426 Fire and Rescue Cbtnpany's omments Corn ✓iti .460 artees. -Orr C -1'A\ J. t u td Wd0S:60 9002 L2 'add LIGEL990GS '0N Mid CARRIAGE PLACE LL REZONING Phone: (540) 667.2139 Fire Rescue Company's Signature Date; 1 zg' C�h. Notice to Fire Rescue Company Please Return This Fount to the Applicant 1 fi 1N3Wlabd3Q B N I A GOOMN3360 WOMA Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust Associates, p.c. 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Carriage Park Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Patrick: March 8, 2006 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678 -0682 We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning application for the Carriage Park subdivision and offer the following comments: Refer to Summary and Justification: The summary references proposed single family residential development of 165 dwellings. This number does not correspond to the generalized development plan which indicates 161 dwellings. Refer to Site Suitability: The table summarizing environmental features indicates no wetlands and no steep slopes. Based on our site visit and review of applicable topographic surveys, it appears that both of these conclusions are incorrect. A wetlands study should be performed prior to the master development plan submittal with copies furnished to the Corps of Engineers for their review and comment. Also, a more detailed topographic survey should be performed to allow the delineation of the:steep slope areas. Refer to Traffic: The discussion states that "The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) indicates that the study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions." Actually, the TIA does reach the above conclusion assuming that the referenced intersection improvements are made along Route 7. Currently, the cross over at the intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7 is not adequate to accommodate the U -turn traffic anticipated from the proposed development. Indicate what guarantees the applicant will offer to insure that these intersection improvements will be made prior to initiating construction on this site. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Carriage Park Rezoning Page 2 March 8, 2006 I can be reached at 722 -8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. HES /rls 4. Refer to Site Drainage: The discussion indicates that low impact development techniques will mitigate adverse stormwater discharge impacts. Elaborate on what is meant by low impact development techniques as applied to this proposed site development. It appears that the proposed development will clear a majority of the wooded areas and strip a majority of the topsoil areas. Refer to Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The statement is made that "consideration of curbside pick -up would be an improvement to solid waste issues associated with increased dumpster use in the County." This statement is not satisfactory. Existing dumpster sites in Frederick County are currently at capacity and will not accommodate new residential development. Therefore, any new development will be required via the Homeowners' Association or other means to provide curbside trash pickup. This function will not be an option, rather it will be a requirement. This statement should be corrected accordingly and revised in the Proffer Statement, Paragraph 9.2 iii (Delete "if they decide to us a commercial collection company Refer to Proffer Statement, paragraph 12.1. The statement indicates that the applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. Indicate if this offer extends to improvements at/on the Route 7 intersection related to Valley Mill road or possibly Haggerty Drive. Sincerely, cc: Michael Ruddy, Deputy Director, Planning and Development file Harvey E. S`t'rawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works C:AProgranm Files VWordPerfect Office 11A Rhonda AT�EMPCO ]'hiAIEN IS CARRIAGEPAIIKREZCONI.wpil Department of Inspections Comments: /Vn C,iFiz0 P, rexa Gr Z'rn P f Inspections Signature Date: CJ= Notice to Dept. of spections Please,Returi 7 is Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mailing Address: Mail to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650 Frederick County Department of Inspections 1 n& ti o h l Apphcantlease fi11• ,ou nfoi theiniatin as accurately Dep r[ment'of I vb1ic Works w t ht th e l r review Attach a copy of ayour. map,proffefo atement, rmpaet. analysis, and any o pertinent: osslble m pf to Bassist i. the f3Rp* 5&. Z T1aj}r�"3 H IIN })N applrcationiform Ioca Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust Associates Current Zoning: RA, MH -1 c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 CARRIAGE PLACE, LLC REZONING Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections Co. Administration Bldg., 4ch Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540) 667.2139 Location of Property: South adjacent to Route 7, east adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Horne Park Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 45.4426 11 Rezoninp Comments Mail to: Frederick Co. Fire Marshal 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-6350 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Frederick County Fire Marshal Patton Harris Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: South adjacent to Route 7, east adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Horne Park Current Zoning: RA, MH -1 Zoning Requested: Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Fire Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal Co. Administration Bldg., l Floor 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 JJ 7 2006 CARRIAGE PLACE, LLC 1 Phone: (540) 667.2139 RP Acreage: 45.4426 F 0 6 BY.• p c ant T Pf� ea se 1 .354/,,J92 aoi 'ux ti a l a r R a b h r `end R7 r•t^,; County Fire Tarsliaalx Ati ppro analysis;Land out the inf ormation ee 1 w accurate y as possible iinorder to assist ttier'Fredenck IP copy o your ap &im atio P nrfor m,location ma pertinent tm formation Fire Marshal's Comments: Fire Marshal's Signature Date 1, /1a2 Notice to Fire Mars hat Ple se Ret rn This Form to the Applicant 12 Control number RZ06 -00 Project Name Carriage Park Address 117 E. Piccadilly St., Suite 200 licatlon Tax ID Number Type App 55- A-161,etc. Rezoning Current Zoning RA, MH1 Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Siamese Location Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Plan Approval Recommended Yes Date reviewed Date received 3 /8/2006 2/6/20 Applicant Patton Harris Rust Associates City State Zip Win chester VA 22601 Win Fire District Rescue District 18 18 Recommendatio Automatic Fire Alarm System No Requirements Hydrant Location Roadway /Aisleway Width Reviewed By Jeffrey S. Neal Signature Title Residential Sprinkler System No Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Date Revised Applicant Phone 540 -667 -2139 Election District Red Bud Additional Comments Municiple water supplies for firefighting shall meet the requirements of Frederick County Code Section 90- 4. Sanitation Authority Comments: The Opequon Water Reclamation Facility has sufficient capacity to accept flows from this development. The eight -inch water line through Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park might not provide the added d emands of this projects 165 units. 1 n developer will probably need to extend the water line on Valley Mill Road and connect it to this project. Sanitation Authority Signature &Date: e 7'B C4‘ Notice t� Sanitation A e lliir t I ty Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 868-1061 Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers Mailing Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: CARRIAGE PLACE, LLC REZONING Frederick County Sanitation Authority Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, VA South adjacent to Route 7, east adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park Phone: (540) 667.2139 Current Zoning: RA, MH -1 Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 45.4426 a p t: ea �D o "1 +s�+.4e a racy p as r.3u. r.+ a— 7 ivAppheant lease n outw ej tmafion as Eur tel as o ssrbl e Author ri ityywi hhh eir review i� Attach a copy of yourp ap tatement, impac +y3 x r a d s. o s tlanalysis ad other per wrap, sp cat am xsf� order,to assls'tIhe gait ttonti� �'+yE s r raa roffer4 xudx ormllocation ;ma airrt°p 15 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: s Rezonin Commen Mail to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 722 -3579 s-* yq-s q ra ,a' o ss� e l Aih rrG'.ta ik :;�4 A"c� licant Plea ses fill lou t h nformatton as accuratelyt ,m order lto assist the "t„ i C4, k A 's .F, a 4 i f va`gsra- 4f kraal r u l r a m1 iloc g, r e F. s S3p*d x�',�' 5..; t sx ,?'SFr at .n form h Depar -FenttofiPublit Wofksiwr h =th it +renew AtZ4 copy of�yo r application form loeatton i °t a u.:i roffe statement; un' acYianal 'ssts ands, aify t4other,pettmentrmformation mp pi E 'M inN? 6 a� kJfia LYd� #4 -1 i I lF' r t'r Location of Property: South adjacent to Route 7, east adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park Current Zoning: RA, MH -1 Frederick- Winchester Service Authority Patton Harris Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Zoning Requested: CARRIAGE PLACE LLC REZONING Hand duo Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: X540) 667.2 RP Acreage: 45.4426 FEB 6 2006 Fred Winchester Service Authority's Comments: FWSA Signature Date: Notice to Fred -Wine Service Authority Please Return Thi Form to the Applicant 19 JWM:ncg Enclosures Frederick Winchester Service Authority February 14, 2006 Patton Harris Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Sowers: SUBJECT: REZONING CARRIAGE PLACE COMMENT LETTER The first item of concern is the application of a submeter for sewer flows. Based on the number of dwellings, it would seem to be an inappropriate wif of measuring wastewater flows. We would like to see more detail relative to the desigconstruction of such a submeter if it would be acceptable. iicerely, sse W. Moffett Ekecutive Director Frederick Winchester Service Authority Post Office Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Office: 107 North Kent Street County Office Complex Winchester, Virginia 22601 1-540-722-3579 tl{a`Conirnrwlty t4rougA Environrnantag Stawards4ip° Frederick Winchester Health Department's Comments: aJ 7 w?A A Aif. (A177 //1 V 42,-r....-61 /ti -ce �M -I Health Signature Date: C Z /V6i 6 Notice to Health Department Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722 -3480 Frederick— Winchester Health Department a pplicant Plea'se' 1i11 eo tat he r inf om ahon inrheRte .i e filth D pa tment with location map iprofferistatement,.:impac s accu a ely as ossiblelin order S afi x view Attach a copy ofayourlapphcatro saP analysis, and anyy ertment mformatw Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust Associates Mailing Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Current Zoning: RA, MH -1 c/o Patrick Sowers p CARRIAGE PLACE, LLC REZONIN Hand deliver to: Frederick Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent St., Suite 201 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722 -3480 Phone: (540) 667.2139 Location of Property: South adjacent to Route 7, east adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Horne Park Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 45.4426 00 16 Administrative Assistant to Mr. Thomas Price Patton, Harris, Rust Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Price: SMK/dkr 540 662 3889 Ext 112 RE: Carriage Park Master Development Plan Frederick County Public Schools e-mail: Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us the Superintendent kapocsis@frederick.k12.va.us May 19, 2006 This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the Master Development Plan for the proposed Carriage Park project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 120 single- family units will yield 11 high school students, 9 middle school students, and 25 elementary school students. The 90 townhouses will yield 10 high school students, 11 middle school students, and 28 elementary school students for a total of 94 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 school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this master development plan on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Respectfully yours, cc: William C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools Mr. Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Mr. Charles Puglisi, Director of Transportation Stephen Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604 -2546 FAX 540- 662 -3890 Dept. of Parks Recreation Comments: Plan appears to offer appropriate monetary proffer to offset the impact this development will have on the parks and recreational services provided by Frederic! County. It is assumed that recreational and open space requirements will be addressed in future plans to be reviewed. The Parks and Recreation Department would also like to see detailed pedestrian /bicycle trails plan which offers an internal network and p vides connect to existing and future adjacent developm4 Parks Signature Date: 5U. al--`" Z 67 66 Notice to Dept. V Parks Recreation Please Return This F rm to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mailing Address: Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Parks Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678 Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation F N "d iCl t ar +W T-tt. 1 d 3'r i 5 'i r l ingi gitr p Rq„�1..4 'Applicant' lease� ou ithe amf' omiation a's taccuratel ha oss ble in"t order to assist the,` t 4 z *'°,-t P 1 V 4 +7� v ,Fl$ $i nVT.�t"L.Plni .v'r c °k`r5v" WS .y 1ax ,6Departme nt offParrks R'e'creat{oii theirer ev,iew+ Atta c cIi'a' copy n form, i 11. Sr 3 ii iT1$^ Lloccation niap statement iimpactt F analysts, antFany pertinentinformatton r f Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 CARRIAGE PLACE, LLC REZONING Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation Co. Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540) 667.2139 Location of Property: South adjacent to Route 7, east adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park Current Zoning: RA, MH -1 Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 45.4426 13 nt. February 15, 2006 Patrick R. Sowers Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Comments Carriage Park Redbud Magisterial District Dear Mr. Sowers: The above referenced proposal was reviewed. While the proposed development lies within the airport's Part 77 surfaces and airspace, it appears that the proposed site plan should not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. However, residents in this area could experience fly over noise from aircraft arriving and departing the Winchester Airport from the northeast. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, Pri \atf\ALL-Q Serena R. Manuel Executive Director WINCHESTER REGIONAL !RPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662-2422 WILBUR C. HALL (1892 7 THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 -1999) s 307 EAST MARKET STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESeuaO. VIRGlrviA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703 -777-,050 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. HAND DELIVERED Dear Mike: HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW April 3, 2006 Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 540.5529200 FAX 590.552 -43oa E-MAIL IBWyerS @hSIlmonahSn.cOm PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 Re: Carriage Park (Carriage Park, LLC) Proposed Proffer Statement I have reviewed the above referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. While the Generalized Development Plan contains few details, nevertheless the proffer statement should include a proffer that provides that development shall occur in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development Plan. 2. In Proffer 1.1 it is provided that the residential development shall not exceed 165 dwelling units. However, the GDP provides for a total of only 161 dwelling units. Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, A1CP April 3, 2006 Page 2 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN Sc MITCHELL 3. The staff should determine whether the Site Access Point, the Inter parcel Connection Point, and the Emergency Access Point are located with sufficient detail on the GDP. 4. With respect to Proffer 12.3, the staff should determine whether the inter parcel connector location is appropriate, given any existing or planned streets on the adjoining parcel. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. me. RTM/ks If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact ly yours, Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. Januwy 2006 Carriage Park IV. AGENCY COMMENTS